From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Tim Doyle and Graydon Krapohl at PAC’s Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. It was the first session for Krapohl since being appointed to replace John Lawter, whose term expired on Dec. 31. (Photos by the writer.)

In a 90-minute discussion at PAC’s January meeting, commissioners talked about how they’d like to approach this effort, which stemmed in part from a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. Momentum for PAC to weigh in has accelerated in light of recommendations recently delivered to the city council on the Connecting William Street project.

Several councilmembers have expressed concern that those recommendations – made by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on five city-owned sites – don’t include sufficient green space. PAC has already weighed in on that specific project, passing a resolution on Sept. 18 2012 that urged the council to seek additional evaluation on locations for a downtown park.

During public commentary, several residents – including supporters of the Library Green Conservancy – spoke in support of a substantial downtown park.

A PAC subcommittee plans to draft a plan for how to proceed, with the full commission continuing the discussion at their land acquisition committee meeting on Feb. 5. The process is expected to take 4-6 months.

Also at their Jan. 15 meeting, commissioners got an update on plans for locating a dog park at West Park, across from New Hope Baptist Church. PAC had recommended that location for a dog park, but – as The Chronicle previously reported – objections from church members have resulted in a decision to look for another location. The project had been slated for consideration by the city council on Jan. 22, but has been removed from the agenda.

PAC chair Julie Grand told her fellow commissioners that she was still committed to the concept of a centrally-located dog park, and that PAC and parks staff would pursue other options. A PAC subcommittee that had worked on identifying a new dog park location will be reconvened to bring forward another recommendation.

In other action, commissioners received a mid-year budget update. The parks system is doing better than planned, thanks to a combination of better-than-expected revenues and lower expenses. [.pdf of budget summary] The city’s fiscal year 2013 runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Downtown Parks & Open Space

At PAC’s Aug. 21 2012 meeting, mayor John Hieftje asked PAC to help prioritize action on downtown parks. He highlighted possible improvements at Liberty Plaza and a process for moving that work forward. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza staff memo] But he also listed several other city-owned properties that he’d like to see as part of a greenway – including the 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington sites – as well as the DTE/MichCon property that’s being cleaned up along the Huron River.

That same August meeting had included a briefing on the Connecting William Street effort. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been asked by city council to create a plan that will guide the future use of five city-owned properties. Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, sought feedback from PAC on three possible development scenarios that were being considered. When several commissioners expressed disappointment that the scenarios did not include more green space, Pollay urged PAC to give specific feedback about where they’d like to see more green space and how they envision it being used, in the context of other downtown parks.

PAC responded to the DDA request by passing a resolution on Sept. 18 2012. Commissioners didn’t advocate that a particular site be turned into a park. Rather, the resolution recommended that the Ann Arbor city council seek additional evaluation on locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to use a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the parks system. PAC also recommended that the council refrain from adopting plans for the five city-owned lots before resolving the question about open space in the Connecting William Street area. [.pdf of PAC's final Connecting William Street resolution]

At its Jan. 15 meeting, PAC picked up the topic again with a wide-ranging conversation aimed at laying out a process for eventually making recommendations to city council about a downtown park. The meeting came a day after a city council work session that included a presentation by the DDA with their final recommendations for Connecting William Street. Those recommendations call for a plaza on part of the Library Lane site. Other open space depicted in the final CWS plan includes mid-parcel space on the Kline lot, and mid-block connections that are to some extent hypothetical, because buildings currently exist where the connection would lead.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Public Commentary

Ethel Potts told commissioners that she had attended the Ann Arbor city council work session the previous night and had heard people say that there was no deficiency of park space in the downtown area. She indicated her belief that the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan did, in fact, cite the need for parks and open space downtown. She asked PAC to clarify what is included when people talk about downtown parks. Do they include the University of Michigan Diag? The Allen Creek greenway? The DTE site along the Huron River? West Park? Potts wished that PAC would make it clear to the public and others that there is a deficiency of parks downtown, because the impression that people are getting is that the city has plenty of parks, she said.

Former Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Gwen Nystuen, left, talks with PAC chair Julie Grand before the start of the commission’s Jan. 15 meeting. Nystuen supports designating the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure as a park.

Jamie Pitts identified himself as chief technology officer of a startup firm that now operates in Detroit [rapt.fm], although he lives in Ann Arbor. People in the community want a downtown park, he said. While there are several small areas, there’s no substantial place for people to hang out or bring their families. He wanted to assure PAC that if the city proceeds in establishing a large downtown park, ”people in the community will help you.” He said commissioners could see from the efforts of the Library Green Conservancy that there’s a lot of support.

Pitts also pointed to the city’s goal of developing the downtown into a place where more people live and work. To do that, people need places where they can do things like walk their pet or teach their kid how to ride a bike. If the city doesn’t have a substantial downtown park, he said, people won’t move downtown. It’s possible to do something great, Pitts concluded.

Alan Haber noted that Ann Arbor has been his hometown since 1936 and his sense is that this is a family town. But what it lacks is a center, he said. Haber urged PAC to create a downtown park, saying that the only place that would work is the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. He noted that the proposal being developed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority calls for a building on that site, but that will take a long time to do. In the meantime, the top of the structure is being used for surface parking, which he called counterintuitive. Library Green had held a block party on the site last summer, Haber said, and many other events could be held there, too, to demonstrate the vitality of a downtown park. He argued that there could be a skating rink on the site for the rest of this winter, creating a “Saturday Evening Post cover right in our downtown.” By pursuing this vision, PAC would be doing a great service for the community, he said.

