Laptop with Fuller Road Station presentation, given by Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor's transportation program manager.

Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager, reprised a presentation he’s given dozens of times over the last two years to various public bodies and community groups. The newest details relate to recent federal funding earmarked for the project – $2.8 million from the Federal Rail Administration, to pay for environmental assessment and engineering at the site. Cooper admitted he had started to feel a bit like the boy who cried “Wolf!” regarding potential funding, but he noted that the “wolf” has materialized – in the form of the grant award.

The $2.8 million won’t come close to covering the estimated $121 million cost of the full project, including a rail station, which is estimated to cost about $18 million. But more than the funding itself, Cooper said, the award is significant because it indicates the FRA’s willingness to be the lead federal agency for this project.

Cooper also reported that the agreement being crafted by UM and city staff is nearing completion, and will likely be made public within a month. It will govern the construction, operation and maintenance of Fuller Road Station, and will include details about the project’s financing. Cooper told PAC that they would have the chance to review the agreement before it heads to the city council for approval.

Fuller Road Station

Commissioners had received their last briefing on Fuller Road Station at their July 2010 meeting, though the project has come up informally at other meetings since then. The site plan received approval from the city’s planning commission at their Sept. 21, 2010 meeting, but has not yet been approved by city council.

The project – at what’s now a city-owned surface parking lot south of Fuller Road, east of East Medical Center Drive – is being planned by the city and the University of Michigan as a large parking structure with bus bays and a bike station, with plans eventually to build a train station on the same site. PAC has been interested in the project because it’s on land that’s long been part of the parks system – revenues from UM for leasing the current parking lot contribute to the city’s budget for parks.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, gave Tuesday’s presentation. Also on hand was Dave Dykman, project manager for Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

At the beginning of the meeting, George Gaston spoke to commissioners during public commentary time. He told them he lived in a condominium across from Island Park, overlooking the Huron River, Fuller Road and the University of Michigan medical complex. He has a vested interest in the Fuller Road Station project. PAC should not allow the project to move forward without full public engagement, he said. If they believe that building this structure is in the best public interest, then the parks system, as landlords, should at least receive adequate income from it. He cautioned that once they open the door to development on parkland, “it will be a hard door to close.”

Other locations for the project should be considered, Gaston said, such as the DTE/MichCon property across from the current Amtrak station, or property between North Main Street and the Huron River, or on UM’s Mitchell Field. Wherever it’s located, Amtrak should be on board and committed from the start. Putting together the ribbon of parks along the river has taken too long and involved too many people to just blithely begin dismantling, he said. It is PAC’s responsibility as park stewards to make sure that doesn’t happen.

As a sidebar issue, Gaston said, the Greek Revival shelter on Island Park needs attention – the roof is leaking and is starting to rot.

Fuller Road Station: Staff Update

Cooper began by reviewing some background on the project. He first mentioned the Amtrak station, saying that it was one of the original motivations for exploring a new rail station. He noted that the recent $2.8 million in federal funding is earmarked for environmental studies related to relocating Amtrak to the Fuller Road Station site.

City planning over the years has also set the stage for Fuller Road Station, Cooper said, citing the city’s 2006 Model for Mobility initiative, as well as the 2009 transportation master plan update.

Finally, the University of Michigan’s parking needs in the Wall Street area, based on demands from its growing medical campus south of Fuller Road, also came into play, Cooper said. It was the convergence of all these issues – combined with regional planning for rail by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – that started discussions leading to Fuller Road Station. Those talks involve other partners, he noted, including the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Mike Anglin, left, talks with Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager, prior to the start of the May 17, 2011 park advisory commission meeting. Anglin serves as an ex-officio member of PAC.

President Obama’s administration has put a priority on high-speed rail, Cooper said, and one of the corridors that’s receiving attention – and funding – runs between Chicago and Detroit.

Cooper noted that in previous presentations, he’s highlighted the rail station and other aspects of Fuller Road Station, rather than the parking component. This time, he said, “let’s put it up top” – the first phase will include a structure with about 1,000 parking spots. Other elements include five bus bays and a storage area for around 191 bikes. There will also be upgrades to the shared-use paths on the site, and a public art component. [A task force for public art at Fuller Road Station has already been meeting – as a capital project, the station includes $250,000 set aside for public art. At its April 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission received an update on the task force's work, including a timeline for selecting artists.]

In addition to being a transportation hub for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, buses and rail, Fuller Road Station will serve as a gateway to the city, Cooper said. Iconic architectural elements are planned for the design to achieve that goal, he said – though he alluded to critics of the initial project renderings by saying that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The project will also include sustainable design features, he said.

Cooper noted that Fuller Road Station will be contained in the footprint of the current surface parking lot that’s on the site, and that the adjacent soccer field will remain in place.

Fuller Road Station: Staff Update – Phase 1.1

At a city council work session a few months ago, councilmembers had asked about how the first phase – the large parking structure and bus bays – related to possible rail service. In response to those questions, Cooper said, a new design was developed to incorporate platforms for possible commuter rail. He emphasized that this new intermediate design phase – dubbed Phase 1.1 – was not likely to be implemented, and would not be presented in the site plan for city council approval.

Commuter rail platforms would be far shorter than those needed for intercity rail, Cooper said – 340-380 feet, compared to 900 feet. A separate track would also need to be built, alongside the existing track, so that commuter rail and high-speed rail both could be accommodated safely.

The Phase 1.1 design also entailed some reduction in parking capacity, due to the need for commuter rail platforms, he noted. The design would be consistent with the designs that MDOT is developing for stations in Ypsilanti and Detroit Metro airport, he said. But he again emphasizing that at this point, there are not plans to implement these changes. Although that could change, Cooper said he didn’t think it would, in large part because recent federal funding superseded the need for an intermediate phase like this. He apologized for any confusion this might cause.

Fuller Road Station: Staff Update – Next Steps

Cooper outlined what will happen in the next several months related to Fuller Road Station. The city council will be asked to approve formally the project’s Phase 1 site plan, following the successful completion of an agreement with UM to build, operate and maintain the facility.

After the council gives approval, the city would start immediately with work to relocate utilities on the site – bids have already been secured, he said. That might start in June or July, although there’s no firm date for council approval. Construction of the structure itself would ideally begin in the winter of 2011-12, he said, to be completed in 2013. It’s a 14- to 18-month project, and the start date hinges on completion of an agreement with UM, Cooper said, which is being “intensely negotiated.”

That agreement will give details about the project’s financing, based on terms set in the memorandum of understanding (MOU), Cooper said. One key interest for PAC was the preservation of parking available for parks users, he noted – that will be reflected in the agreement. Also included will be details about the facility’s operation and long-term maintenance. Cooper said it was a sensitive document and he didn’t have details about it at this time, but these elements were the framework.

Environmental assessment has been underway since November 2009, Cooper said, when the city signed its MOU with the university. A draft report has been submitted to both the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Rail Administration. The city is awaiting execution of an agreement with FRA, which will become the lead federal agency for this project. They’ll be reviewing the draft environmental report, and making a final declaration on it – possibly by the winter of 2011-12.

Fuller Road Station: Staff Update – Phase 2

On Monday, May 9, local, state and federal officials converged for a press conference in Detroit, where U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced $200 million in federal funds for advancing high-speed intercity rail service in Michigan. That’s in addition to $160 million announced last year, earmarked for high-speed rail pending a final agreement between the Federal Rail Administration and the state.

Cooper, who attended the May 9 event, said Gov. Rick Snyder spoke and had made positive remarks about the value of high-speed rail for the state’s economy. That was the first time he’d heard Snyder comment in that way, Cooper said, and it was good news to hear the governor seemed supportive of the concept.

Ann Arbor’s $2.8 million grant was part of that $200 million, and is designated for environmental assessment and preliminary engineering studies – for the station and drop off area, as well as for the rail platform and rail work, including track, switches and signals. The city has not yet received formal notification of the federal award, which will outline terms and conditions, Cooper said – those details will influence the city’s next steps.

Cooper noted that if they’d had a shovel-ready project, they might have been able to get more federal funding.

He said it’s noteworthy that a federal agency – the Federal Rail Administration – is now interested in the project, as evidenced by the $2.8 million grant. The Federal Transit Administration never signed on in that way, though the city had been working with that agency. FRA officials will determine whether the project needs just an environmental assessment report, or a more complex environmental impact statement, Cooper said.

After the FRA signs off on the environmental assessment, Phase 2 design can begin in earnest, Cooper said. It would build off of Phase 1, and include a relocated intercity passenger rail station and associated rail work. The city will engage Amtrak as a stakeholder, he said – the rail agency has provided a 65-page design manual, with details about its needs. A design for this phase would allow the city to pursue grant funding for it, Cooper said.

Phase 2 could cost $20-$30 million, Cooper said. Details regarding cost-sharing would need to be determined, with partners including MDOT, Amtrak and SEMCOG.

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions

Commissioners asked a range of questions over more than an hour. This report provides highlights the discussion, organized by topic.

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions – Funding

Gwen Nystuen asked how much the city has spent on this project to day. Dykman replied that the only expenditures approved by council was about $640,000 to JJR for their design and environmental assessment work. Their contract is coming to an end, he noted. Nystuen asked whether the cost of city staff time had been calculated so far – it had not, Dykman said. [The Chronicle has queried the city about how much has been paid for the work of Mitchell & Moaut, the Ann Arbor design firm that's been working on the project, and what entity is covering those costs. That information has not yet been provided.]

Park advisory commissioners Doug Chapman and Gwen Nystuen.

David Barrett asked what the legislative process entailed actually to receive the $2.8 million in federal funding. He noted that some states had refused the grants. Cooper wasn’t sure – those details weren’t yet available, he said, so it’s not clear whether the funds will come directly to the city from the federal level, or via MDOT. He reiterated that the important step isn’t just the funding – it’s that the FRA has now become the federal agency responsible for this project.

What’s the timeframe for receiving the funds? Barrett asked. Cooper said he didn’t want to speculate on what Gov. Snyder may or may not do – the focus now is on the state budget, and the feds haven’t put a timeline on accepting the funding. But unlike government leaders in Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, Snyder and others have indicated an interest in the evolution of high-speed rail in Michigan, he said.

Nystuen clarified that the $2.8 million is related to the high-speed rail infrastructure, not commuter rail. Yes, Cooper said. They haven’t pursued commuter rail funding, instead relying on MDOT and SEMCOG for that work. The city is cooperating with those efforts, but not taking the lead.

Tim Berla wanted to make sure that when the agreement between the city and UM is revealed, it will clearly indicate the costs for Phase 1, where the funding will come from, and other terms, like contract length. He confirmed that the agreement will be a public document. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that PAC will be briefed on the agreement in advance of city council taking action.

Sam Offen wanted Cooper to remind the city’s negotiating team that PAC felt the city’s parks system was receiving insufficient funds from UM to compensate for use of the property, based on terms outlined in the memorandum of understanding. He wanted to make sure that someone spoke up for the city in that regard. Cooper said he would communicate that message, and Smith told Offen that he had already raised the issue.

By way of background, a year ago PAC considered a resolution that called for the city council to abandon the Fuller Road Station project, or at the least to get a better deal from the university in terms of revenues provided to the city for leasing the structure. [Chronicle coverage: "Better Deal Desired for Fuller Road Station"] That caught the attention of mayor John Hieftje, an advocate of the project, who attended PAC’s May 18, 2010 meeting and asked commissioners for their support. [Chronicle coverage: "Hieftje Urges Unity on Fuller Road Station"]

His request led commissioners to reconsider their position, dropping a call to stop the project but still urging city council to work for a more open process and to ensure a better financial deal to benefit the parks system. [Chronicle coverage: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"]

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions – Environmental Impact

Barrett asked if any permits have been pulled for work next to the Huron River. Dykman said no work is being done by the river at this point. The city has applied to the MDEQ for a permit to work on restoring a detention basin for the existing surface parking lot at the Fuller Road site, he said, but they haven’t yet received the permit.

Offen noted that environmental assessment work had started in 2009. What were the findings? Cooper said the recommendation that’s now been delivered to the Federal Rail Administration is that the assessment found no significant environmental impact to the site. But only the FRA can make that finding official, he said, and the agency hasn’t made a determination yet.

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions – Amtrak

Nystuen asked whether the city has been in communication with Amtrak regarding whether the rail agency would want to relocate into Fuller Road Station.

Cooper replied that for Amtrak, stations are actually a nuisance. In his initial conversations with Amtrak, officials indicated interest in relocating to a new station that met their design specifications, as long as it was cost-neutral to them – that is, as long as they didn’t have to pay for it, and that it didn’t cost them more than it did to operate their current station on Depot Street. He said Amtrak has been a full supporter of Fuller Road Station, but building a new station would require careful coordination with their needs and with MDOT, as the state sponsor of Amtrak.

Nystuen asked whether the city would be responsible for operating the station. It would clearly be a city-owned structure, Cooper said, but details of the operation and maintenance would need to be worked out. Although sometimes Amtrak chooses to contract with local entities for that service, Cooper said he didn’t want to speculate whether such a contract might be with MDOT or a transit authority like AATA. Ultimately, though, the city would be responsible for the station. Responding to another question from Nystuen, Cooper said he wasn’t aware that the city had paid Amtrak anything at this point.

Mike Anglin wondered why Ann Arbor’s station wasn’t picked for improvements, as part of the commuter rail demonstration project. It’s an ugly site, he said. The nearby DTE/MichCon property is highly contaminated and might be eligible for brownfield cleanup, he said. But that isn’t being considered.

Cooper said the intent of the commuter rail demonstration project was to keep costs as low as possible – the idea was to build on existing stations. He said he didn’t think SEMCOG, the lead agency in that project, had given full consideration to Ann Arbor. There are a lot of issues associated with commuter rail, he said, but the primary needs relate to station access and parking. The city has talked to MichCon about using the property in that area for parking, but they haven’t gotten anywhere, he said. Cooper also noted that Amtrak doesn’t do commuter rail, so it’s not interested in issues related to getting commuter rail off the ground. There’s a lot a work ahead before that can happen, he said.

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions – Design

Nystuen said that when this project was first unveiled, the focus had been on a “glorious” train station. Later, the station and the parking structure had been separated into two phases. Why did that happen, she asked.

Cooper said the original thought was to keep the project as one structure, but after a two-day workshop with key stakeholders, the idea emerged that the train station should be an “architectural gem,” separate from the parking structure. The footprint has been unchanged, however – the same as the current parking lot, with the intent to minimize intrusion into parkland.

There have been questions about the design and layout, he said, but this is just a starting point. As the project is reviewed and developed, and as the city applies for additional funding, the design could change, Cooper said. “Where we wind up could be different.”

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions – Trail Systems, Roundabout

Christopher Taylor asked for an update at the Fuller Road/Maiden Lane/East Medical Center Drive intersection. In February 2011, Ann Arbor city council had authorized a $460,139 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. to study and engineer a possible roundabout there.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, and Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC.

Cooper said the city has been looking at improving that intersection since he took this job in 2005. It’s being handled separately from the Fuller Road Station because the intersection needs to be addressed, regardless of the other project. In addition to the contract with DLZ, the city has a separate agreement with North Carolina State University’s Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) to analyze previous studies that have been done there.

Taylor asked whether construction of Phase 1 or 2 of Fuller Road Station would impede construction of a roundabout. Cooper pointed out that the intersection work has not been funded. His sense is that Phase 1 would be well underway before the city figures out what to do with that intersection. Dykman added that it would be preferable to wait until after Fuller Road Station is completed before starting work on the intersection, because construction traffic could damage the road.

Berla noted that the Fuller Road/Maiden Lane/East Medical Center Drive intersection is inconvenient for anyone taking the Border-to-Border trail, and he was disappointed that the design didn’t address that. Instead, it seems there will be a roundabout – which would be even more difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate. And there would be additional cars coming to that area because of Fuller Road Station. Wouldn’t it be better to address the trails as part of the design?

Cooper said the existing trail going through the site will be widened to 10 feet. He said he wouldn’t debate whether more cars will be passing through – there’s clearly a fairly high level of activity there. There’s less activity on the north side of Fuller Road, so that would be a safer, calmer path. But he’d leave it to the parks staff to figure out how to guide pedestrians and cyclists to use that route instead.

DLZ will be taking the lead on this as well, looking at previous studies done at that intersection, Dykman said. He noted that ITRE has looked at different scenarios for pedestrians there, and thought there could be benefits from installing HAWK (high intensity activated crosswalk) signals on each of the four legs of the roundabout, like the HAWK installed last year at Huron and Chapin. They’ll be looking at a variety of options for pedestrians at that intersection, he said.

Offen said he’d noticed references to two trails on the map showing the site design. He asked for more details about those. Cooper said that when they started talking about this project, they asked parks staff to participate. They’re also interested in incorporating elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan into the site. The trails might be incorporated into the Fuller Road Station project, or handled separately, he said.

Fuller Road Station master concept plan. (Links to larger image.)

Julie Grand asked if there had been any changes to the site plan to incorporate concerns raised about pedestrians or cyclists. Cooper said there haven’t been changes in that regard.

Offen confirmed with park planner Amy Kuras that the trail system planned for that area hadn’t been redesigned since the Fuller Road Station was proposed. Commissioners and staff discussed ways to connect the trails in that area, including how the trails might cross the railroad tracks, either via an underpass or bridge.

Cooper noted that the master plan calls for constructing elevated platforms on the north and south sides of the railroad tracks, connected via a skybridge.

Nystuen said it seemed obvious that the trail system should be built and functional before Fuller Road Station is constructed – it should certainly be included as part of the project. Cooper replied that Phase 1 of the project has never included trails, and that he’s not aware of any plans that would fund trails as part of it.

Later in the discussion, Smith returned to the topic, saying that the original Border-to-Border trail runs north of Fuller – it’s intended for recreation. There’s also a path on the south side of the road that’s used more by people who commute by bike. He thought he understood that there might be opportunities to look at how that commuter path interacts with traffic near the proposed Fuller Road Station. Cooper replied that there will be an on-road bike path, and the existing path will be widened to 10 feet. Beyond that, he said he’d not meant to imply that any other changes are planned.

Smith said the reality is that although they can try to get people to use the northern path, people will use the path that best works for them. He hoped they could do whatever possible to improve it.

Cooper noted that Phase 1 of Fuller Road Station calls for a bike station, and is intended as a transfer point for people who ride their bikes there, then walk or use a bus or train to their final destination. Fuller Road Station will be very busy, particularly at certain times of the day, he said – that alone might be enough to encourage people to use the northern path. But ultimately, people make their own choices. For him, Cooper said he preferred riding a bike on the street – it seemed safer and less annoying in the traffic flow than dodging pedestrians.

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions – Project Management

Offen asked who’ll manage the project. Those details are still being worked out in the agreement between the city and UM, Cooper said. The city will be managing the utility relocation work, but the university is expected to take the lead on the overall Fuller Road Station construction.

Fuller Road Station: PAC Comments, Questions – Sale of Land, Public Process

After Cooper had left the meeting, commissioners returned to the topic of Fuller Road Station for additional discussion. Barrett said it would be useful to make clear to the public how the city got to this point regarding the use of parkland. The feedback he’s getting is that people feel the commission isn’t doing its job to protect parkland. It would be helpful to explain how the process evolved to make Fuller Road Station happen without a vote on the sale of land. Taylor replied that the process is the absence of a sale. Barrett said he didn’t want to debate, but that if it quacked like a duck – well, he said, “let’s stand up and say how we got here, that’s all.”

Smith clarified that the land is zoned PL, which stands for public land, not parkland. The planning commission had recommended amending the permissible uses for public land at its May 4, 2010 meeting. [The planning commission recommended changing to language in Chapter 55 of the city code, which lists permitted principal uses for public land (PL). The change was to delete the use of “municipal airports” and replace it with “transportation facilities.” The city council later approved the change at its July 6, 2010 meeting.]

Nystuen said that Barrett had raised a very important question. It’s confusing, she said. If the city council approves the Fuller Road Station site plan, then the land becomes a transportation facility, not parkland. But it’s been city parkland since the 1930s, she said. Taylor observed that it’s been a parking lot since the early Clinton administration.

Nystuen replied that it wasn’t previously a sale of the land. Nor is it now, Taylor said. But Nystuen contended that the parking lot is a use for parks. As Fuller Road Station, the 10-acre site would no longer be parkland.

Tim Berla, Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner.

Berla argued that Fuller Road Station doesn’t break the city charter amendment that states the city must get voter approval before selling parkland – even though some people see it as a de facto land sale. By way of analogy, “just because I consider my car to be a Rolls Royce, it’s not – it’s a Subaru,” he said. And the land hasn’t been sold, he said. If you’re against the project, that’s a political decision, he added, and you should contact your city council representative and ask them to vote against it.

Grand noted that PAC has already made a statement on this issue. [PAC passed a resolution at its June 15, 2010 meeting that called for city council to make available a complete plan of Fuller Road Station – including any significant proposed agreements, such as what the university will pay the city for use of the structure – allowing sufficient time for a presentation at a televised PAC meeting before council votes on the project. The resolution also asked that staff and council ensure the project results in a net revenue gain for the parks system.]

Grand also pointed out that there’s a public perception that PAC has control over the city’s parkland. “We have no control,” she said. “We can just advise, and we have made a statement to that effect.”

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary Redux

At the end of the meeting, Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition talked about the trail system as it relates to Fuller Road Station. He reminded commissioners that WBWC had presented them with a statement last year on this issue. The trail system in that area has been planned for a long time, he said. When bridges were built over Huron River there in the 1980s, accommodations were made for future trails to run underneath. He agreed that it would be good to build the trails before Fuller Road Station is constructed, but if that’s not possible, they at least need to show where the trails would run, especially between the existing trail and the underpass at East Medical Center Drive. There are topographical issues to consider. There’s no sense in having plans if those plans are ignored every time a development comes up, he said.

Alice Ralph said as she’s absorbed all the information about Fuller Road Station, it seems that they’ve missed some early opportunities to improve this project. With the new emphasis on rail and a new train station, the thing that’s bogging this down is the parking garage. The future plans for that site possibly make the parking garage less relevant. She wondered what design energy and money would be available if they eliminated 800 spaces in a parking garage and devoted that to all the other components of the project. It’s something to think about sooner rather than later, she said.

Council Report: 2006 Millage

Gwen Nystuen asked for a report on the Monday, May 16 Ann Arbor city council meeting. Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, reported that council had revised its administrative policy on how the 2006 parks millage is to be spent. Funds outside the general fund can now count as general fund money for the purpose of the policy, as long as those funds are not drawn from the parks millage.

However, Taylor said, they took no action to restore $90,000 to the proposed FY 2012 budget for parks – that’s the amount that the original administrative policy would require, if it had not been amended.

Nystuen asked whether the resolution that council passed would return to the original policy regarding funding for the city’s natural areas preservation program (NAP). [The city council had revised the 2006 administrative policy during the FY 2010 budget cycle, so that millage funding for NAP would not automatically increase by 3% every year, as had previously been the case.]

No, Taylor said, that wasn’t part of the resolution.

Nystuen said she was very concerned that council seems to have retreated from its original policy regarding how the 2006 parks millage can be used.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith weighed in, saying he’d attended Monday’s council meeting. He reminded commissioners that the change in policy regarding NAP happened last year and had been approved by PAC at the time. [Nystuen had been the lone commissioner voting against that move. See Chronicle coverage: "Park Commission OKs Fee Increases, Budget"]

Taylor said they were still working to figure out how to restore $90,000 to the parks budget in FY 2012 – Monday’s council meeting has been continued to next Monday, May 23, because of lingering budget issues.

Parks Manager’s Report: Gallup, Argo, SNAG, Omnibus Millage

Smith updated PAC on recent grants received by parks and recreation. Huron Hills Golf Course received a $12,000 grant from the National Recreation and Parks Association to pilot a program called SNAG – Starting New at Golf – aimed at children 4-5 years old. The city was one of only 14 agencies nationwide to pilot this program, Smith said, and it’s a good opportunity for Huron Hills, since it fits with the course’s goals.

Also, the city was awarded a $7,500 state grant for the design of the Gallup Park boat livery. They’ve applied for larger grants and are still awaiting word on those, he said, but it’s good news that this small grant came through so quickly.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner David Barrett, left, and Colin Smith, the city's parks and recreation manager.

There’s no construction happening at Argo, Smith reported, referring to a major project that would reconstruct a bypass channel in the Argo Dam headrace and add whitewater features along the Huron River. The city has submitted a permit application to the state, which reviewed it and asked for more information. The city responded to that request in early May. Smith said they still expect to start work this summer, to be completed by mid-November.

Smith also reported on an item related to current budget talks. At a May 9 city council work session, some councilmembers had asked what the parks budget would look like if all operations were funded by a millage. It would take roughly $9 million – about twice what the current millage covers. This gives the council an idea of the scope of parks operations, and Smith said he only mentioned it to PAC as a point of information. He said he was sure there’d be more questions regarding that in the future.

He also said staff will be bringing a resolution to PAC’s June meeting for approval of architectural and engineering services contracts – to select consultants that are on retainer for parks projects. This cycle, 26 firms applied and staff has selected five to be put on retainer, he said. During interviews, city staff asked firms how they’d handle renovations for the Greek Revival shelter on Island Park – an item that was brought up during public commentary earlier in the meeting – as well as repairs of the pergola at West Park. Both historic structures are in need of repair, he said, and that work will likely be done in the fall.

Finally, Smith reported that the city’s outdoor swimming pools are slated to open on May 28 for the season. If it’s 55 degrees over Memorial Day weekend, he said, that would be bad.

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

Absent: Tim Doyle, Karen Levin

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

About 30 people attended the Aug. 17 Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission meeting. Prior to the start, city councilmember Mike Anglin (far right) talks with Nancy Kaplan. Standing at the left is William Newcomb, a member of the city's golf task force, talking with PAC chair Julie Grand. In the foreground are Sandra Arlinghaus and William Arlinghaus. (Photos by the writer.)

The issue drew two city councilmembers to the meeting – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – as well as former and current council candidates Sumi Kailasapathy, Jack Eaton and John Floyd. Councilmember Mike Anglin, who serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, also attended. Former planning commissioner Sandra Arlinghaus and her son William Arlinghaus both spoke to PAC, urging them to widen the scope of the RFP so that it might include more creative possibilities, like a location for cremains.

A couple of people also spoke in opposition of the Fuller Road Station project, citing similarities with the Huron Hills situation. In both cases, they said, the city is attempting to use parkland for other purposes. The Fuller Road Station is a proposed parking structure and bus depot, which might someday include a train station.

During deliberations, most commissioners voiced support for the RFP, noting that the golf course – though doing better – is still losing money. [The accounting method used to determine how the golf course is performing financially was a point of contention by some speakers during public commentary.] Several commissioners pointed out that the city is under no obligation to accept any of the proposals that might be submitted. And Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, emphasized that the city would retain ownership of the land – there are no plans to sell Huron Hills, he said. He also noted that the RFP calls for proposals to be golf-related.

The plan is to issue the RFP on Sept. 3, with responses due at the end of October. A selection committee will review the proposals and make a recommendation to PAC, probably in December. City council would make the final decision on whether to proceed with any of the proposals.

Huron Hills Golf Course RFP

The city owns two golf courses, Huron Hills Golf Course and Leslie Park Golf Course, covering more than 275 acres. In 2007 the city hired James Keegan, managing principal of Golf Convergence, to evaluate the performance – financial and otherwise – of the courses, and make recommendations for change. This was done in the wake of declining revenues and play at the courses, and debate over whether the land should be put to different use. In his report, Keegan projected that the courses would continue to lose money for at least six years. In May of 2008, city council approved a plan to reinvest in the courses, using funds from the park maintenance and improvement tax.

During staff and city council budget discussions in late 2009 and early 2010, the possibility of pursuing a public/private partnership for Huron Hills was discussed. Though the council never explicitly made a decision on the issue, they made an implicit determination at a budget work session, indicating that staff should develop an RFP to solicit proposals. A draft of that RFP was the topic of discussion at Tuesday’s PAC meeting. [.pdf file of Huron Hills Golf Course draft RFP]

PAC last received a detailed update on the performance of the golf courses at their November 2009 meeting, given by Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf. But the issue has emerged more recently during public commentary – at the city council’s June 7, 2010 meeting, as well as at PAC’s June 15, 2010 meeting. Several people at those meetings spoke against the plan to issue an RFP. One of those speakers also attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Huron Hills RFP: Public Commentary

Janet Cassebaum told commissioners that they had a big responsibility – they are stewards of Ann Arbor parkland. The city is issuing an RFP that will result in commercial development between Huron River Drive and the Huron River, she said. “We are not fooled by the language in the RFP – this is commercial development.” The golf course’s “front seven” is the gateway to the city – a city that prides itself on open space and parkland. Residents call Ann Arbor “Tree Town,” she noted. But instead of open space and beautiful trees, people will see an ugly fence, lots of netting, lights at night and a large parking lot. “Do what you are charged to do – reject the RFP,” she concluded, “and preserve the parkland.”

Ted Annis asked commissioners to declare the RFP “dead on arrival.” It was ill-conceived and should never have been drafted. It amounts to a constructive sale of city parkland, he said – and it doesn’t matter what other terms they use to describe it, like “lease” or “use agreement.” It’s a constructive sale for 20 years, worded in a way that’s intended to circumvent the city’s charter amendment, which prohibits the sale of parkland unless approved by voters.

Annis then pointed to the city’s greenbelt program. Voters approved a millage used to buy development rights for properties surrounding Ann Arbor. Yet inside Ann Arbor, the city is prepared to sell development rights to its parkland, Annis said. “This should offend you the way it offends me. It’s really very disturbing.” Finally, Annis – describing himself as a businessman who’s good at cost accounting – noted that the city makes an economic argument for its approach to Huron Hills. But the cost accounting used for the golf operation is inconsistent with the financial view that the city takes of all other parks, he said. If the golf operations were treated like other parks, you’d find that they actually make a modest net contribution to the city’s general fund, he said – the economic argument if false. He urged PAC to keep the integrity of the commission and stand up for greenspace.