Judy Bonnzell-Wenzel told commissioners that she lives on Braeburn Circle, on the south side of Ann Arbor. Within 20 minutes she can get downtown – it’s the easiest way to get there, because buses go by every 15 minutes. She felt that people like her should be considered in discussions about a downtown park. She takes the bus to the downtown library several times a week, and would like to visit a park, too. A downtown park isn’t simply for people who live and work downtown.

George Gaston said he wanted to add his voice to the idea of more open space downtown. He pointed to the summer concerts given at Liberty Plaza, noting they are so popular that streets have to be blocked off to handle the crowds. [Gaston was referring to Sonic Lunch, a weekly lunchtime concert series sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor. The occasional street closings were planned, on weeks when it was anticipated that a particularly popular musician would draw larger crowds.]

Gaston also indicated that the UM property shouldn’t factor in to the city’s calculation of downtown parkland.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Julie Grand began the discussion by noting that it was not typical for the commission to have a conversation in this way – not specifically tied to an action item or update. But it’s an important and timely topic, she said, especially in the context of the Connecting William Street project and the Library Green’s efforts. She hoped PAC would eventually be able to identify a deliverable about what kind of advice to give to city council on open space in the downtown, and what process commissioners would use to develop its advice.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described the information that PAC members had been given as reference material: (1) maps of the city-owned 415 W. Washington site and the 721 N. Main site; (2) a map of the block downtown that’s bounded by Liberty, Fourth, William and Fifth; (3) a map of the MichCon site near the Argo Cascades; (4) a list of criteria for prioritizing parks and recreation projects; (5) a more general matrix of scoring criteria for city projects; and (6) two pages from the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, describing criteria for parkland acquisitions.

Aerial view of downtown Ann Arbor from Ashley Street on the left (west) to Division on the right (east). Liberty and William are the east/west streets at the top and bottom of this image, respectively. Outlined in green are four surface lots that are part of the Connecting William Street project, plus Liberty Plaza and Kempf House in the northeast corner of this image, at Liberty and Division.

Grand wanted commissioners to include a broader context, and not to simply look at the downtown sites in isolation. She pointed out that the Allen Creek greenway fits into the discussion too, saying that several initiatives are coming together now that relate to parks and open space.

What followed was a wide-ranging, 90-minute discussion among commissioners. This report summarizes their comments and organizes the remarks thematically.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Survey & Inventory

Alan Jackson noted that he, Ingrid Ault and Bob Galardi have been looking at the issue of a downtown park or open space. [Jackson and Ault serve on PAC's downtown open space committee. Galardi, Grand and Missy Stults serve on a committee focused on the greenway.]

Jackson described the DDA’s Connecting William Street process as focusing on a development plan for the area – that project wasn’t tasked with finding out what people wanted in general. He said he wasn’t sure people wanted a park downtown, but that’s something PAC should explore. However, he didn’t think PAC should be locked into the timetable that the DDA was following. At the same time, it’s important to remember that city assets might be sold, so commissioners should weigh in before the city council makes a decision about that, he said. That is, PAC could make a recommendation about whether any of the parcels in the Connecting William Street area should be considered for a park.

Jackson noted that there’s a “breathtaking” amount of development happening, and when land gets developed, the opportunity for using that land as a park or open space disappears, at least in the short term.

Jackson acknowledged that some citizens had voiced a desire for a park downtown, but he didn’t know if that group was representative of the average resident’s opinion. So he felt that some sort of survey should be conducted, to gauge interest in a downtown park. A survey might focus on downtown residents, to see if they’d use a park and if so, what kind of park might they want. He characterized the Library Lane site as too small to support a playground, which is one thing that might be useful to have downtown.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Alan Jackson and Missy Stults.

Missy Stults also voiced a strong interest in finding out what the public desires – it wasn’t clear whether that’s been done in the past. Grand agreed, saying she’s a fan of multiple data sources, both qualitative and quantitative. In addition to a survey, she suggested public forums would be helpful. Grand felt that what’s known as the Calthorpe process – named after the consulting firm that helped the city overhaul its zoning – had been positive and well-received. Interactive sessions for the public had been held, and that’s something PAC might want to replicate. Grand said she’d like to take that kind of approach even before developing a survey, because at this point, it’s still unclear what questions should be asked.

Grand observed that one of the biggest criticisms of the DDA’s Connecting William Street process is that people weren’t asked about green space in the survey. She wanted to make sure that PAC wasn’t dictating the results by the questions that are asked.

Ingrid Ault suggested taking an inventory of parks that already exist in the downtown area. Although attention has been focused on Liberty Plaza, there are other downtown pocket parks, she noted. For example, the park at the northwest corner of Packard and Division [Hanover Square, across from Blimpy Burger] has green space, she said, and is about the same size as Sculpture Plaza in Kerrytown, at Fourth and Catherine.

Ault felt that before asking the public for input, PAC should look at what the parks system already has, how those areas are used, and whether it’s working. If the park or open space isn’t working for whatever reason, PAC should consider how that might be addressed.