Ann Schriber began by saying she didn’t understand why the city council wants so badly to dismantle Huron Hills – one of the most beautiful open spaces in the city. The city hired an expensive consultant to look at its golf courses and came up with a proposal to sell part of Huron Hills for development, she said. There was a great huge hue and cry over the possibility of selling Huron Hills, and the city backed off, she said, but not for long. Now, this RFP is looking for a public/private partnership to make the golf course pay for itself. If that means a driving range, then it will result in lights, fences, nets and buildings, she said – and there goes the beautiful open land, which can’t be taken back.

Schriber said she’s not a golfer and doesn’t live next to the course, but she drives by it nearly every day and takes great pride in it. She always points it out when she gives tours to potential newcomers to the city. When Ann Arbor was named by Money magazine as one of the top small cities in the country, they mentioned specifically the golf courses, she said.

Like Annis, Schriber mentioned the greenbelt millage that voters approved, providing millions of dollars to protect open space and greenspace. She held up a 2005 clipping of a front page article in the Ann Arbor News, which reported that the city had spent $5 million to protect four farms for the greenbelt. Now the city wants to sell what it already owns, and which benefits all the citizens of Ann Arbor. “This makes no sense to me,” she said. Schriber said that a current councilmember’s wife made a statement to former councilmember Mike Reid when this issue of selling part of Huron Hills came up before, calling it a “short-sighted, lame-brained plan.” The same woman wrote to mayor John Hieftje, Schriber said, asking him to save Huron Hills for everyone who enjoys it, from golfers to walkers to sledders to those who drive down Huron Parkway.

Nancy Kaplan read a letter written by Paul Bancel, who she said couldn’t attend the meeting. He’d sent a longer version to city councilmembers, she said. The statement was directed to councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor, who serve as ex-officio members of PAC. [Taylor was absent from Tuesday's meeting.] If the proposal goes forward to build a commercial driving range on some of the most prime open space in Ann Arbor, “a great tragedy will occur.” Taxpayers are paying a tax to support the greenbelt outside the city, yet city officials propose to eliminate some of the most beautiful and visible greenspace within the city limits. It goes against the PROS plan (the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space plan) and all the efforts to beautify entrances to Ann Arbor.

The main reason given for commercializing Huron Hills is an accounting entry in the general fund, Kaplan continued. Golf operations, cash-on-cash, will contribute to the city overhead in 2011 and this contribution will continue to grow. Huron Hills is the people’s golf course, and Leslie Park is the championship course – they complement each other and depend on each other. Administrative and overhead costs in 2011 will almost equal the general fund subsidy. These costs will continue, regardless of the fate of the golf course, she said. Why have expenses been allowed to double in less than five years? Bancel served for the past two years on the golf advisory task force, and at every meeting the emphasis was on revenue. Revenues and rounds have increased substantially, but it is now time for a discussion on costs. Building a driving range is not the way to cut costs. Closing beautiful, historic Huron Hills, which has been a golf course for over 90 years, is an irreversible act and it should not happen.

James D’Amour said he wasn’t a resident of the Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood, but he feels like one. Huron Hills is probably  the most beautiful golf course in Washtenaw County, he said – “and that’s saying a lot.” He said he was driving past Huron Hills recently and gnashed his teeth recalling something that PAC commissioner Tim Berla had said a couple months ago. Berla had “rather callously” said if you don’t like the charter amendment, change it, D’Amour said – in reference to Fuller Road Station, and the city charter requiring voter approval of the sale of parkland.

It’s pretty clear what the voters wanted, D’Amour said – any transfer of public parkland should come with a public vote. On this basis alone, PAC should reject any consideration of this RFP. It seems as though the city is at war with its parks system and its assets, D’Amour said. He added that he’s a strong supporter of the greenbelt but said it sends a puzzling message when the city is acquiring property in the greenbelt but selling property – “or whatever the heck we’re doing with our parklands” – in the city. It’s not right or necessary, and PAC should dismiss the RFP out of hand.

Noting that she isn’t a neighbor to the golf course either, Ethel Potts said the parks belong to all of us. She assumed that commissioners knew a lot about the RFP – that at the very least, they’d been asked to help write it. The public counts on PAC to protect the parks, she said. What benefits will this RFP bring to the public or the parks? If the city removed its administrative charges, the golf course would be even more successful. The RFP might be tempting because a proposal could bring in more money to the parks system through the lease or rental of Huron Hills– as is planned with Fuller Road Station, she said.

But Potts warned that the parks support from the city’s general fund would be reduced proportionally. She also cautioned PAC to look very carefully at the businesses that respond to the RFP – what’s their history, and how are they doing in the current economy? Potts concluded by saying that if PAC hadn’t been asked to help write the RFP, then it was a disgraceful disregard of an advisory commission.

Bill Cassebaum posed some questions about the RFP, which he said PAC could address during their discussion. On page 26 of the RFP, the business arrangement is defined as a contract to accomplish a specific purpose. Yet to him, it walks and quacks like a lease. Does this circumvent Section 14A of the city charter, which requires concurrence by at least eight members of city council? he asked. On page 12, it refers to income from driving range rentals. Does this mean that development of a commercial driving range will be acceptable?

On page 22, the RFP states that the city has the right to use the premises for conferences, meetings and so forth. Does this mean that development of a conference center is acceptable? On page 14, under assumptions, the RFP states that the contractor guarantees not to abandon or otherwise breach the contract. Cassebaum said he didn’t see any backup to the guarantee, like posting a bond. If it’s covered elsewhere in the RFP, he said he couldn’t find it. He also said he didn’t see any prohibition against assignment of the contract, or subcontracting, to third parties. On page 23, the contractor certifies that it has no personal or financial interest in the project, other than the fee it is to receive under the agreement. Will the city be financially obligated to the contractor?

William Arlinghaus said he owns a home in Ann Arbor and lives in Grand Rapids, and went to high school and college in Ann Arbor. He’s now president of Greenscape Michigan, a cemetery corporation. Cemeteries are one of the best ways to preserve greenspace in an urbanized environment, he said, and so are golf courses – the two uses can be blended fairly well. The purpose of the RFP is to generate more revenue for the city, he said, adding that he was capable of giving them a proposal that night that would preserve the golf course’s natural features, allow it to operate as an 18-hole golf course, and double its revenues without destroying any natural features.

If they must move forward with the RFP, he urged them narrow it and have it be considered only as an 18-hole course. At the same time, they should widen the scope of what’s permissible, he said, opening it up to those with experience managing large tracts of land – not just golf course or driving range managers. He said the city can solve its revenue problem with a better private/public partnership that doesn’t require an RFP, and that doesn’t give away, lease or sell the land. There are many other options available. They need to preserve the natural features that make Ann Arbor a great place. The RFP urged responders to think creatively, he noted, adding that there are lots of creative opportunities that can be explored.

Saying she supported what the previous speaker said, Sandra Arlinghaus told commissioners that she is president of Archive Memorials Online, a trust-funded nonprofit based in Ann Arbor. One possibility is the memorialization of cremains, which might be put on a golf course perimeter. Archive Memorials Online has been doing Internet memorialization since 2002 – at the time, they were the only trust-funded nonprofit doing that work in the world, she said.

As president, Arlinghaus said she was there to be helpful in any way that she could. She said she’s well known around town as being a highly creative person, and she’s willing to bring that creativity to bear on the Huron Hills issue. She ticked through a list of ways in which she’s been involved in community service, including previously serving on the city’s planning commission and environmental commission, among other groups. She’s currently chair of the technology committee for the American Contract Bridge League. The technology connection is important, she said, because that’s how memories survive. There are many creative ways to do that, she said.

Myra Larson noted that at city council’s June 7, 2010 meeting, she spoke during public commentary about the Huron Hills golf course, as did Jane Lumm and Leslie Morris. They asked council not to issue the RFP, she said – the council didn’t pay attention to them, so now she was at PAC’s meeting to address the same issue, hopefully with a more positive result. She referred to page 5, section 5 of the RFP:

Environmental and Ground Conditions. Any design or development should incorporate best practice in stormwater management, and if possible highlight other environmentally-friendly design elements. There are no other specific restrictions which impact potential design or site renovations although alternative usage should be aligned with strategies contained in the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. All Respondents should be prepared to address how both ground conditions and operations would be impacted during the implementation phase of their proposal.

The statement is an embarrassment, she said, in a community where education is the main industry, and where the Huron River is a main source of water. She said to keep in mind that the words used in the RFP are “should” and “if possible” – she indicated that this meant there’s nothing firmly required. And references to “land north of Huron Parkway” really refers to the Huron River, she said. Be forthright about what the impact will be on the river – it’s a very important part of this community. Any alteration of the golf course will have a negative impact on the river, she said, which needs all the tender loving care we can give it. Like several other speakers, Larson also mentioned the greenbelt millage. She asked how they could reconcile giving away parkland when the voters voted to tax themselves to acquire parkland.

Betty Richart said she was raised in South Jersey and her father always aspired to raising his family on a golf course, because he thought it would develop character and honesty. He built a course in 1929, and managed to hang on to it during the Great Depression. When she moved to Ann Arbor 45 years ago, Richart said all she wanted to do was to live near a golf course – and she found a home near Huron Hills.

Right away Richart got involved in junior golf there. Over the years she’s taught children golf and she’s taught in Sunday school, and they learn as much about life from the game of golf as they do in Sunday school, she said. Richart said she worked with the U.S. Golf Association for 30 years, and the group gave her $18,000 to bring kids from outside the city to learn to play golf. This is about more than just the little city of Ann Arbor, she said. The USGA is eager to keep parkland for golf because it’s a game that everyone can play, if they can walk.

Describing Huron Hills as a treasure, Arthur Holtz said that installing a driving range would be out of character for what the city is trying to do with its parks. It doesn’t matter if you play golf or just love the vista by the river. He appreciated that commissioners were courteous enough to listen to him and others, and he hoped they would take into consideration more than just dollars and cents. It’s the wrong place for a driving range, which would diminish the area. He hoped they would keep it as a golf course because he thinks Huron Hills can succeed as a golf course.

Wendy Carman raised her objection to issuing the RFP, saying that Huron Hills is in wonderful shape. Play is up, and the addition of golf carts is bringing in more revenues. The course serves the needs of many levels of players, she noted. To issue the RFP breaks faith with the public who voted in favor of the city charter amendment – they believed they had voted for something that would keep the parks public, she said. The golf course would probably be able to support itself financially, she said, if it weren’t saddled with administrative costs that aren’t directly tied to the course itself. Carman said she didn’t know what PAC’s abilities are with regard to stopping the RFP, but she hoped they’d consider turning it down.

Huron Hills RFP: Background

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, began by saying it would be good to take a few steps back and talk about how this process started. At a December 2009 budget retreat, city council and senior staff talked about a range of “big ideas” to deal with the city’s financial situation. Many of those ideas dealt with parks, Smith said, and one related to a possible public/private partnership at Huron Hills.

From The Chronicle’s report of that retreat:

At Saturday’s retreat, [Jayne] Miller said that compared to a general fund allocated subsidy of $589,000, the golf courses had used $460,000 – so the trend was in the right direction, but the subsidy required was still substantial. Of the two courses, Leslie is showing more improvement, enhanced by receiving a liquor license from the city in 2008.

When the focus then came to rest on Huron Hills Golf Course as the less profitable of the two courses, [Ward 2 councilmember] Stephen Rapundalo lamented: “Here we go again!” It was possibly an allusion to the contentious general election Rapundalo only narrowly won against write-in challenger Ed Amonsen in 2007, when a central issue had been the question of whether the city intended to sell Huron Hills.

Miller said that closing Huron Hills for golf would not mean that it would stop losing money. Even keeping up the property at some basic level of maintenance (not as a golf course) would require a considerable ongoing expenditure, she said.

Hieftje summarized by saying, “I think we’ll have golf.”

At Tuesday’s PAC meeting, Smith said that after the budget retreat, city council next got a more detailed look at possible parks proposals at a Jan. 25, 2010 working session. At that time, he said, the council gave staff a directive to develop an RFP for Huron Hills. [Though the issue was discussed at that Jan. 25 meeting, there was no directive issued then. The topic came up again at a Feb. 8 council working session:

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he wanted to learn more about cost savings that could be achieved through private partnerships connected to public golf courses. He asked if the next step would be to issue an request for proposals (RFP) for Huron Hills Golf Course. Jayne Miller said she would recommend issuing an RFP – even though a private golf initiative would not be operational in time to have an impact on FY 2011, the council would get information needed to plan for FY 2012, she said. Margie Teall (Ward 4) stated that she wanted to see that happen.

Sabre Briere (Ward 1) wanted to know why Leslie Park Golf Course was not also being considered for a public-private partnership. Miller noted that Leslie represented a fairly decent chance of becoming self-sustaining and that allowing a private enterprise to take it over would essentially take money out of the city’s pocket.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) then introduced an analogy that flummoxed his colleagues sitting on the other side of the table: “We have the wolf by the ears with golf,” he said. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) later asked him to clarify what he meant by that. Taylor then referenced the Jeffersonian analogy to slavery in America, which compared the U.S. relationship to slavery as having a wolf by the ears.

On the question of entering a private-public partnership on the Leslie Park Golf Course, Miller explained that a consultant [Golf Convergence] – who had been hired to look at the courses in conjunction with the creation of the city’s golf task force – found that there was little interest by anyone in either of the two golf courses. Now that the Leslie course has started to show some improvement in its finances [and now enjoys a liquor license], there had been some interest in it. Rapundalo, however, said that entering a public-private partnership on Leslie would be like “giving away our crown jewel.”

The result of the discussion – which Hieftje and Fraser took care to not label as a “decision,” but rather as giving direction to the city administrator – was that city staff will start preparing an RFP for a public-private partnership on the Huron Hills Golf Course.

Huron Hills RFP: Staff Report

Smith pointed out that the RFP hadn’t been issued yet – it was still a draft. Last week it was reviewed by the city’s golf task force, and some changes were made based on that feedback. In some ways, it’s similar to the Argo Dam RFP that was recently issued, Smith said. [See Chronicle coverage: "Two Dam Options for Argo"] It’s not typical that RFPs get public input, he said, but obviously in cases where there’s a lot of public interest, it’s important to do.

Smith reviewed a timeline for the RFP process:

• Sept. 3: RFP issued
• Oct. 29: RFP response deadline
• Nov. 1: Evaluation of responses begins
• Nov. 15: Interviews begin
• Dec. 8: Golf task force review
• Dec. 21: PAC recommendation
• TBD: Selection submitted for approval by city council
• TBD: Contract begins

A selection committee will do the initial evaluation of responses, Smith said. That committee will consist of city staff, and representatives from the golf task force, PAC and city council.

Smith then went over some highlights of the RFP. The purpose is to seek creative proposals, he said. Similar to the Argo Dam RFP, he said, it’s left wide open to see what, if any, proposals come back. It might be a proposal to run the entire 18 holes as it is, or someone might propose a modified land use. But they’d have to do that within the scope of remaining golf-related, incorporating these principals:

• A commitment to growing the game of golf.
• Conduciveness to entry level golfers.
• Accessibility and affordability of recreational golf opportunities, especially for children and seniors.
• To better serve the Ann Arbor golf community.