Ault cautioned that terminology is also important. When people say “parks,” they might mean different things – an area with large trees, or a grassy place to play Frisbee. In the DDA’s presentations, Susan Pollay has been careful to use the phrase “open space” rather than park, Ault said, probably so that she doesn’t “pigeonhole” anyone’s thinking.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Geographic Scope

Tim Doyle advocated for narrowing the scope of PAC’s analysis as much as possible. With a more limited scope, the task is easier to tackle. Alan Jackson agreed, saying that if the scope was too broad, PAC would never get anything done. Tim Berla felt that the focus should not include 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington.

But Julie Grand thought that just focusing on the DDA district would be too limited. Bob Galardi suggested an alternative way of looking at scope: Is the site located within a 10-minute walk from downtown?

Christopher Taylor indicated that focusing on the Connecting William Street area was appropriate, given that there’s been a focus on that project. However, he felt it was important to consider other properties as well, in PAC’s analysis, to provide a broader context. Sites like 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington are relevant, he said.

Taylor said he felt like he understood what works in parks like West Park or Gallup Park. But those types of parks are a “different beast” than a downtown park, he said. Taylor indicated that he didn’t know how to fix Liberty Plaza – that’s a challenge, if the city decides another downtown park is needed. PAC and the public should keep in mind that they have an “experiential, informational deficiency,” he said, regarding what works downtown.

That may be true, Grand replied, but this town includes people who are experts and could be called on to share their knowledge and expertise. Their knowledge might be based on professional experience, she said, or from their experiences living elsewhere and seeing urban parks that work.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Budgetary Issues

Tim Doyle asked if there were any parameters, in terms of budget impacts. For example, a recommendation for a playground would have more impact on the budget than simply open space.

From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Bob Galardi and Tim Doyle.

Colin Smith replied that it was a hard question to answer. That’s why 721 N. Main, 415 W. Washington and the MichCon site need to be part of the conversation. The reality is that the city will likely do something with 721 N. Main that will include the parks system, he said, and that will impact the parks and recreation budget. And maintenance costs can vary wildly, depending on the scale of the project and what it entails. For example, he said he’s been asked to calculate the cost of maintaining urban hardscape, compared to areas that would need mowing.

Any recommendation from PAC will need to factor in costs, Smith said, as well as potential funding sources. Can the city find partners, for example, or should it be funded in the traditional way? He noted that it’s worth considering whether a project might be eligible for grant funding. Right now, he said, there’s grant funding available for projects that connect communities – like the Border-to-Border Trail. If grant funds are secured, that can offset the initial capital costs, at least.

Tim Berla reported that he’d received an email from someone who described a meeting where Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, made a Connecting William Street presentation. She had apparently avoided using the word “park,” he said, and she had indicated that there were not sufficient millage funds to support a park. He wondered if that was, in fact, a limitation.

Smith said that the parks millage can’t be used to fund anything that’s not designated as a park – it couldn’t fund streetscape improvements, for example. In general, the millage raises only a finite amount of revenues. If those revenues are spent in one way, that dilutes other possible uses, he said – unless other funding sources can be identified.

Bob Galardi clarified with Smith that the only way to raise revenues would be if residents voted to increase the parks millage rate, or if the city partnered with other organizations that provided funding. Smith added a third option: Generating revenues through special events or other fee-based uses of the parks.

Berla asked about estimates for operating costs of a downtown park. Smith replied that it would depend on several factors – things like the park’s size, how many trash cans are in the park, or the number of linear feet of pathways. There would be economies of scale, he said, given that any park would be handled in the context of the overall parks system.

Alan Jackson noted that First Martin, which has taken on responsibility for some of the upkeep of Liberty Plaza, has indicated that it’s a costly endeavor. [First Martin owns the building that's adjacent to Liberty Plaza.] He said PAC needs to be mindful so that any new park doesn’t end up with the same problems.

Doyle wondered whether a downtown park would be costlier than elsewhere, because of the potential for more people to use it. It depends, Smith replied. In some cases, the costs could be lower because more “eyes on the park” would help prevent things like graffiti.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Next Steps

Colin Smith reported that he had attended a city council working session the previous night, when councilmembers had heard a presentation on the Connecting William Street project. It had been a long meeting with a fairly robust conversation, he said. One thing he’d taken away from the session was that councilmembers will be looking to PAC for reactions and input regarding what many councilmembers view as a lack of green space and open space in the Connecting William Street recommendations.

Smith said it would be helpful to establish a timeline for action by PAC, and he floated the possibility of using the more informal monthly meetings of PAC’s land acquisition committee – on which all commissioners serve – to continue the discussion.

Grand queried the two councilmembers who serve on PAC – Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor. What were their thoughts about a desirable timeline, from the council’s perspective? Anglin indicated that the council wanted to take its time in deciding what to do. Taylor suggested 4-6 months as a reasonable time in which to deliver PAC’s recommendations to the council.

Karen Levin suggested gathering information about downtown parks in cities that are comparable in size to Ann Arbor.

Commissioners, led by Tim Doyle, crafted a draft statement of purpose and scope: To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, like 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the city council.

Ingrid Ault suggested that PAC’s downtown open space committee should work with parks staff to come up with a plan to approach this project. Levin expressed interest in joining that committee, which also includes Alan Jackson.

Commissioners also reached consensus to continue the conversation at their next LAC meeting, on Tuesday, Feb. 5 at 4 p.m. Meetings are open to the public, and typically held in the second-floor council workroom in city hall, 301 E. Huron. Grand indicated that the downtown open space committee should meet before then, to give some direction to the full commission.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Follow-up Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, Alan Haber spoke again to say that he applauded PAC’s efforts. But he also wanted to express some frustration. Commissioners had mentioned the desire to draw on community expertise, he noted. PAC has already received a report from the Library Green Conservancy, yet commissioners seem to be starting from scratch, he said. [.pdf of Library Green report] There’s been a process going on by citizens, and he felt that PAC should ask Library Green representatives to make a formal report at an upcoming meeting. Commissioners should see the Library Green’s slideshow and look at the survey that’s been done. He said the members of Library Green feel like they’ve been put off, and it frustrated him.

Colin Smith responded, reminding Haber that PAC was just starting this conversation, and that there are several new members on the commission. As they move ahead, PAC and parks staff will want to include all sorts of people, but right now the commission is trying to determine its focus. He asked that Haber and others allow that to happen.

Dog Park Update

At PAC’s Dec. 18 2012 meeting, commissioners had unanimously voted to recommend selecting a site within West Park as the location for a new fenced-in dog park. The site was roughly a quarter-acre in the park’s northeast corner, where the city recently bought and demolished a house near the entrance off Chapin Street. The decision had come after about 18 months of reviewing possible locations for a dog park that was more centrally located to the city.

Several members of the New Hope Baptist Church had spoken during public commentary at the December PAC meeting, objecting to problems with noise, smell and safety. The African American church is located directly across the street from the proposed dog park location. In response to New Hope concerns, PAC amended its original resolution to specify that parks staff and PAC would meet with church members to discuss a possibly temporary dog park at that location, and to review the status of the dog park a year after it’s in place, with particular attention to noise levels.

Two church leaders also spoke to Ann Arbor city council on the issue at the council’s Jan. 7, 2012 meeting. Tom Miree, a trustee with the church, had told councilmembers that the congregation wants to maintain the dignity of the worship services.

On Jan. 15, city’s parks and recreation manager Colin Smith updated PAC on the situation. Smith, PAC chair Julie Grand, and former PAC member John Lawter – who had led the dog park effort – had met with about a half dozen church leaders on Jan. 11. At that meeting, it emerged that the church concerns were more deeply rooted, and reflected cultural differences about what it means to have a dog park so close to their place of worship.

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

Smith told commissioners that based on that Jan. 11 discussion, staff had recommended the withdrawal of the dog park item from the council’s Jan. 22 agenda and had relayed that recommendation to city administrator Steve Powers.

In previous conversations, church leaders and congregants had identified issues that the parks staff felt could be addressed and fixed, Smith said. But it became clear during the Jan. 11 discussion that there were cultural issues at stake, and those were not issues that could be resolved.

Grand said that if a dog park were to be located across from the temple where her family worships, that wouldn’t be viewed as offensive to their religious practices. But for members of the New Hope Baptist Church, emerging from worship to face a dog park would be offensive – Grand said that when she realized this was the cause of their concerns, her perspective on the situation changed dramatically.

She noted that the church isn’t opposed to locating the dog park elsewhere within West Park, so those possibilities will be explored. “I’m not giving up on having a dog park downtown,” Grand said. But it’s important for the first one that’s more centrally located to be “wildly successful,” she added. If it fails, that would make it harder to add more dog parks in the future.

Missy Stults said she was very disheartened by the news. She wondered what the process would be to reevaluate possible locations.

Smith indicated that parks staff and PAC still have the goal of establishing a new dog park in an area that’s more central to the city’s core. Possibilities include other areas in West Park, or the 721 N. Main site that’s currently being evaluated as part of the city’s North Main Huron River corridor project. The issue could also be part of PAC’s broader discussion about downtown parks, Smith said.

He echoed Grand’s concerns about the social context of the dog park in relation to the church, and said he felt that moving ahead on the Chapin Street site would doom it to failure.

Ingrid Ault asked what the next steps would be. Smith replied that the committee previously led by Lawter should reconvene, working with park planner Amy Kuras to look at other locations. When an alternative site is identified, there will need to be additional public engagement, he said. Ault and Karen Levin are members of that committee. Ault suggested that new PAC members might consider joining the effort.

Grand stressed that PAC can rely on work that’s previously been done, and that they wouldn’t be starting from “square one.”

Members of the church had not yet been informed of the decision, Smith said – he had wanted to talk about it with PAC first.

Mid-Year Budget Update

Commissioners reviewed a mid-year budget report during their Jan. 15 meeting. Introducing the agenda item, Tim Doyle – chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee – described the report as having no surprises, and said the parks staff have done an excellent job in estimating revenues and managing expenses. The parks system is doing better than planned, he said, thanks to a combination of better-than-expected revenues and lower expenses. [.pdf of budget summary and .pdf of detailed parks general fund budget. A range of other budget reports can be downloaded from the city's Legistar system] The city’s fiscal year 2013 runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Doyle highlighted several aspects of the report. Revenues are higher than budgeted for facilities rental (places like Cobblestone Farm), and the Argo Cascades has been “a roaring success – pardon the pun,” he said. For example, the city had budgeted $93,500 in kayak rentals from the Argo livery for the entire fiscal year. But year-to-date revenues have already reached $135,809. [Year-to-date rentals in fiscal 2012 had been $45,578 – a lower amount affected by the construction of Argo Cascades taking place during that period.]

Doyle noted that the additional rentals at Argo haven’t diminished rentals elsewhere. At the Gallup Park livery, kayak rentals were budgeted for $71,000 for the entire fiscal year, but have already reached $89,738 in revenues for the first six months alone.