In the section on objectives, Smith noted that the RFP calls for the respondent to provide a strategic vision for the project, to show how they’d achieve a financial return for the city, and to demonstrate financial stability and experience in similar situations. If someone proposes changing the layout of Huron Hills, the city will want assurances of their financial stability, for example. The respondents also have to address management and oversight, environmental and ground conditions, and provide a development plan.

Smith noted that if a proposal called for changes on the grounds – building or removing things – it would be subject to review by the planning commission, and they’d have to follow city ordinances, like the natural features ordinance. Instead of delving into great detail, he said, the RFP mentions more generally the areas that the proposals need to deal with.

Each proposal will be evaluated with points assigned to different categories: professional qualifications (15 points); proposed work plan – benefits to users (30 points); proposed work plan – financial benefit to the city (40 points); and interview/presentation (15 points).

Smith said it was important to point out that the RFP explicitly states that the city will continue to own the Huron Hills property, and that it will continue to operate as part of the parks system as a fully public recreational facility. The respondent would be an independent contractor, operating under a negotiated agreement with the city. It speaks to the fact that in theory, the selected respondent could be a private operator of golf courses, or it could be a more creative proposal.

The RFP includes mention of a 20-year agreement, but it doesn’t have to be 20 years, Smith said. If American Golf, for example, said they’d like to manage the course, Smith said he doubted they’d want more than a three- or four-year agreement.

Smith also highlighted the section on the proposal’s scope of service, which outlines the tasks that a proposal would need to address. Tasks include an assessment of the current golf course, a proposal of services and a description of how those services would be provided, a staffing plan and a marketing plan. In evaluating proposals, Smith said, it will be important to know that if someone is providing a service for less cost, how do they plan to do that? At that lower cost, is the value good?

There are three pages of “assumptions” that respondents must consider in their proposal. Smith pointed out that the first assumption is that the city will remain owner of the property. Another important one to note, he said, is that if Huron Hills remains a golf course, the city can retain control over the cost of services. It’s still public property, and there for the benefit of the public.

Finally, Smith highlighted another one of the RFP’s assumptions:

The Contractor shall be required to relieve the City of all operating and capital expenses associated with HHGC unless specifically agreed to by the City. Respondents are advised that any request for City-funded capital improvement on-site will be considered only if the project constitutes a public purpose and meets all statutory financing and City debt service conditions.

If a proposal is accepted, it would allow the city administrator to negotiate a contract with the respondent, Smith said. The reality is that the RFP can’t include an example of a contract, he said, because the details will depend very much on the type of proposal that might be accepted.

Smith said that the staff developed this RFP under the council directive as part of a budget process. At this point, they’re looking for feedback prior to it being issued, he said.

Huron Hills: Commissioner Deliberations

Julie Grand, who chairs PAC, began by thanking Smith and his staff for their hard work in developing the RFP.

Gwen Nystuen wanted to know what the process would be to provide feedback. Would they need to make a resolution? Smith said they could give input at the meeting, or email suggestions to Grand by the end of the week, and she would forward those to him.

Nystuen wondered what kind of feedback the golf task force had given. Grand, who also serves on that task force, said they strengthened the language related to the environment, adding mention of the PROS plan. They added the key principle of “to better serve the Ann Arbor golf community,” and gave more weight to the presentation in the scoring criteria.

At this point, it was overall received positively, Grand said, because it’s so open-ended. It’s important to remember that they could reject all proposals, she said, “which is still a distinct possibility.”

Directing his question to councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5), one of two ex-officio councilmembers on PAC, Tim Berla asked what the purpose was of putting forward the RFP. Is it because the golf course manager doesn’t like the course any more, or that private industry could do a better job? Why are we doing this?

Anglin said there was never a vote taken on this by council – it was simply a discussion during a work session, and suddenly an RFP was produced. He said he was concerned – is it their task to raise $250,000? Is the city looking to privatize parts of running the park, because it’s getting too expensive? If that’s the purpose, then that should be clear, he said. He said he attended the meetings with the community two years ago, when these issues were first discussed. The golf courses are a standalone enterprise fund, he said, and like most recreational activities, it’s expensive to run. The city hired a consultant to look at the situation, and out of that came several recommendations.

As for Berla’s question – why are we doing this? – Anglin said that council never had an open discussion about that. That comment elicited rueful laughter from some members of the public in attendance. Anglin then noted that councilmember Stephen Rapundalo was there, and could speak to the question if he wanted. [Huron Hills is located in Ward 2, which Rapundalo represents.]

Rapundalo came to the podium, and said that the directive was give to develop an RFP – one of many directives that were given during budget deliberations. There’s no need for a direct vote to give the staff direction on something like that, he said, which was exploratory in nature. It was clear there was an interest to see if they could improve golf operations and the golf experience. From the outset, they’ve been concerned about the long-term sustainability of Huron Hills as a golf course. The staff was given a directive to explore that, and the best way to do that is to seek input through a formal RFP, he said.

Smith added that every recreation facility and operation in the city is being looked at to see if they can be operated more efficiently and effectively. They have to do that, he said. Asking the question of “Are there possibilities?” doesn’t mean it’s a done deal, he noted. But the staff would be remiss if they didn’t ask.

Berla recalled that when the report from the golf consultant was delivered in late 2007, Berla had suggested they talk about closing Huron Hills because it was losing so much money. His personal opinion is that the city should subsidize good activities – which golf certainly is. But they should subsidize those that aren’t provided by others, so that there’s a public interest in providing the service. Then they should think about how much it’s worth to do that. At the time, it seemed to him that the city was subsidizing golf at about $15 per round – “I found that really upsetting,” Berla said.

The purpose of the RFP process is pro-golf, he said – to avoid losing so much money, which is putting a strain on the city budget. He said he’d never want to sell Huron Hills, but he’d previously suggested putting soccer fields or other activities on parts of it. It would still be a beautiful park, but it wouldn’t cost so much to run as a golf course.

Berla then asked who’d make the final decision, assuming there were proposals submitted. Was it the city council? Yes, Smith said. Then what opportunities would there be for public input between now and then, Berla asked. Smith said that when the proposals are submitted and reviewed, they might decide to conduct the interviews on Community Television Network (CTN), much like the interviews for proposals on the development of the Library Lot were televised. Then it would go to the golf task force, he said, which is a public meeting, followed by PAC and city council. Meetings for both of those two entities have opportunity for public comment.

Berla wanted to know if there’s a limit on whether buildings could be constructed. Could someone build a restaurant or auditorium? Smith said those examples don’t tie in with the scope of the RFP, but potentially you could build something that’s related to golf, like a classroom. If so, the project would have to go through the planning commission.

Berla asked whether there was any way that the city could get stuck with the bill for a project at the golf course. Smith said there’s a section in the RFP that talks about how the contractor couldn’t walk away from the project. But if a contract were negotiated, that would likely be addressed in more detail.

Sam Offen said that if the city builds something on city-owned land, it must comply with building codes, but not zoning. What if a private entity built on city land? Smith said that in the case of the Huron Hills RFP, if a proposal called for building on the land, it would be no different than if parks and recreation decided to build something.

Offen asked what a CUB agreement was. [It's one of the forms to be completed in the RFP.] CUB stands for Construction Unity Board – the CUB agreement would require a respondent to use union labor, or to abide by the existing collective bargaining agreements of the appropriate labor unions.

Offen then asked how the city was defining golf. Was it just the traditional game, or could it be something like disc golf? Smith said that right now, the scope of the agreement was for recreational golf opportunities. He didn’t think that disc golf fell into that scope, but it’s something they could look at. There are all sorts of ideas that could come up, he said.

Offen also asked about the interviews. Sixty minutes per proposal seemed like a long time, he said. Smith responded that an hour goes by pretty quickly. He said he’d hope respondents would be able to speak for that long with enthusiasm, passion and strategic foresight.

One part of the RFP asks for respondents to do an assessment of Huron Hills. How thorough would that be, Offen asked – similar to what the golf consultant had done? No, Smith replied. There’s no need for respondents to reinvent the wheel, but they do need to demonstrate that they know about the current operations, as well as the golf course’s history. Last year, there were over 20,000 rounds there, which is a vast increase over two years ago, Smith said. It fills a need, and the proposal needs to reflect that understanding.

Offen noted that two people work at Huron Hills. What does the city anticipate in terms of staffing? Would they be hired – and if not, what happens to their employment with the city? Smith said that people who work at Huron Hills have specialized skills, and he’d want to see how that might be incorporated into a business plan.

Offen said he thought the RFP was a good step, though he knew it was controversial. It gives the city an idea of what kind of creative ideas are out there, with no obligation to do anything. It’s been a very time-consuming process for staff to develop the RFP, Offen said, and he trusts that council is well aware of that. Offen observed that if any ideas are valid, they can negotiate something to the benefit of the city. If not, they won’t. Smith said that even if they don’t end up choosing a proposal, it will allow the city to see how they’re performing, relative to others in the golf business.

Tim Doyle said in his career he’s been responding to government RFPs for 35 years. He described the RFP as very exploratory – you could end up with very diverse proposals, from a putt-putt golf course to a learning center. As a contractor, he said, the thing that’s disturbing about a general RFP is that you have to spend a lot of time writing the proposal, and being careful, because it’s a binding document. He suggested that instead of an RFP, the city could issue a request for information (RFI). The disadvantage is that it would likely yield more proposals, he said. But as it stands, the RFP doesn’t allow for things like a cemetery as adjunct to a golf course. The city might not get any proposals, he said, because no one will be willing to bind themselves to this.

Smith said that the thought behind going with an RFP rather than an RFI is that they did want to be specific that Huron Hills would remain a golf course, or an area for golf. They’re not interested in looking at the possibility of a cemetery. “That’s not the direction we’ve taken yet,” he said.

Doyle said what he heard about the cemetery was interesting to him. They weren’t talking about headstones, but rather about a designated spot for the remains of cremation. Other than having to walk around it, golfers wouldn’t be bothered at all. Doyle also said that the city could write an RFI that was restrictive, and say explicitly that you want certain uses. But for an RFP, you’re asking for a much greater level of detail, asking contractors to tell you exactly what they’re going to do, how much it’s going to cost, and to spend a fair amount of energy doing that. It might cause people not to respond, Doyle said, because they’ll think it’s money and time they’ll just be throwing away.

Smith said the city needs that amount of work to be done, so that they can see what sort of financial return a proposal might have for the city. It does require a level of commitment, he said, and they’ll just have to see what they get.

John Lawter said that there’s a perception, deserved or not, that the golf course is struggling because of the heavy administrative costs that the city charges. If Huron Hills is managed by a contractor, what happens to those overhead charges? Smith replied that until he had a proposal to review, it was too difficult to say.

Offen had another question: Are there other city facilities that are run by an outside contractor? The only one that came to mind was the community centers, he said. Smith clarified that the Bryant and Northside community centers are run by the nonprofit Community Action Network, under a contract with the city. They were hired because the city felt they were better equipped than city staff to provide the services, and it ended up costing the city less. A different example is the Leslie Science and Nature Center, which used to be part of the city’s parks system. It’s now a separate nonprofit, but the city still owns the land and buildings there, and assists with staff and capital improvements.

A public/private partnership isn’t inconsistent with other things the city has done, Smith said. Ann Arbor has an exclusive agreement with Pepsi, for example, as a vendor for the parks system. So it’s not unheard of, Smith said, and he expects to see more of those agreements in the future. And it’s not just about the money – the quality of service needs to be as good as what the city can provide, or better, he said.

Julie Grand asked about retirement costs – would that have to be negotiated? Smith said it was difficult to speak at that level of detail without seeing a specific proposal, but if the golf courses remained as an enterprise fund. And if a worker spent most of his career there, then the fund would bear most of the retirement costs.

Gwen Nystuen noted that Fuller Park and Huron Hills are prime parkland for the city – if the city didn’t own the property, they’d be trying to figure out how to buy the land. Yet they’re now converting them into a quasi-commercial situation. She wanted to know what legal protections are provided to land that’s designated as parkland, as opposed to just public land. What can the public expect? The public has bought these lands, she said, and they have voted to have a say if they’re ever to be sold or if the use changes. Nystuen wanted to know from the city’s legal staff: What is the status of dedicated parkland? (In the audience, Ted Annis raised his hands, giving Nystuen two thumbs up.) Smith said he’d pass along that request.

Doug Chapman said it was his understanding that the reason this RFP came about was because Huron Hills was losing money and it might have to close. This was something they were trying as an alternative – an alternative to closing the golf course. One concern he had was that the term “alternative golf use” was too vague. What does that mean? He suggested it be more clearly defined.

Berla said he wanted to respond to something that Nystuen had said. Everyone knows that parkland can’t be sold – that’s clear. He said he loves to see the public come to PAC meetings, especially since there were constructive comments. But what he counts as the “public will” are the things that the public voted on, like the sale of parkland. The main thing the public votes for are city council positions, and those councilmembers are taking positions on these and other issues. “I hope the public is holding them accountable,” he said. These are the people who are elected – this is democracy.

Berla said he finds it upsetting that they’re talking about what the proper uses of parkland are – it says in the RFP that the use is for golf. That’s exactly what’s in the PROS plan too. He said he finds it strange that they’re talking about this. Regarding commercial uses, what about the farmers market? he asked. It’s really important and a great part of the community, but it’s a public/private partnership. He supports that, saying it benefits the community. What he’d oppose is if he thought there was cronyism – deals that weren’t benefiting the public, but were only benefiting the private entity. In the case of the Huron Hills RFP, it seems like it’s benefiting the public, he said, and it’s a good thing.

Grand clarified that the golf courses are receiving money from the general fund for six years. There’s no guarantee that they’ll continue to receive general fund support beyond that. They can argue about accounting and the municipal service charges, she said, but the point is that based on the accounting that’s used now, Huron Hills is operating at a significant deficit that the parks system couldn’t cover without sacrificing other facilities. Maybe it’s not what people want to hear, she said, but that’s the financial reality. The result of the RFP might be that the city is doing the best it can, and that no one else wants to touch it. Then they’ll have to deal with how to overcome the deficit.

They are trying to keep the process as transparent as possible, Grand said, and she’s open to making arrangements for more public input, if it’s necessary.

Karen Levin said she wanted to acknowledge the work that’s gone into developing the RFP. The intent is to see if there’s a way to manage Huron Hills more efficiently, she said, and if there is, they want people’s ideas. She said she supports that.

Offen asked if PAC could see a revised version of the RFP, after their feedback had been included. Smith said he would send out a revised draft.

Huron Hills RFP: Public Commentary, Round 2

Several people took a second turn at public commentary at the end of the PAC meeting, responding to the commissioners’ discussion.

Nancy Kaplan said she went to the meeting of the golf advisory task force during which the RFP was discussed, and noted that as a member of the public, you can’t participate or ask questions – you’re just an observer. At that meeting it was stated that cash-on-cash, Huron Hills is ahead, she said, and that this fact is not well known. Looking at how the finances are kept is important. Golf is the only recreation facility that’s in an enterprise fund and that must make money, Kaplan stated.

She also pointed out that Huron Hills and Leslie Park are very different courses with very different audiences, and that needs to be kept in mind. It seems that piece by piece, we’re giving away our parkland, she said. It seems there is no protection. When voters supported the idea that there could be no sale of parkland without a public vote, they didn’t realize that everything except a sale would be ok, she said. It’s very disingenuous to say that there’s protection for the parks. Finally, she said, if you work from a flawed premise, no matter how deeply you dig, you won’t come up with a reasonable answer. It’s a flawed premise to say that the way to save Huron Hills is to put out an RFP, which will destroy the vista there. There has to be something that we can count on to protect parkland, she said. She concluded by thanking commissioners for all they were doing.

Betty Richart reminded commissioners that golf is an 18-hole game. Anything that whacks off parts of the course will prevent people from being able to play tournaments there.

Ted Annis responded to comments that Tim Berla made about the city subsidizing golfers. That’s not quite the case, he said. If you apply enterprise accounting to other facilities, like the senior center, they’d have to close. If you apply general fund accounting to the golf operations, then revenues cover their direct out-of-pocket expenses, he said. Add in the half-million-dollar administrative service charge, however, and it looks like they’re losing money. “You’re being misled, completely misled, by this notion that you’re subsidizing the rounds of golf played,” he said. “You’re not.”

Annis also said that they seemed intent on issuing something, though he wished they wouldn’t. If they’re going to, he said, then the request for information (RFI) makes some kind of sense. Finally, he noted that Colin Smith said council gave direction to issue an RFP. But then councilman Mike Anglin said that there was no direction, it was just a discussion. He asked for some clarification on that.

William Arlinghaus said that any proposal he’d make wouldn’t change the golf course in any way – it would probably remain managed by the city. He also asked a question about golf passes, which can now be purchased and used at both Huron Hills and Leslie Park. Would people still be able to do that, if Huron Hills becomes a public/private partnership?

Fuller Road Station

Fuller Road Station wasn’t on PAC’s agenda this month, but commissioner Gwen Nystuen asked for an update. Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, indicated that he’d provide an update during his manager’s report. However, he did not mention the project in his report.

At PAC’s meeting in July, commissioners were briefed on the project by Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager. More recently, site plans were filed with the city’s planning department in early August. [See Chronicle coverage: "Site Plan Filed for Fuller Road Station"]

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Two people spoke about Fuller Road Station during public commentary.

George Gaston said his issues were basically the same as the concerns over Huron Hills – it’s just a different park and a different project. He voiced opposition to Fuller Road Station, saying the same arguments against the RFP for Huron Hills can be applied to Fuller Road Station too. He mentioned that he’d given commissioners a copy of an email he’d sent to the mayor and city council. [.pdf of email] Gaston said he hoped PAC could take a stronger stand on these issues. These projects should go to a public vote, he said, and it seems odd that the city is buying development rights outside the city while granting development rights within the city. “Please pay attention,” he said.

Rita Mitchell said she was there to talk about Fuller Road Station, but her comments were applicable to Huron Hills as well. She thanked commissioners for their attention to Fuller Road Station, and said she knows they represent those who are interested in city parks. Residents have supported Fuller Park with their tax dollars since the early 1960s, she said. It’s a core part of Ann Arbor, near the Huron River. She said she appreciated their concerns about the parks budget and the openness of the public process that they address. However, the resolution that PAC sent to council lacks acknowledgment of the citizens’ interest in parks, indicated by the vote that changed the city charter to require voter input on the sale of parkland.

A memorandum of understanding for the use of parkland for 75 years or more is essentially a sale, Mitchell said. Building a parking structure that will last that long will set a precedent that will apply to all parks. The PAC resolution to council didn’t address the precedent issue, she said. Mitchell asked PAC to change their resolution, and make it a recommendation that actually protects parks. Don’t nibble away at the parks with temporary parking lots or leases. “Really think about what the long-term implications are,” she said.

During the second opportunity for public comment, Mitchell said she’d been looking forward to the update on Fuller Road Station – that’s why she’d stayed for the entire meeting – and she wondered what had happened to that.

West Park, PROS Plan Updates

Earlier in the meeting, parks planner Amy Kuras gave an update on West Park, which has been closed this spring and summer for massive renovations. “There are still big piles of dirt in the park,” she said, “but we’re moving them around.” [For background on the project, see Chronicle coverage: "West Park Renovations Get Fast-Tracked"]

The project is about two weeks behind schedule, Kuras said, but should be completed by the end of October. They discovered poor soils that needed to be removed, which set back their schedule a bit. In addition, recent heavy rains have washed out some of the work, she said.

Major changes to the stormwater system are underway, including installation of large swirl concentrators on the west side of the park. Stormwater that flows through these underground concrete devices is swirled in a cylindrical chamber, filtering out a large amount of sediment, oil, grease and other contaminants. The project also includes construction of bioswales – shallow excavated areas filled with native vegetation – that roughly follow the course of the Allen Creek tributary, which flows through the park in underground pipes.

Other changes include seating for the bandshell and a public art project there, the addition of a boardwalk, new stairs coming down the hill from Huron Street, moving the basketball court out of the floodway, and upgrading the condition of the baseball field.

Commissioner Sam Offen asked if the project was still on budget – roughly $3.5 million, funded in large part with federal stimulus dollars. Kuras reported that they’re within the budget’s 10% contingency at this point, and she doesn’t think they’ll exceed that amount. The city is asking the contractor to look at flood insurance coverage, to see if that might cover some of the costs related to recent heavy rains.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and rec manager, noted that the changes aren’t intended to eliminate water from the park – it will just be managed better, he said.

Kuras also gave a brief update on revisions to the state-mandated Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan, which is done every five years. A draft is finished and being reviewed by city staff, and will then get feedback from the PROS steering committee. After that, the draft will be posted online for public input, Kuras said, probably in September or October. The plan will be presented to PAC and the planning commission later this year, before final approval is sought from city council. [For background on the PROS process, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Planning with the PROS"]

Updates from the Parks & Rec Manager

Colin Smith gave updates on several projects, as part of his manager’s report.

The Argo Dam RFP was issued, and about 12 people attended a pre-bid meeting on Monday, Aug. 16. They toured the site and there were some interesting questions, he said. [For details on the Argo RFP, see Chronicle coverage: "Two Dam Options for Argo"] In the coming weeks, workers will be removing about 75-100 dead or dying trees on the dam’s embankment, as part of the vegetation management plan, Smith said. They might need to close the trail on certain days, depending on the work, he said.

He gave updates on efforts to raise revenues and cut costs at the Ann Arbor Senior Center and Mack Pool, which were both at risk of closing during the last budget cycle. [For details, see Chronicle coverage: "Shoring Up the Ann Arbor Senior Center"]

The final numbers for the FY2010 fiscal year, which ended June 30, will be presented at PAC’s September meeting, Smith said. Overall, parks did very well, he said. Several facilities – including Vets pool, the senior center, and the golf courses – exceeded the revenue that had been budgeted for the year.

Smith also described a new partnership the city has with Stonyfield Farm. The organic yogurt company will be in the city’s parks through Oct. 1, passing out free samples, and will donate $15,000 to either the senior center, Mack Pool or the parks and rec scholarship fund. Residents can “vote” for one of those options by depositing Stonyfield lids in containers at groceries throughout the area. More information about Stonyfield’s efforts in Ann Arbor is on the firm’s website. Smith described it as a nice partnership, giving exposure to some of the city’s parks and rec programs.

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

Absent: David Barrett, councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 21 begins at 4 p.m. at the studios of Community Television Network, 2805 S. Industrial Highway. [confirm date]

Park advisory commissioners Gwen Nystuen, David Barrett and Doug Chapman at Tuesday's meeting of PAC's land acquisition committee, held at Cobblestone Farm. Nystuen has been pushing for more input into the Fuller Road Station project. (Photos by the writer.)

Spurred by concerns that Ann Arbor parks are being shortchanged, members of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) discussed a resolution on Tuesday that would urge city council not to proceed with plans for Fuller Road Station at its proposed site on city-owned land that’s designated as parkland.

The draft resolution also states that if the city council does continue with the project, the city should renegotiate the deal to get additional revenues from the University of Michigan, with those funds being allocated to city parks. The resolution calls for an annual payment of $127,500 from the university – under the current agreement, UM would pay $19,379 per year, starting in 2012.

Park commissioners didn’t take any action, and plan to discuss the draft resolution further at their May 18 meeting.

But Tuesday evening, the city’s planning commission did take action related to Fuller Road Station. They voted unanimously to amend the list of permitted principal uses of public land – specifically, changing a “municipal airports” use to “transportation facilities.” During a public hearing on the issue, several speakers – including park commissioner Gwen Nystuen – objected to the change.

It’s expected that the project – located on the south side of Fuller Road, just east of East Medical Center Drive – will be submitted by the design team on May 17 for review by planning staff. It will likely come before the planning commission at its first meeting in July. A public meeting on the project is set for Thursday, May 6 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor city council chambers, 100 N. Fifth Ave.

Fuller Road Station: Shortchanging the City?

At PAC’s April 20, 2010 meeting, Gwen Nystuen introduced a resolution to form a subcommittee that would evaluate the $46 million Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

If approved by PAC, the subcommittee would review the environmental, financial, legal, operational and visual impacts of the project, as it relates to the city’s parks and recreation program, Fuller Park, and the Huron River valley.

In 1993, Nystuen noted, there were no surface parking lots in that area, other than those around the pool at Fuller Park. Today there are several lots, including those that are leased by UM. “What are we doing?” she asked. “This is awful.” Though the city’s stated goals are to develop parks along the Huron River, she said, “we seem to be filling the space up with a big parking lot.”

The Fuller Road Station, a structure which will have about 1,000 parking spaces but the capacity to eventually contain 1,700 spaces in eight levels, poses legal questions because it’s being proposed on city land that’s designated as parkland, Nystuen said. She also cited financial concerns about how the city would pay for its share of the project. Additionally, she wondered why alternative designs – like one shown at PAC’s March 16, 2010 meeting by architect Peter Pollack – weren’t being considered.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, has made two presentations to PAC, but Nystuen said commissioners just listen and ask questions – they’ve taken no action. It’s been brought to them as though it’s all done, she said. Her proposal for a subcommittee would allow PAC to take a more active role in evaluating the project’s impact on parks.

Nystuen had suggested discussing her resolution at Tuesday’s May 4 meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee, which includes all members of the commission. By that date, however, she had worked with commissioners Sam Offen and Julie Grand – PAC’s new chair – to craft a different resolution. Rather than forming a subcommittee to study Fuller Road Station, the draft resolution handed out on Tuesday aims at halting the project, or at the least renegotiating its terms. There are two “resolved” clauses:

Resolved, that PAC recommends that the City Council does not proceed in its approval of plans for the Fuller Road Station at the site where it is currently proposed.

Resolved, that if such plans are approved by Council, that the agreement with the University of Michigan is renegotiated to include a significant increase in revenue allocated to the Parks and Recreation Department. 100% of payments should come from the University of Michigan. Revenue at the current FY 2010 rate of approximately $125 per space would result in an annual payment of $127,500 to the Parks Department.

According to a footnote in the resolution, the figure of $125 per space was calculated based on the city’s current lease agreement with the university for the surface lots, but doesn’t take into account the value of (1) covered parking or (2) the university’s ability to park cars in the structure 24/7.  Those two factors could increase the payment “by a substantial margin,” the resolution states.

The resolution lays out several concerns that have been voiced by some commissioners at previous PAC meetings:

• UM parking on city-owned lots is currently restricted to workday hours, but at Fuller Road Station, the university would be allowed to use the parking structure 24 hours a day.
• Fuller Road Station wouldn’t offer any amenities to users of the city parks, and parking is not one of the goals outlined in the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan.
• PAC has “serious reservations” about setting a precedent for agreeing to a long-term lease of parkland.
• Building a permanent parking structure on parkland raises concerns that the city is potentially violating its zoning ordinances.
• There are safety issues for park users, pedestrians and bicycle commuters, due to the increased traffic.
• The city’s parks and recreation unit will lose revenue, compared to what it currently receives from UM’s lease of surface lots along Fuller Road. Currently, UM pays the city $31,057 to lease 250 parking spaces in the “south lot,” where Fuller Road Station is planned. The memorandum of understanding with UM for Fuller Road Station calls for the university to pay $19,379, with a 3% annual increase. In addition, because of the added parking capacity at the new structure, there’s no guarantee that UM will continue to lease spaces from the city’s two “north lots” on Fuller Road, which bring in roughly $38,500 each year.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners at Tuesday's meeting of the PAC land acquisition committee. Clockwise from far left: Sam Offen, Julie Grand, Ginny Trocchio (staff of The Conservation Fund), Tim Berla, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, David Barrett, Mike Anglin, Doug Chapman.

On Tuesday, Julie Grand began discussion by saying she wanted feedback from other commissioners. The first reaction from some was this: Isn’t it a done deal? Will this resolution have any effect?

Grand said that’s why there are two parts – first, urging council to hold off on approval at the current site, and barring that, at least to renegotiate a better deal to get more revenue from the university.

Gwen Nystuen noted that when the concept was first introduced to the community in early 2009, it was presented as a transit station that included some parking, with a pedestrian bridge to the university’s medical complex to the south. The idea of a train station for commuter rail was part of the original plan – it was only later that the project was split into phases, with the initial phases being primarily a parking structure and bus station. City officials hope a train station will eventually be built, but no funding has been secured for that.

The push for parking is coming from the university, Nystuen said, adding that UM had been planning to build additional parking along Wall Street, near the Kellogg Eye Center. [The Chronicle's first encounter with the Fuller Road Station project was at a Jan. 27, 2009 meeting for residents of the Wall Street area. At that meeting, Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager, briefed neighbors on initial plans for the transit station.]

On Tuesday, Nystuen said that the memorandum of understanding between the city and UM stated that as part of the agreement, the university would suspend its pursuit of parking along Wall Street “at this time.” But she noted there’s no guarantee, and UM might eventually build even more parking there: “They, of course, can do whatever they want.” [.pdf file of the memorandum of understanding on Fuller Road Station]

Commissioners also discussed the issue of building on land that’s designated as parkland. Grand noted that the city is allowed to violate its own zoning laws. Offen agreed, saying it wasn’t an issue of zoning but an issue of land use. Nystuen added that in the city code, parkland has a special status. The relevant section from Chapter 55 of the city code is this (emphasis added):

5:10.13.  PL public land district.

(1) Intent. This district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and land and permit the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions and services.
(2) Permitted principal uses. (a) Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.

Offen noted that even though the land wasn’t being sold, construction of a parking structure certainly violated the spirit of the voter-approved amendment to the city charter, which requires a voter referendum on the sale of parkland.

David Barrett asked whether it would be useful to have Eli Cooper come back to a PAC meeting and answer questions. Cooper’s past presentations to PAC had been more akin to a “magic show,” he said.

At this point Tim Berla weighed in, saying that he’d talked to Mayor John Hieftje when they’d gone out for beers at Casey’s on the occasion of Scott Rosencrans’ last meeting. [Rosencrans, who previously chaired PAC, did not seek reappointment when his term ended in April.] Berla reported that the mayor had said there’s still a lot in play in the Fuller Road Station project – it’s not a done deal. But Hieftje did indicate that the university’s participation is critical to eventually getting the rail service, Berla said.

Nystuen was glad to hear that the mayor thinks there’s room for change in the project.

Asking for A Better Deal

Saying they seemed to be in agreement that the current deal was bad for the city’s parks, Grand asked for feedback on the suggested revenue request contained in the draft resolution.