The overall budget forecast shows the parks system with a net increase of $66,500 over the budgeted amount. This figure includes an estimated $982,936 transfer from the city’s general fund to support parks and recreation.

The three enterprise funds – for the farmers market, and city’s two golf courses at Leslie Park and Huron Hills – also show a net increase in the budget forecast. Doyle noted that the better-than-budgeted performance is due to controlled expenses. Revenues for the golf courses are less than expected by about $30,000, but staff costs were cut as well to offset that decrease in revenues.

Not including enterprise funds, parks and recreation revenues are forecast to reach $2.52 million, or $48,500 higher than budgeted for the year. Expenses are forecast at $3.5 million, or $18,000 lower than budgeted.

Mid-Year Budget Update: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla asked for clarification about the change in status for the golf enterprise funds. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported that the change will take effect at the start of the next fiscal year, on July 1, 2013.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council – at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting – voted to move the accounting for the city golf courses back into the general fund. The council’s support of moving the golf fund back into the general fund was based in part on the idea that the golf courses should be evaluated on the same basis as other recreational facilities. As an enterprise fund, the courses were expected to eventually be self-supporting, without requiring additional support from the city’s general fund. However, the courses have been operating at a loss. [More details of council deliberations and additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "City Council Acts on Public Art, Golf Budget."]

Missy Stults asked how the overall budget forecast compares to previous years. Smith noted that revenues are higher than they’ve been in the last 5-6 years. The growth has resulted through increased usage of the parks system, he said – not because there have been significant fee increases. Meanwhile, he said, expenses are in line with what they’ve been historically.

Outcome: This was an item of information, and no vote was required.

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

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

Members of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission at their July 24, 2012 meeting. In the foreground from the left are Nelson Meade and Fred Veigel, who is also a member of the Washtenaw County road commission. At the right (white jacket) is Dan Smith, who also represents District 2 on the county board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

The bulk of the funding – about $5.73 million – is for improvements at three of the county parks facilities: the water park at Rolling Hills ($4,792,530); the River Terrace section of the county’s Border-to-Border (B2B) trail near Dexter ($877,740); and enhancements to the new entrance to the County Farm Park on Washtenaw Avenue (estimated $50,000).

Work at the Rolling Hills water park will dramatically change the entrance to that popular county facility, which employs about 85 workers at the peak of the summer season. Commissioners voted to award the $4,792,530 contract to Sorensen Gross Construction Services (SGCS) of Flint, which submitted the lowest of seven bids.

The commission also approved an expenditure of $267,500 to buy the Baker property in Lima Township for the county’s natural areas preservation program. The land is on the north side of Trinkle Road, between Lima Center and Fletcher Roads – about a mile to the west of the recently protected Trinkle Marsh Preserve.

Staff gave updates on a variety of other projects, including conceptual design work on a recreation center in Ypsilanti. A team of students and faculty from the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning is working on that project. Director Bob Tetens reported that a couple of different approaches are being considered: a long linear facility along the Huron River, or a more traditional box-style building. Both would incorporate the B2B trail along the building, under overhangs, with a design that allows stormwater to flow under the building.

The meeting closed with shared memories of Meri Lou Murray, a former county commissioner who was largely responsible for creating the county parks system. Murray died on July 22.

Rolling Hills Water Park

Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation, gave a report to the commission with background and a description of planned improvements at Rolling Hills Water Park, located in Ypsilanti Township. His presentation led to a recommendation to award the contract for the next round of improvements, in 2012-13, to Sorensen Gross Construction Services of Flint.

Rolling Hills Water Park Improvements: Background

The water park, which opened in 1990, is a major feature of the Rolling Hills Park. About 110,000 guests visit the water park annually. In 2002, the phase II improvement project added a “lazy river” in which one can float or tube at a leisurely pace, passing under various features that spray or dump water. Other additions included a spray/play structure suitable for those who want to get wet without being immersed in water, and a concession building. Planning for phase III improvements began in October 2011 when the parks & rec commission chose the consulting team Sidock Associates of Novi and Muskegon, and Water Technology Inc. to design that phase.

In February 2012, the consulting team presented to the commission a conceptual design that would add a 32-foot slide tower (the current slide is 15-feet high) with two body slides and a speed slide that Tetens said would provide “a thrilling ride for those willing to use it.” Other features in the design included:

• a 4,300-square-foot bath house with areas for men, women, and families;
• a 500-square-foot mechanical building;
• a new 2,700-square-foot office which would be the new park headquarters (at peak season, the park has 85 staffers); and
• a 450 car parking lot (200 more than at present).

The estimated cost of these improvements totaled $4.4 million.

On March 6, 2012, the commission authorized the consultants to prepare specifications and bid documents for phase III. After minor design revisions, the project was put out to bid through county purchasing as RFP (request for proposals) #6679 on June 15, 2012. Bids ranged from a high of $4.988 million by A. R. Brouwer Co. of Dexter, to Sorensen Gross Construction Services (SGCS) of Flint’s low bid of $4.479 million. The lowest bid from a Washtenaw County firm was O’Neal Construction’s $4.65 million bid. [.pdf of Tetens' report, which includes a table of all seven bids]

Schematic of proposed Rolling Hills Water Park entry.

Tetens’ written and verbal reports emphasized WCPARC’s satisfaction with the work of SGCS on several major renovation projects recently, and their current work of the spray/play area and office building at Independence Lake Park (described below). Tetens further reported that he hoped the Rolling Hills project would be done in time for opening on Memorial Day weekend in 2013.