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

They’d settled on the $125-per-space amount because it was better than the current deal, but “not laughable,” she said. It was calculated by taking the current annual amount that UM pays the city – $31,057 – for leasing the south lot on Fuller Road, divided by the number of spaces there: 250.

Doug Chapman pointed out that the original numbers in the memorandum of understanding were based on building an intermodal station – that’s not happening at this point, he said. So it makes sense to raise the amount now, then renegotiate later if the train station is actually built.

Sam Offen also noted that given the city’s current financial condition, they need more money for parks. And with the current deal, “we’re getting short-changed,” he said. The city isn’t even keeping revenues at the same rate – they’ll be getting less money.

Offen said he’d like to see more information on rates that the university currently charges for its own parking permits, as well as rates that the city charges to park in its structures. Grand said she had that information, and would provide it to commissioners. [.pdf file of UM 2009-10 parking permits] [link to Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority website with information on parking permits]

The group also discussed the value of the land – both financially and as a community asset – as a factor in opposing the location of a parking structure at that site. Nystuen said that city staff had initially said an appraisal of the land wasn’t relevant because there was no intent to sell. However, they did report that in 2004, the property had been considered by the city for an affordable housing project and was appraised at that time at $4.25 million.

“It’s prime land,” Offen said.

The fact that it’s land along the river – the Huron River runs nearby, on the opposite side of Fuller Road – should make it inviolable, Nystuen said.

Tim Berla noted that it wasn’t as if they’re paving paradise – that happened in 1993, when the surface parking lot was installed there, he said. Grand agreed, but pointed out that a surface lot can be dug up in a day. That’s not the case with a permanent parking structure.

The commissioners voted to table the discussion until PAC’s next meeting, on Tuesday, May 18. The meeting begins at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St.

Planning Commission: The Policy, Not the Parcel

Later that day, at their Tuesday evening meeting in city council chambers, the Ann Arbor planning commission addressed a change to language in Chapter 55 of the city code, which relates to the Fuller Road Station project. Two words were proposed to be changed under (h) in the list of permitted principal uses for public land (PL):

5:10.13.  PL public land district.

(1)   Intent.  This district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and land and permit the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions and services.

(2)   Permitted principal uses.

(a)   Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.

(b)   Natural open space, such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.

(c)   Developed open space, such as: arboreta, botanical and zoological gardens.

(d)   Educational services, such as: public primary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.

(e)   Cultural services, such as: museums and art galleries.

(f)   Public-service institutions, such as: hospitals, sanatoria, homes for the elderly, children’s homes and correctional institutions.

(g)   Essential services, buildings containing essential services and electrical substations.

(h)   Municipal airports. Transportation facilities.

(i)   Civic center.

(j)   Government offices and courts.

PL Text Change: Public Hearing

Seven people spoke at the public hearing on the proposed text amendment, all of them raising concerns about the change.

Rita Mitchell and John Satarino read parts from the same prepared statement, representing the Ad Hoc Citizen Group for Sensible Planning. The language change will broaden the types of uses allowed on property zoned as public land, Mitchell said. Noting that the staff report explicitly mentions the Fuller Road Station, she said the goal isn’t to clear up the regulatory language, but rather to assure that the project passes muster during review by funding sources.

They cited several concerns: (1) the planning commission isn’t adequately reviewing background information in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan and project documents; (2) building structures on that site would violate city zoning; (3) the planning commission should challenge the concept of “municipal immunity,” which exempts the city from its own zoning; (4) the commission hasn’t followed a city charter-mandated process for making this kind of amendment; and (5) the commission hasn’t sufficiently defined the meaning of a “transportation facility.”

They urged the commission to table the resolution.

Gwen Nystuen, the park advisory commissioner who has been instrumental in bringing forward the PAC resolution regarding Fuller Road Station, told planning commissioners that she was mostly coming to them with questions. What is a transportation facility, she asked – are there any conditions regarding how it would function? What do they think the public’s understanding is of parks? Most people see the PL zoning and think it’s parkland, when parkland is actually a special category of the PL classification, with its own conditions, she said. How can the city legally go about building structures on land that’s dedicated parkland?

Eppie Potts said the change would open the door to any public land being used for any purpose that’s listed. She referred to it as “repurposing.” As another example, she pointed to the recent proposal by the city administrator to use Allmendinger and Frisinger parks for parking on football Saturdays. She said that the planning commission had previously approved rezoning parkland to public land, because staff had given them assurance that it would remain parkland if it were designated as such in the PROS plan. She asked them to explain why this was no longer the case for the Fuller Road Station site.

Alice Ralph told commissioners that changing a couple of words might not seem significant, but it is. She recalled listening to deliberations on the ballot language for the charter amendment to require a voter referendum on the sale of parkland. By chipping away at the language, the final version provided “little or no additional protection for parkland,” she said. The language change being proposed really amounted to spot zoning, and conflicted with the PROS plan. She urged commissioners to understand the public’s expectations – the public really does expect parkland to be used for parks.

Jim Mogensen said that the PL zoning conveyed expectations about what kinds of things will happen on that land. Public schools are on public land, but charter schools are not. The Blake Transit Center is, but the Greyhound bus station isn’t. Mogensen recalled the concepts that students in local developer Peter Allen’s class at UM had come up with to develop the Fuller Road site – he noted that their ideas entailed using public/private partnerships, and it seems that the city is moving toward that. It might end up being a way that the city deals with funding the project, he said.

Margaret Wong said she had a gut feeling that the difference between park and parking structure was getting smaller. She urged commissioners to consider unintended consequences of the change – the need for precision of language is relevant.

PL Text Change: Commissioner Deliberations

Bonnie Bona, chair of the planning commissioner, noted that generally speaking, property zoning has nothing to do with whether land is designated as parkland. Parkland is designated as such under the PROS plan, which is currently being updated.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, clarified the process that would need to occur to shift parkland to another use. If parkland were being sold, it would require the approval of voters. Otherwise, a park evolves based on what the community is looking for, she said, and by working its way through the parks planning process.

Regarding Fuller Road Station, the surface lot was put there about 15 years ago, Rampson said. It was a decision make by UM and the city, with input from the park advisory commission. Fuller Road Station had evolved the same way. She said there has not been a park turned over for another use. Like what? As Rampson paused to come up with an example, some residents attending the meeting called out: “a parking structure!” The example Rampson settled on was “governmental office.” She noted that the conference center at Gallup Park might be an example. [On the city's website, it's described as a meeting room.]

From left: Jeff Kahan of the city's planning staff; planning commissioners Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods.

Wendy Woods noted that several of the speakers at the public hearing had been past or current members of the park advisory commission, as had she. Woods wondered whether the project had been vetted by PAC. She said the question was especially relevant given that the planning commission had just recently discussed the importance of communicating and coordinating among other city commissions, like the energy and environmental commissions. [Woods was alluding to an April 13 joint meeting of the planning, energy and environmental commissions. See Chronicle coverage: "Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor"]

Rampson said that presentations had been made to PAC about Fuller Road Station, to get their comments. [Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager, made presentations at PAC's Sept. 15, 2009 and March 16, 2010 meetings. See Chronicle coverage: "City Seeks Feedback on Transit Center" and "Concerns Voiced over Fuller Road Station"] Rampson also pointed to the upcoming May 6 public meeting as another way that public input is being sought.

Clearly, she said, the project is viewed as a continuation of the parking use that’s currently on the site. She said the language change in the zoning code is being proposed because it was pointed out to staff that transportation facilities weren’t part of the current list of permitted principal uses.

Woods asked whether the language change needed to happen before the planning staff reviewed the project – it’s expected to be submitted on May 17. Rampson said the city was exempt from zoning.

Tony Derezinski – a planning commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on city council – picked up on that comment. The basic principal is that as a city project on public land, the city is exempt from zoning. “If it comes right down to it,” he said, “this (language change) is not necessary.” It’s being done to clarify to the public what’s happening, he added.

From left: Planning commissioners Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal.

Evan Pratt acknowledged that people had raised solid concerns that need to be discussed. The city needs to be careful in making any change. However, his view was that the commission was being asked to make a determination on policy, not on a specific parcel. In addition, the city has gone above and beyond what it’s required to do, given its exemption from zoning, he said.

Parkland is protected by virtue of its principal use, Pratt said, but in the case of the Fuller Road Station site, its principal use is parking – UM leases the lot for its employees. He didn’t feel that by moving forward they would be opening up the parks to be used for any purpose. Decisions are made project by project, he said, parcel by parcel.

Erica Briggs agreed that a lot of legitimate concerns had been brought up – some that likely couldn’t be resolved at this meeting. Among them was an expectation that parking structures wouldn’t be built on parkland. Obviously, the language change they were voting on was designed to facilitate the Fuller Road Station, she said. A parking lot has been tolerated because it’s reversible – a parking structure is not. She recalled that at a previous meeting, commissioners had been assured that if public land was designated as parkland in the PROS plan, then it was protected. Now, that doesn’t seem to be the case, she said, and they should openly address that.

Jean Carlberg said the term “transportation facilities” made more sense than the outmoded “municipal airports.” The change to her seemed unrelated to the Fuller Road Station project. It seemed that many of the people objecting to the word change believed that if the language wasn’t altered, it would somehow hamper the project, Carlberg said. She didn’t believe it would matter one way or another: “That train has left the station and is on its own track.”

Diane Giannola agreed, saying she looked at it from a bigger picture perspective. The new wording allows the city to put a bus station or other transportation facility on any piece of public land. It allows more flexibility, and isn’t tied directly to Fuller Road Station.

Woods said it was difficult not to link the wording change to Fuller Road Station – the project was specifically cited in the staff report, she noted. [The staff report states: "This proposed amendment would ensure that projects such as Fuller Road Station are consistent with the permitted principal use section of the PL zoning district."]

Bonnie Bona, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Bonnie Bona said it wasn’t in the planning commission’s purview to deal with restrictions on the uses or sale of parkland – that’s up to the park advisory commission and city council. She voiced support for the term “transportation facilities,” especially since the city was moving into a time when there would be more alternative transportation options. She’d like to keep the definition as open as possible, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to change “municipal airports” to “transportation facilities” in Chapter 55 of the city code. The amendment will next be considered for approval by city council.

Public Commentary: Coda

During the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the meeting, three people again addressed Fuller Road Station.

Acknowledging that it wouldn’t make any difference, John Satarino said he wanted to correct some statements that planning commissioners had made as motivations for their vote. It was never intended for the parking lot at Fuller Road to be permanent, he said. In fact, the university coerced the city into providing the parking lot there, he said, as part of a land swap deal to save some centuries-old burr oak trees near a planned expansion of the VA Medical Center. [The headline of a June 26, 1993 Ann Arbor News article states: "Oak trees to be spared from ax – A request from U-M officials for a temporary parking lot may be the key to saving condemned burr oak trees." The article describes negotiations between the city and university as "tortuous."]

Regarding principal use, greenspace just sitting by itself is a principal use, Satarino said – a very special one. Parking is secondary. He said he was also bothered because he didn’t feel that commissioners had read all of the available information on the project. To make it easier to get federal funding, the city needs the land to be given status as a transportation center on public land. The wording change in the city code is very clearly a device to get that, he said.

Lou Glorie said it seems like parkland is being dissolved into public land.

Rita Mitchell argued that the commission’s action affected precedent. The parking lot at Fuller Road was once a park. Think about what this means for the future of Allmendinger and Frisinger parks, she said. It might not happen now, but what about in 15 years, if the university decides it needs more parking for Michigan Stadium? Parkland should be thought of as a principal use, and that should lead the city’s thinking as they move into the future.

Commissioner Response to Public Commentary

Bonnie Bona asked Erica Briggs to report to the PROS plan committee the concerns that had been raised that evening. [Briggs is the planning commission's representative on the PROS plan committee.]

Bona asked what the timeline was for putting together the PROS plan update. Briggs reported that the staff is doing a survey to seek public input. [An online version is available here.]

Wendy Rampson said that Amy Kuras, the city parks planner who’s leading the update efforts, hopes to meet with the planning commission as a focus group on the PROS plan, perhaps at a June working session.

Alex de Parry checks messages on his cell phone before the start of the Ann Arbor planning commission meeting on Tuesday. (Photos by the writer.)

Alex de Parry, the developer of Heritage Row – a project on the east side of Fifth Avenue, south of William – will now seek approval from city council, though he still faces opposition from neighbors and others in the community.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the commission continued a broad effort to rezone parcels of city-owned parkland as “public land” – including one known as the “squarest “park in Ann Arbor. Commissioners also addressed concerns raised by residents living near two of the properties being rezoned: Arbor Hills Nature Area and Kilburn Park. Action on those two parcels was postponed.

Also postponed was a proposed site plan for expansion at Glacier Hills retirement community, which plans to construct a new skilled nursing care building within its complex on the city’s east side. Planning staff had some unresolved issue with the proposal, including the need to increase the amount of required bicycle parking. It was noted that residents there might not have a high demand for bike spaces.

Heritage Row

Alex de Parry has been seeking planned unit development (PUD) zoning for his residential project on South Fifth Avenue, now called Heritage Row, for more than two years. It’s the third time this project has been brought forward, in various iterations – including as the former City Place development.

The current project calls for renovating seven historic homes, repositioning them on the site, and building three new 3.5-story apartment buildings behind those houses, with an underground parking garage. In total, there will be a maximum 82 apartments with no more than 163 bedrooms. [For a more detailed description of the project, see Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Gets Postponed" and "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

At their Feb. 18, 2010 meeting, planning commissioners voted to postpone action, asking the developer to work with city staff to clarify several issues raised during that meeting. On Tuesday, the group got an updated staff report, heard from several people during a public hearing on Heritage Row – the majority opposed to the project – and ultimately approved the site plan and PUD rezoning.

Staff Report on Heritage Row

Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff reviewed the developer’s responses to issues that commissioners had raised last month. He said all questions had been answered to the satisfaction of the planning staff, which was recommending approval of the project.

Specifically, a light tan brick had been chosen for the new buildings, with the goal of helping the buildings blend into the background. Windows will now be a more traditional double-hung style on all four sides of the new buildings.

To address privacy concerns that commissioners had raised on behalf of the residents on Hamilton Place, located to the east of Heritage Row, the back lot line will be planted with 30 evergreen Arborvitae shrubs. Those will grow to be about 20 feet high, Kowalski said.

Another change: the development agreement and PUD supplemental regulations for the project include a commitment to restore all materials on the historical houses according to standards of rehabilitation set by the Secretary of the Interior. This had been a request made by Kirk Westphal. [The full staff report is available to download from the city's website.]

Finally, Kowalski reported that he’d had a last-minute conversation with de Parry that wasn’t reflected in the staff report. De Parry has offered to use wood siding on the new buildings, instead of brick. Kowalski asked commissioners for feedback on that possibility.

Public Hearing on Heritage Row

Eleven people spoke during the public hearing on Heritage Row, most of them opposed to the project. Many had spoken at previous planning commission meetings as well. Here’s a sampling from Tuesday’s hearing:

Tom Luczak said that regardless of the color of the brick, the three new buildings behind the historic homes really stand out, in a way that’s incompatible with the neighborhood. He said he appreciated the offer to adhere to Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation for the existing homes, but that it was important for the new buildings to adhere to those standards as well.