Tetens also said the bid by SGCS provides outdoor lockers, decorative paving, landscaping, irrigation ($100,161), and a gray water recycling system ($50,000).

Deputy director Coy Vaughn showed slides to illustrate that the current entrance is imposing and not comfortable, warm or inviting, creating a “prison” feel as visitors enter and exit through barred revolving gates. [.pdf of Rolling Hills project presentation] Staff want to open up the entrance, he said, so people can see the excitement within the park before they enter. Presently, the building that houses lockers, showers, and changing rooms completely blocks the view of the water park just beyond. It has, Tetens said, a “cold industrial feel.”

Rolling Hills Water Park Improvements: WCPARC Discussion

Commissioner Janis Bobrin asked, as she watched the staff presentation, “Why did we like it so much?” – referring to the current design. Patricia Scribner, the commission’s vice president, responded, “Because it was new.”

Commissioners expressed approval for the proposed new entrance off a new road entering the park. The old entrance will be an exit only, creating clearer and more efficient traffic flow. They also liked the new color scheme, using earth tones for the building structures and blue for the roofs, which have what Tetens called “interesting angles.”

Outcome: Commissioner Bobrin moved to award the contract, totaling $4,792,530, to Sorensen Gross Construction Services. With no further discussion, the vote was unanimous in the affirmative.

Summarizing the project – and reminding the commissioners of the future at the same time – Tetens closed by saying “It will look like a new park. We need to do this every 10 years.”

Later in the meeting, the commission got an update on other improvement projects that are underway at the park. The ring road is 98% complete, and lightning damage from the July 5 storm is being repaired. Upgrading the sewage pump system – which Tetens said is the largest in the county – is complete.

At the end of the meeting, commissioner Dan Smith commented that “I took my nephews to the Rolling Hills wave pool, and they are very excited about the new slide. They said Rolling Hills is better than Disney World because the lines are shorter.”

River Terrace Trail

A new phase is being proposed in the cross-county Border-to-Border trail (B2B) for the section known as Segment D – the River Terrace Trail, between the village of Dexter and the Dexter-Huron Metropark. [.pdf of staff report]

At the commission’s July 24 meeting, deputy director Coy Vaughn showed slides to explain this next step in the project. [.pdf of presentation, including maps showing proposed location] This phase has a complex background. The River Terrace Trail proposal included a 170-foot bridge spanning the Huron River near the entrance to the Dexter-Huron Metropark. In 2005, the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) denied WCPARC’s application for a Natural Rivers Act permit to construct the bridge. The denial made construction of the D1 segment “unfeasible.”

Bob Tetens, director of the county parks & recreation department, and Janis Bobrin, a parks & rec commissioner, at the July 24 WCPARC meeting. Bobrin also serves as the county’s water resources commissioner, but is not running for re-election this year.

In January 2006, WCPARC appealed the permit denial, and in July 2010 the appeal succeeded and the DNR issued all permits for construction of the bridge and trail project. In December 2011, WCPARC authorized a contract with Anlaan Corp. of Ferrysburg, Mich., for construction of phase 1 of the project for $1,237,230. Because the DNR permit would expire on July 29, 2012, staff worked with Anlaan to reduce the scope of that phase of the project by shifting a portion of the trail construction to a future phase (the one being presented at WCPARC’s July 24 meeting).

That first portion of phase 1 was recently completed and included all the improvements on the north side of the Huron River, the bridge, and about 80 feet of boardwalk on the south side of the river. That part of the project was done ahead of schedule and cost $15,000 less than the contract amount.

Vaughn’s proposal to the commission on July 24 was to amend the contract with Anlaan to construct the rest of phase 1: to build 650 linear feet of boardwalk and 235 linear feet of asphalt trail, plus 1,500 linear feet for a construction access road that would then be paved in the next phase of the project, at a cost of $753,811. The village of Dexter has sewer and water lines under the proposed project access drive, and protecting them would have added $36,890 to the cost. Instead of doing that, Vaughn proposed moving the access road to the location of the proposed trail, leaving an additional 3,195 linear feet of trail base to be paved in the next phase, at an added cost of $123,929. Thus the total cost of the current project would be $877,740.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the recommendation to amend its contract with Anlaan Corp. for the construction of phase 1B at a cost of $877,740.

County Farm Park Entrance

The county recently completed a project to improve the Malletts Creek detention area and restore the stream. The project included removal of many invasive trees and shrubs, and opened up a view of the stream and its environs from Washtenaw Avenue, creating a strong presence along one of Ann Arbor’s busiest streets. Last month, WCPARC installed an entry arch to mark the existing natural surface and gravel path leading to the main section of the park.

County Farm Park Entrance: Staff Presentation

The problem, as deputy director Coy Vaughn described it, is that the path in its present condition is not usable by wheeled vehicles that require smooth surfaces, such as road bicycles, rollerblades, and wheelchairs. He proposed paving this segment of the trail to allow for a seamless connection to the existing non-motorized path on the south side of Washtenaw Avenue. The change would improve non-motorized connectivity for more modes of transportation and recreation, enhance handicap accessibility, and draw more people into the park. The proposal also includes modest landscape work, he said.

Director Bob Tetens then described how staff could do the construction drawings, specifications, and project oversight, to avoid consultant fees. The preliminary cost estimate Tetens provided the commission showed that landscaping and restoration would cost $13,340, and construction of the path would cost $32,325. Adding a 10% contingency fund of $4,566 would bring the total cost to $50,231. [.pdf of staff report]

County Farm Park Entrance: Commission Discussion 

Janis Bobrin moved to accept the proposal. Commission president Bob Marans expressed concerns about the landscaping. Vaughn displayed slides showing the entrance before and after the proposed improvements, and Marans indicated that his concerns had been addressed.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to approve the proposal.

Baker Property Purchase

Bob Tetens and Coy Vaughn provided a written report and slides to support the recommendation that WCPARC purchase, for $267,500, a 70-acre parcel in Lima Township that’s now owned by the Baker family. The purchase would be funded by the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP). The land is on the north side of Trinkle Road, between Lima Center and Fletcher Roads. [.pdf of staff report]

WCPARC staff and the natural areas technical advisory committee – which oversees NAPP – have visited the site several times. According to the staff report, the significant natural features that make it worth preserving include: a mix of high quality upland woodlots and open meadows; very little invasive plant material; Mill Creek, which traverses the property from the northwest corner to the southeast, is well shaded, two to three feet deep, with banks that are in good condition; and varied topography with especially steep slopes along the creek. The Baker property is only a bit over a mile to the west of the recently protected Trinkle Marsh Preserve.

The staff report on the property included a description of the phase 1 environmental site assessment prepared by the Mannik & Smith Group, an environmental engineering consultant. Mannik & Smith found and verified environmental contamination, which triggered a phase 2 assessment.

At present, the site has selenium, cadmium, lead, and mercury above acceptable levels, although still relatively low. The contaminated area is a relatively small portion of the property, under 500 cubic yards. The report identifies a “debris disposal area, which includes auto parts, tires, household appliances, 55-gallon drums, metal, glass, and construction debris.” Mannik & Smith recommended a plan to remove surficial debris, remove with permitting limited sediment, restricting drinking water via institutional control, and five years of monitoring and maintenance, at a total cost of $82,500. Vaughn said that the owner would put this amount in escrow and the county would draw it down as the work was done, leaving any unspent money for the owner.

Tetens’ report to the commission stated that Bosserd Appraisal Services had valued the property, in January 2012, at $350,000, or approximately $5,000 an acre. Mannik & Smith provided a boundary survey, with a legal description, survey drawing, and corner stakes.

The staff report concluded with a recommendation that the due care plan be implemented, and that the commission authorize purchase of the Baker property for $267,500 – or $82,500 less than the appraised fair market value.

There was no substantive discussion on this issue.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, the proposal to buy the Baker property passed 7-1, with dissent by Jimmie Maggard, who did not indicate why he voted against the purchase. Barbara Bergman and Rolland Sizemore Jr. were absent.

Project & Activity Updates

Bob Tetens and Coy Vaughn gave reports about development projects and activities at the parks, the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, and natural areas. [.pdf of written updates]

As part of the report, Tetens gave an update on a video project about the history of WCPARC, which is narrated by former county administrator Bob Guenzel, and includes shots of former county commissioner Meri Lou Murray. The documentary will be 30-45 minutes long, and will be used for special events, he said.

Project & Activity Updates: Parks

Work on the spray-and-play zone, and on the restrooms, office and concessions buildings at Independence Lake Park is on schedule. The color scheme is natural brown block with darker strips, accented with blue roofs. Commissioners expressed praised the work. Tetens said that when the new spray-and-play zone is opened, individuals will pay to use that part of the park, as they do at Rolling Hills. [.pdf of schematics and construction photos]

Schematic for Independence Lake spray-and-play project.

Several new information kiosks have been installed at County Farm Park and the Meri Lou Murray (MLM) Recreation Center. Commissioners saw examples of what Tetens said was “taking our signs up to a new level.” The intent is to provide both graphics and text, he said: “These provide five times the information that our signs used to have.”

Bob Marans suggested there might be too much text, but Janice Anschuetz said she likes having more to read. Janis Bobrin said that “some people just look at the pictures, others want to read it all. It is not a question of one or the other.” Tetens said the signs had been designed by two WCPARC staff members, park planner Kira Macyda and Peter Sanderson, a former intern who’s now a seasonal employee.

Commissioners generally praised the design and information in the signs.

Tetens also described annual maintenance at MLM – the center will close during the last two weeks in August for that work. Over the last year and a half, the building envelope has been replaced. This year, the main improvement will be to resurface the track, which is the original that was installed in 1991. Its materials are now outdated, Tetens said. The new track will be more cushioned and have a much bolder color scheme.

Tetens said “Business [at the recreation center] was flat after an early spring that put people outside earlier than usual.” however, he said he was not concerned about the drop in attendance.

The pavilion expansion at Pierce Lake Golf Course is complete. Tetens said this is one of the better years for this facility, which was helped by the early spring and the shutdown of the Hudson Mills Metropark Golf Course for a few weeks, following the tornado touchdown in March. The course looks good in spite of heat and dryness, he said. He noted that “the golf industry has declined for a decade now, but we are happy with Pierce Lake.”

July 2012 financial report for Washtenaw County parks & recreation facilities.

At Sharon Mills Park in Sharon Township, the bridge still needs repair; staff are considering the alternative of replacing the bridge, Tetens said. At Osborne Mill Preserve, the landscape restoration at the new parking lot is complete, and other landscaping will be done in the fall. At Parker Mill Park in Ann Arbor Township, staff have installed new information kiosks made of cedar with fieldstone base detail work underway.