Further, Luczak asked who would determine whether those standards had been met. The city’s historic district commission could do that, he noted – but only if that area was designated as an historic district. That’s not a sure thing, he said. [A study committee has been looking at whether to create a new historic district along Fourth and Fifth avenues, and has issued a preliminary report recommending that such a district be created. City council will ultimately decide the issue.]

Jack Eaton urged the commission to hold off on a vote until a decision had been made about the proposed historic district – a vote now would be premature, he said. The city is in the process of discussing urban density. There are other areas that have been designated for dense developments, but that section of the Fifth Avenue corridor isn’t one of them. A PUD would be an extraordinary departure from the area’s current zoning, he said, and should only be approved if the project is compelling. Heritage Row isn’t a compelling project, and doesn’t meet PUD standards, he contended.

Eaton said that commissioners shouldn’t compare the current project with de Parry’s previous proposal – it’s the PUD standards that should be considered, not whether Heritage Row is better than City Place. He asked commissioners to reject the proposal.

Eppie Potts listed several aspects of the project that she said deviated from current zoning in an unacceptable way. Issues included much greater density, greatly reduced setbacks, and deviations from the city’s central area plan. Nor would the proposal meet Secretary of the Interior standards, she said. The plan calls for moving four houses on the site, so that all seven historic homes would be aligned. “It would be like a pseudo-historic theme park, looking very plastic,” Potts said. She questioned why the project was being rushed through, before a decision had been made on designating that area as an historic district.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who is a member of the city’s historic district commission, said she agreed with the comments made by previous speakers opposing the project. As a resident of a near-downtown neighborhood, she said zoning needed to be kept in scale. She reported that she’d recently been to the top floor of the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research building, with a view looking down onto the Fifth Avenue neighborhood – it’s amazingly intact, she said, with no out-of-scale buildings.

Tom Whitaker reported that he had attended a recent meeting that the R4C study committee had held with local landlords. He said that the landlords had spoken out against oversized development. This type of development hurts them. Whitaker distributed a handout he’d made of residential projects in or around the downtown that had been approved, but not built – almost 1,200 units. There’s a pent-up supply, he said, but not a pent-up demand. The only people who want to build in neighborhoods are developers looking for cheap land. He also cited a range of detriments to the community caused by Heritage Row, including the project’s height and setbacks.

Aside from the project’s developer, Alex de Parry, the only speaker during the public hearing who supported Heritage Row was Kyle V. Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. The project incorporates several goals supported by the chamber, he said, including greater density in the downtown area and the addition of workforce affordable housing, especially for young professionals. The project’s community benefits include more efficient land and energy use, preservation of the historic streetscape and the generation of property tax revenues. He urged the commission to approve the project.

Commission Deliberations on Heritage Row

Bonnie Bona first asked staff to clarify some issues that had been raised during the public hearing. One question was whether the developer could later add large mechanicals – for heating and air conditioning, for example – to the top of the new buildings, going higher than the currently proposed maximum height of 39.8 feet. Kowalski clarified that nothing can go above that maximum height of 39.8 feet.

Several people during the public hearing had asked the planning commission hold off on a vote until a decision about creating an historic district in that area is made. Bona explained that the Heritage Row project had been submitted to the planning commission, and they were required to act on it. She asked the staff what would happen to the project if the historic district were formed.

Diane Giannola, a planning commissioner who also serves on the city’s historic district commission, clarified for Bona that if an historic district is established, the developer would need to get a certificate of appropriateness from the HDC before he could proceed. Without that, the city wouldn’t issue building permits.

There was some discussion about whether the development would include a geothermal system. From the supplemental regulations:

A renewable energy source shall be utilized as the primary energy source for the building. The renewable energy source may be located on-site, such as geothermal energy for heating and cooling systems, or off-site such as purchasing renewably produced energy for electricity, or a combination thereof.

De Parry told commissioners that because of the size of the site, there wasn’t sufficient room to install a geothermal system. The buildings will be constructed to comply with the federal Energy Star program, he said. Jean Carlberg asked about the level of insulation in the historic homes. De Parry said the goal was to achieve R-30 levels in the sides and R-48 in the ceilings. Carlberg asked that those specifics be written into the supplemental regulations.

Erica Briggs asked who would determine whether the project complied with Secretary of the Interior standards. Kowalski said that if the historic district gets created, then the historic district commission would handle that. If not, then the city’s staff would review it.

After some additional issues were clarified, commissioners began stating their positions on the project.

Eric Mahler said he saw several benefits of the project, including affordable housing – the project has committed to construct 18% of its units as affordable housing, somewhat higher than the city-required 15%. Other benefits were energy efficiency, underground parking and preservation of the historical houses. Mahler said he was concerned about the historic district issue, but that it would be an arbitrary act on their part to hold up the project because of that.

From left: Planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs. Woods and Briggs were the two commissioners who voted against the Heritage Row project.

Wendy Woods had a different view. Things that are cited as community benefits are things that the developer should be doing anyway, she said. She wasn’t convinced that the project met PUD standards, and she was concerned about the size and massing of the new buildings. “To me it’s just out of scale with the neighborhood.” She planned to vote against it, she said.

Erica Briggs said it shouldn’t be a surprise that she too would not be supporting Heritage Row, noting that the project doesn’t conform with the city’s central area plan. She read from the relevant section:

In various locations, houses are overshadowed by larger commercial, residential or institutional buildings that are out of scale with existing surrounding development. In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, out-of-scale construction alters the quality of living conditions in adjacent structures. Often it is not so much the use that impacts negatively on the neighborhoods, but the massing of the new buildings.

She also cited a letter written by Jill Thacher, the city’s historic district coordinator. Among other things, Briggs agreed with Thacher’s comments regarding the importance of relationships among historic houses. Heritage Row isn’t context-sensitive, Briggs said. [.pdf copy of Thacher's letter]

Finally, she said it was important to note that there was a study committee reviewing the city’s R4C zoning – the project is not consistent with that zoning.

Kirk Westphal weighed in next, first by stating his preference for a darker brick on the exterior of the new buildings. He noted that it wasn’t in the commission’s purview to examine whether there was a market for these apartments, as some neighbors had suggested – that wasn’t among the criteria for determining a PUD, he said.

Westphal said that some PUD standards stood out more than others for him. By preserving the historic houses, the project is extending the life of those structures – that held a lot of weight with him, and was a major benefit to the street. Putting the parking underground was another benefit in terms of land use, he said.

Westphal said he was disappointed that the geothermal system didn’t work out, but Energy Star buildings would be a major upgrade. He concluded by saying he gave high deference to the city’s planning staff, who had been looking at these issues longer than most of the commissioners – and the staff didn’t always recommend approval.

Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on city council, said the project had improved and that it was about as fine-tuned as it could get. He also cited deference for the staff’s opinion, saying that they’d gone over “every jot and tittle” of the development agreement. As for the R4C study committee – mentioned by Tom Whitaker during the public hearing – he noted that both he and Jean Carlberg serve on it, and that it’s not clear when that work will be finished. Heritage Row deserves the planning commission’s support, he said.

Jean Carlberg said she’s thought long and hard about how the new buildings might dominate the streetscape, and concluded that they won’t be noticed. She gave the example of driving down Division past the McKinley building – you barely notice the taller apartment building behind it, she said. She acknowledged that Tom Whitaker will be able to see the buildings out of his bedroom window, but “the rest of us won’t.”

Carlberg added that Heritage Row makes better use of the land that’s now used for parking behind the historic homes. She also cited the benefits of affordable housing, underground parking, energy efficiency and fire suppression systems – if there were a fire, the existing historical buildings would be gone instantly, she said.

The existing homes are part of Ann Arbor’s history, Carlberg said, and preserving the streetscape was important for her, though she noted that there’s nothing magic about the current setbacks. Another factor in favor of Heritage Row is that they’ve not heard any complaints from residents of Hamilton Place, she said. Calling the project a “great win” for the community, Carlberg said they’d been talking about it for a long time, and now they should move it forward.

Diane Giannola agreed with the benefits mentioned by other commissioners, and found it to be a good project for the area.

Bonnie Bona asked de Parry about the number of units in the complex – she was concerned that with a maximum number of 163 bedrooms, it would be possible to build 27 units with six bedrooms each. She acknowledged that his proposal called for no six-bedroom or four-bedroom apartments, and only one five-bedroom apartment. Would he be willing to make that a part of the supplemental regulations? De Parry agreed, noting that the five-bedroom apartment is in one of the historical homes, as it’s currently configured.

Bona also asked why he was now considering wood siding, as opposed to brick. She asked which he preferred. De Parry said it was an attempt to address Erica Briggs’ concerns about the aesthetics of the new buildings, as well as some of Jill Thacher’s comments. They were trying to make it more like Braun Court, he said, but he’d be willing to do whatever pleased the commissioners. Bona asked the project’s architect, Brad Moore, to weigh in. Moore said his primary aim was to please his client, but that the original design had been brick.

In giving her opinion of the project, Bona said she agreed with what other commissioners had said about the benefits of the project. There’s nothing in the central area plan that argues against density, she said, and preserving the streetscape is a huge benefit. The project will create smaller apartments, which the commission has been asking for. It’s come a long way from when it was first proposed, she said.

Outcome: The project was approved on a 6-2 vote, with Erica Briggs and Wendy Woods dissenting. Commissioner Evan Pratt left the meeting before the vote was taken.

Rezoning to Public Land

Earlier in Tuesday’s meeting, in what planning staff describes as an effort to “clean up” zoning of city-owned property that’s used as parkland, the planning commission approved the rezoning of six parcels of parks and nature areas. The new zoning will be “public land” or PL. Previously, these parcels had different types of zoning, ranging from office to residential to agricultural.

The action at Tuesday’s meeting was to be the final part of a broader effort to rezone or annex about 50 parks or portions of parks. Other parcels have been rezoned or annexed at previous meetings. However, because of concerns raised by residents of the Arbor Hills neighborhood, where two of the parcels are located, the commission postponed actions on those two items.

In response to some of the concerns, Bonnie Bona, the commission’s chair, asked planning staff to clarify how the land would remain protected as parkland.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff explained that there are three ways that parkland is protected. The primary way is its inclusion in the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, known as the PROS plan. All parkland is listed in this state-mandated plan, which is updated every five years – an update is currently in progress, led by parks planner Amy Kuras.

In addition, city-owned property is designated as parkland by city council resolution, DiLeo said. And in some cases, deed restrictions placed on the property will limit its use to parkland. DiLeo also noted that parkland is under the stewardship of the park advisory commission, an appointed body that makes recommendations to the city council.

DiLeo said the current mix of zoning doesn’t reflect the land’s actual use as parkland. Rezoning parkland to “public land” better reflects that use, she said.

Land that’s designated as parkland – either by council resolution or by being listed in the PROS plan – also means that it is protected by city charter, which requires voter approval for the sale of parkland, DiLeo said. When asked by Bona whether parkland might be removed from the PROS plan, both DiLeo and planning manager Wendy Rampson said they couldn’t recall that ever happening.

Six Parcels Rezoned

Planning commissioners voted to rezone the following six parcels. The changes require final approval by city council.

Bonnie Bona, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, reads a resolution to rezone parcels of city-owned parkland.

Arbor Oaks Park: A three-acre park in the Arbor Oaks neighborhood, east of Stone School Road and north of Ellsworth Road on the city’s south side. Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling).

Berkshire Creek Nature Area: A five-acre nature area next to the Berkshire Creek development, on the east side of South Huron Parkway, north of Washtenaw Avenue. Currently zoned R4A (multi-family dwelling).

Bluffs Nature Area: The 41-acre parcel – located on the east side of North Main Street, between Huron View Boulevard and West Summit Street – is currently zoned for several different uses, including agriculture, office, C1 (local business) and R4A (multi-family dwelling). Though most of the land for this nature area was acquired in the 1990s, a one-acre section on the north edge was recently donated by the nursing home on Huron View Boulevard.

Glacier Highlands Park: A 1.6-acre park – known as the “squarest in Ann Arbor,” DiLeo said – is located in the Glacier Highlands neighborhood, east of Green Road and north of Glazier Way. Currently zoned R1B (single-family dwelling).

Mallets Creek Nature Area: A three-acre nature area next to the Brentwood Square development, on the west side of South Huron Parkway and north of Washtenaw Avenue. Currently zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling).

Scheffler Park: A small 0.3-acre piece of land was recently acquired as an addition to the 5.5-acre park north of the Darlington subdivision, at the northeast corner of Edgewood Drive and South Huron Parkway. The 0.3-acre parcel is currently zoned as office district.

City Parkland within Arbor Hills

Two parcels – Arbor Hills Nature Area and Kilburn Park – were considered separately, in response to concerns from residents. Located in the Arbor Hills neighborhood in northeast Ann Arbor, north of Green Road, both parcels are currently zoned as planned unit development (PUD). Arbor Hills Nature Area is a six-acre area; Kilburn Park is two acres.

Map of Kilburn Park and Arbor Hills Nature Area. (Links to larger image)

Seven people spoke during a public hearing on the rezoning. Though the hearing was for commentary on rezoning of any of the parcels, five of the speakers were from the Arbor Hills neighborhood. Several other people from that neighborhood attended Tuesday’s meeting, but did not formally address the commission.

Edward J. Zelmanski, an attorney from Plymouth representing the Arbor Hills Condominium Association, said it was inappropriate to rezone the parcels to public land – he asked that the action be tabled, or denied. Rezoning the property to public land would open it up to other possible uses, he said.

The Arbor Hills development was established as a PUD, Zelmanski noted, and the two parks shouldn’t be separated from that. Zelmanski also raised the issue of whether there had been proper notice given. Some residents didn’t receive notice of the proposed zoning change, even though they were entitled to be notified – as members of the condo association, they were part owners of property adjacent to the parkland, he said.

Jane Klingsten, co-president of the Arbor Hills Condominium Association, asked for postponement. She said they’d received some documents related to this issue that they hadn’t yet had time to review. Residents needed to be assured that their access and easement rights were protected, she said. In addition, Klingsten wondered about the distinction between “park” and “nature area.” Though the parcel was now being referred to by city staff as a nature area, Klingsten said there’s a sign at the end of Ashburnam Road that calls it “Arbor Hills Park.” She wanted to make sure the designation remained as a park.

Two other residents spoke about concerns that the parks, if zoned as “public land,” could be sold or developed. Another Arbor Hills resident, Marty Smith, said he hadn’t planned to speak, but that he thought Zelmanski was incorrect – publicly owned land shouldn’t be zoned as a PUD. Smith said he’d looked at the zoning ordinances, and that the proposed change seemed in line with the land’s actual use. He supported the rezoning.

Commission and Staff Discussion on Public Land Rezoning

City planner Alexis DiLeo again outlined the ways in which parkland is protected. She said that the “public land” zoning is also used for land owned by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor District Library, Ann Arbor Public Schools and Washtenaw County.

Several commissioners voiced support for postponing action on the two Arbor Hills parcels, and had follow-up questions for staff.

Kirk Westphal, picking up on a concern raised by a resident during the public hearing, asked whether the neighborhood’s stormwater detention pond is located within the city-owned area, and whether there are utility easements running through the park. DiLeo said she’d check on those issues.

Jean Carlberg asked about whether proper notice had been given. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said that city staff would look into that issue. They typically send notice to property owners within 300 feet of the parcel. The condo association was also sent notice, she said, but it’s possible that there are homes in the perimeter of the neighborhood that weren’t contacted.

Saying it was great to see people come out to make sure that parkland is protected, Erica Briggs asked for clarification about whether there was greater or less protection under the designation of “public land,” as compared to previous zoning. DiLeo said there was better protection as public land. Previously, when the land was zoned as residential or office, for example, there might have been the impression that it could be developed, she said. The best protection, though, is being listed in the PROS plan, and being under the stewardship of the park advisory commission.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend rezoning of six parcels to “public land.” They voted to postpone action on the Kilburn Park and Arbor Hills Nature Area.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Mike Bergren, assistant field services manager for the city of Ann Arbor, assures city council that there'll be enough salt on hand, even if it snows again.

City council meeting (March 17, 2009) The “tomfoolery” that the headline indicates is nothing more than a play on words: Tom Wall expressed appreciation on behalf of All Star Hot Dogs; separately, Shoshana Hurand made a presentation about the upcoming FestiFools parade. City council’s Monday meeting also featured a brief performance on harmonica by Peter “Madcat” Ruth and a puppet-head of vast proportions resembling Mayor John Hiefte [photo after the break].

But woven into the mix was less lighthearted fare: People’s Food Co-op Board elections, protection for migratory birds, appointments to a zoning advisory committee, potholes, the vehicle fleet and road salt. Council authorized an expenditure that Mike Bergren, assistant field operations manager with the city of Ann Arbor, said was estimated to get us at least through the rest of the winter – saying it was possible that there’d be ice storms in April.

Road Salt

City council had before it a resolution to approve a $46,560 purchase from Morton International Inc. for road salt. Mike Bergren, assistant field services manager for the city of Ann Arbor, was called to the podium to explain the purchase. [Bergren's name will be familiar to Chronicle readers as the city staffer who called a street sweeper in for clean-up of a concrete spill.] Councilmember Sabra Briere said that she hoped the purchase didn’t mean any more cold weather was expected. Bergren allowed that there could be ice storms through April and it was still March, so the purchase was meant to get the city through the rest of the winter season. If it wasn’t used, it’d be on hand for next year, he said.

Councilmember Leigh Greden said he always had to ask a question about salt, because there’s always reports of other communities running out or paying extra-high prices. From Bergren, Greden elicited the fact that the purchase was being made under the state’s bid participation and they’d gotten a price of $38 per ton. [Editorial aside: Here's an easy real-life math story problem for readers with school-age kids: How many tons of salt did the city purchase?] Bergren said that they were topping off their bid allotment.

Mayor Hieftje noted that last year was the snowiest on record and wanted to know how this most recent winter was stacking up. Bergren said that this winter was ahead of last year’s mark by 23 inches.

This led Hieftje to inquire about potholes: “When can we anticipate potholes getting fixed?” In discussion with Bergren, it emerged that the obstacle to systematic fixing of potholes was that there’s still a lot of groundwater present right now, and that with overnight freezing, the repairs don’t last very long. [cf.  pothole section below]

Outcome: Council passed unanimously the resolution to purchase road salt.

Potholes

During communications from council, Greden apologized about the pothole situation that a speaker during public comment time had raised. He stressed that residents could provide essential assistance with the effort of identifying locations of potholes by calling 99-HOLES. He said he’d tested it out and it works. Asked after the meeting for clarification, Greden said that by “works” he meant that he’d called, left a recorded description of a pothole in the area of Stadium Boulevard and Packard, and that it’d subsequently been patched. His attention had been drawn to the pothole when he drove over it.

The public commentary to which Greden had alluded addressed potholes plus other infrastructure issues.

Barbara Bergman [Note that this is not the same Barbara Bergman who serves on the county's board of commissioners.]: The Michigan economy is the  worst in country, Bergman said, and the roads are the also the worst. She reported driving down Stadium Boulevard near St. Francis when she hit a pothole filled with water. She said she managed to continue to Trader Joe’s, whereupon she noticed she’d lost her hubcap and bent the wheel. When she went back to retrieve her hubcap, she couldn’t find it among seven other hubcaps.

Her second point was to invite council to  imagine what it’s going to be like on the Stadium bridge over State Street on a football Saturday. [The bridge's traffic has been reduced from two lanes each direction to one-lane each direction due to concerns about a beam.] We need to fix both sides of the bridge so that there’s two lanes, she said, and  the University of Michigan should help pay for it. Bergman’s third point was that the city of Ann Arbor was contemplating laying off police officers. She contrasted those possible layoffs with the fact that there’s money to pay for  a “waterfall in front of city hall” and and $77,000  for a “foreign sculptor” to design it.  [The design cost for the stormwater art to be created by Herbert Dreiseitl is $77,000, with the project itself expected to cost around $700,000.] After ticking through the names of around a half dozen art schools in Michigan, Bergman concluded that there could be Michigan artists who are qualified to undertake such a project.

Vehicle Fleet

There were multiple resolutions authorizing the purchase of vehicles for the city’s fleet. Councilmember Margie Teall asked on behalf of a constituent whether bids from local dealerships were solicited. [Dealerships from which the vehicles are to be purchased are in Macomb County, Oakland County, and Lansing]. Answer:  The State of Michigan puts out bids and the city of Ann Arbor makes purchases off the state bids – locally, Varsity Ford participates in the bidding process.

Councilmember Sandi Smith elicited a clarification from Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city,  about the maintenance records for the vehicles. All maintenance, McCormick said, is now being done by fleet services. Many parts of the ciy’s organization had previously had “mini-fleets,” she said. But the individual departments didn’t depreciate their vehicles, or reserve for their replacement cost. Now, all new purchases are added to the general fleet, she said, which did appropriate depreciation and reserving, and would incrementally result in all city vehicles being a part of the general fleet. But to do it all in one go would be cost-prohibitive, she said.

City administrator Roger Fraser asked McCormick to talk about efforts that had been made to minimize the numbers of vehicles in the fleet. She responded by describing a fleet alternatives analysis that had been undertaken by 25 different staff members on three different work teams: (i) a technical innovation team, (ii) a team that examined type/size appropriateness for the application, and (iii) a team that examined operational policy and uses.

Outcome: The vehicle purchases were approved unanimously.

Migratory Birds

In the introductions section to the meeting, council heard a presentation from the The Washtenaw Audubon Society on the challenges faced by migratory birds at night. Part of that presentation showed how a major path of north-south migration runs over the Ann Arbor region. Navigation at night for such birds is based on cues from the stars and the moon, which leads birds to be confused when they’re confronted with lighted taller buildings. Collisions with glass windows is the factor accounting for the highest mortality rate among migratory birds, around twice that of the second leading cause of death, which is feral cats.

As part of the effort to reduce the hazard from lighted tall buildings, the Safe Passage Great Lakes Days calls for communities to reduce lighting as much as possible March 15 to May 31 and August 15 to October 31  between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

In the brief council deliberations on the subject, Carsten Hohnke pointed out  that Ann Arbor had over 50 structures taller than four stories, and that the Safe Passage Great Lakes Days program was thus important to the community.

Hohnke responded to a request from The Chronicle for any compiled information that might have underpinned his remark at the council meeting by providing a tall building inventory. The inventory was mentioned at planning commission’s last meeting, and is not merely a listing of buildings. It gives the height in stories, feet, zoning, floor area ratio (FAR), and tower diagonal for each structure – concepts important for the A2D2 zoning process. [A meeting dedicated exclusively to public commentary on the subject is scheduled for March 23.]

Outcome: Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting Safe Passage Great Lakes Days.

Zoning: Area, Height, Placement

The topic of zoning also arose in the form of the appointment of the AHP (area height and placement) Advisory Committee. Outside of the downtown area, zoning for non-residential properties is also receiving a second look. The committee will begin the process of working with staff to educate the entire community on density, height, and setback in areas outside the downtown. Community services director Jayne Miller sketched out a basic timeline that had the committee working in April, neighborhood meetings in May, community-wide meetings in June, and by the end of the summer a recommendation would be brought back.

AHP Committee

• City Council Representative (1): Marcia Higgins
• Planning Commission Representative (1): Wendy Woods
• Technical Advisory Committee member (1): Kyle Mazurek
• Representatives from each Ward of the City (1 representative per ward)
  1st Ward Representative: Michael Hammer
  2nd Ward Representative: Jan Newman
  3rd Ward Representative: Eric Meaves
  4th Ward Representative: Diane Giannola
  5th Ward Representative: Marc Rueter
• Commercial Association Representatives (3)
  Bill Bob Martel
  Bill Milliken
  Tommy York

Public Commentary

Henry Herskovitz: Herskovitz noted that the day marked the sixth anniversary of the death in Rafah of Rachel Corrie, an American citizen, who on March 16, 2003 was crushed by bulldozer (manufactured in the U.S.) driven by a soldier-driver with the Israeli military. Herskovitz described her death as a “murder.” He said that although the case had been  ruled by the Israeli military as an “accident,” the incident had provoked criticism by human rights groups. Herskovitz said that Israel had “celebrated” the anniversary by shooting an American peace activist three days ago: Tristan Anderson, who like Rachel was working with the International Solidarity Movement in Ni’lin, which is in Palestine.  Anderson had been hit in the forehead by a high-velocity teargas canister, said Herskovitz, and is now in critical condition.

Herskovitz said that councilmembers might wonder, “What can I as a city councilperson do about this?” The first part of his  answer was to look to the city’s human rights commission, and to ask the commission to reinstate their 2003 resolution, which called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel.

The second part of his answer was for councilmembers to support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Campaign by becoming members of the People’s Food Co-op, and then voting for him in his candidacy for a seat on the co-op’s board. He said that his campaign for the seat was based on the complete boycott of goods imported from Israel.

Tom Wall: Wall announced that he was there to thank the mayor and councilmembers. [A change to vending regulations had been reconsidered to accommodate Wall's All Star Hot Dog stand, at Pauline and South Main streets, which brings together people with disabilities to work on a hot dog stand that operates on UM football Saturdays to raise funds for families in need.]

Wall had with him from the start of the evening Robby, who works at the hot dog stand. After Wall had begun his remarks, Luke and Andrew arrived, joining Wall at the podium. When Wall spotted them, he stopped mid-sentence and exclaimed: “You guys came!!” Wall explained that Andrew inspects the hot dogs and that Luke is the DJ at the stand.  Wall was there to distribute All Star Hot Dog T-shirts. He teased councilmember Mike Anglin, saying, “You might need a small, I don’t know.” When the 3-minute timer beeped, Wall attempted to negotiate with Mayor Hieftje an impromptu speaking slot for Luke. The outcome of that negotiation was that Luke did not get a slot measured in minutes but in words – two of them: Hot. Dog.

Myra shoots the mayor: Photographer Myra Klarman was on hand to take pictures of the presentation of her pictures to Mayor Hieftje ... by a giant puppet sculpted to look like Hieftje (see below).

Elizabeth Elling: Elling said she’d been living in Ann Arbor since 1964, but had never spoken at city council, but wished she had. She was there, she said, to speak on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. She encouraged councilmembers to learn about and embrace the plans of the conservancy.

She said that even though some councilmembers knew about the conservancy, it’s somewhat of a secret. She cited the benefits of the greenway: a walking, biking, baby-strolling path that provides the opportunity for fewer cars; more space in the floodway and floodplain, which is the best way to accomodate flow of water; and it makes Ann Arbor greener and more liveable.

Richard Derrick: Derrick announced that he was going to describe a few things that made him “grumpy.” He said it was basically vandals that leave the downtown area very late, and walk up Detroit street north and cross the bridge where they live. He said they’d  knocked over the green posts that AT&T puts out.

He said they’d smashed one of the glass historic markers. He described how they’d torn off a downspout of the farmers market. He also described problems with graffiti, but said that he appreciated the efforts the council had made with respect to graffiti. [City council recently passed an anti-graffiti ordinance.]

Tom Partridge: For public commentary reserved time, Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat and a former candidate for city council in Ward 1. He said he was there to speak on the need to overcome what could be viewed as historically-based, socioeconomic-based discrimination in transportation in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and southeast Michigan. Partridge said that there was still no non-discriminatory transportation in Ann Arbor. He said that the AATA was led by civil rights attorney David Nacht, who was appointed by Hieftje, who had ties to Mary Sue Coleman through his teaching position with UM. He called on council to pass a resolution to stop the bus fare increases that are scheduled to be implemented.

Partridge also spoke during two public hearings on the rezoning of land parcels, criticizing the millions of dollars spent over the last 20 years that, he said, could have been better spent on affordable housing, transportation, education, health care.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary general time, Partridge returned to the topic of the fare increases that are being proposed by the AATA, saying that he opposed them. [AATA's board will consider a resolution at its March 18 board meeting on the fares.] [events calendar]

Miscellaneous

Liberty Bell Award Nomination: Laura Russello was honored for her nomination as the Washtenaw County Bar Association honors one local non-lawyer with the Liberty Bell award, for outstanding service in one or more of the following areas:

1. Promoting a better understanding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights;
2. Encouraging greater respect for law and the courts;
3. Stimulating a deeper sense of individual responsibility so that citizens recognize their duties as well as their rights;
4. Contributing to the effective functioning of our institutions of government; and
5. Fostering a better understanding and appreciation of the rule of law.

Russello had appeared at the previous council meeting in her role as executive director of Michigan Peaceworks, asking council to support the Iraqi Water Project with its endorsement.

Mayor Hieftje receives a collection of FestiFools photographs.

Kiwanis Club 50th Anniversary: Council passed a resolution in recognition of the golden anniversary of the club, which meets Tuesdays at noon at Weber’s Inn.

FestiFools: Shoshana Hurand introduced a video about the concept of FestiFools (a town-gown collaboration), which will enjoy its third annual edition on April 5 this year.

Hurand stressed that it only lasted an hour (4-5 p.m.  on Main Street between Washington and William) so people needed to be there during that time.

One of the Foolish People appeared in council chambers wearing a gigantic puppet head resembling Mayor Hieftje and then presented the mayor with a collection of FestiFools photographs by photographer Myra Klarman.

Klarman was on hand to photograph the mayor receiving her collection of photographs.

Peter "Madcat" Ruth gave council meeting attendees a musical sampling on the occasion of a proclamation in honor of his 60th birthday.

Birthday of Peter “Madcat” Ruth: Council passed a resolution honoring the 60th birthday of Ruth, who is an internationally-acclaimed harmonica player. Ruth has lived in Ann Arbor for  38 years.

In his brief remarks, he said that he’d been encouraged by others to move to bigger cities like New York, but he liked Ann Arbor and it’d been a good place to raise his daughter. He then produced a harmonica and blew forth a few bars, which was met with appreciative applause all around.

Later, during public commentary, Peter Stark, who described himself as an organic farmer, musician, and consultant, described fond memories of playing music with Ruth.

Present: Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Marcia Higgins

Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 6, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave.  Note: On Monday, March 23, at 7 p.m. in council chambers, there will be  a public comment session held on the single topic of the A2D2 downtown rezoning. [confirm date]