The section of the Border-to-Border (B2B) trail in Ypsilanti, extending from Riverside Park across Michigan Avenue into the Water Street redevelopment area, continues to receive attention from WCPARC staff, who are assisting city of Ypsilanti staff. The current concept is for a bridge over the Huron River, perpendicular to Michigan Avenue, with the northern terminus in Riverside Park and the southern terminus to the west of Fischer Honda, a 15 E. Michigan Ave. [link to interactive map showing Border-to-Border trail]

Tetens later confirmed that Gov. Rick Snyder has signed a bill on Aug. 1 authorizing the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to award $289,400 to the city of Ypsilanti for the construction of that bridge over the river underneath Michigan Avenue. “We’re working on a better alignment that will not require going under the Michigan Avenue bridge, but will require (hopefully) a pedestrian actuated mid-block crossing of the street,” Tetens wrote in an email responding to a question from The Chronicle.

That same bill also awarded the county $2.275 million for the Arbor Vistas Preserve, which includes acquisition of 54.17 acres in Ann Arbor Township to connect existing protected areas: Ann Arbor’s Marshall Park; the University of Michigan’s Horner Woods; and WCPARC’s Goodrich Preserve.

Project & Activity Updates: Eastern County Recreation Center

WCPARC staff are continuing their work in conjunction with a team of students and faculty from the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning (TCAUP) to develop a plan for a proposed recreation center in Ypsilanti, on the west side of the Water Street redevelopment area.

Meeting with UM students and faculty who are working on designs for the county recreation center in Ypsilanti. (Photo provided in July 24 WCPARC meeting packet.)

A working session was held at TCAUP’s Ann Arbor studio in July. Tetens reported that they are looking at a couple of different schemes: a long linear facility along the Huron River, or a more traditional box-style building. Both would incorporate the B2B trail along the building, under overhangs, with a design that allows stormwater to flow under the building.

Bob Marans said the next step would be to outline the advantages and disadvantages of each design, and weigh those to make a final decision. Community comments so far, he said, seem to show that the community does not want a “long wall” along Michigan Avenue. The team has built models that will be available at the Ypsilanti Heritage Festival, which runs from Aug. 17-19, so people can provide feedback. The team will work on a layout for the rest of site: residential, commercial, office, and possibly other uses, Marans said, and make a presentation to the entire community in early to mid September.

For more details on this project, see Chronicle coverage: “More Planning for Rec Center in Ypsilanti.”

Project & Activity Updates: Natural Areas Preservation

Several updates were given for the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP).

At Squiers Preserve, a contract was awarded to construct a parking lot, needed to make the park open to the public. Staff are preparing an RFP (request for proposals) to select a contractor to build a boardwalk west of the bridge over the Saline River in the Draper-Houston Meadows Preserve.

Site plan drawings for the Trinkle Marsh Preserve are in preparation. NAPP crews continue to concentrate their stewardship on removing summer invasive species such as sweet clover, spotted knapweed, and teasel.

Project & Activity Updates: Programs

Interpretive programming is in full swing for the summer. [Examples of this kind of program include natural history, birding, wildflower identification, tours of historic park facilities and more.] WCPARC staff provided 15 days of programs in three parks, three preserves, two mills, and at West Willow Community Recreation Center, Holmes Elementary summer playground, and the Washtenaw County fairgrounds.

Staff also offered three free fishing workshops, attended by 75 people, and began programming for summer day camps hosted by WCPARC at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, Rolling Hills, Independence Lake, and two summer playground camps in the Willow Run school district. The first week of camp provided nature programming for over 150 children.

Financial Reports

The fund balance statement shows that halfway through the fiscal year, 75% of the anticipated revenue is in: $7,054,604 of $9,469,000. Expenses “look good,” Tetens said – he reported that 36% of the budgeted amount for the year has been spent: $5,607,455 of $15,513,721. [.pdf of financial report]

There was no substantive discussion of this report.

Outcome: The commission unanimously voted to receive and file the fund balance statement.

The claims report shows total monthly expenses of $633,861 for parks functions. [.pdf of July 2012 claims report] Major expenses included $34,200 to upgrade the septic system at Rolling Hills, and payment for the bridge near Dexter at the River Terrace trail. The natural areas preservation program spent $218,904, all but $2,368 on acquiring land when the purchase of the Bloch property closed in July. [WCPARC approved the Bloch property purchase at its May 2012 meeting.]

The commission had no questions or discussion about the claims.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the payment of claims in the amount of $852,765.11.

Awards & Recognitions

Bob Tetens announced that WCPARC president Bob Marans had been awarded the 2012 career award from the Environmental Design Research Association. The award recognizes “a career of sustained and significant contributions to environment design research, practice, or teaching.”

Tony Reznicek. (Photo from the WCPARC meeting packet.)

Tetens also announced that Anton “Tony” Reznicek, a member of NAPP’s technical advisory committee, had received the Michigan Botanical Club’s lifetime achievement award this spring. Tetens commented that “a walk with Tony is a must.” Janis Bobrin added, “His backyard in a modest neighborhood is incredible.”

Tetens also referred to the award that had been given to WCPARC from the National Association of Parks and Recreation Officials’ “removing barriers initiative.” [Tetens had announced the award at last month's meeting, for WCPARC's Rolling Hills accessibility project.] “I guess we’ll need to ask for a trophy room before long,” he joked.

Remembering Meri Lou Murray

The meeting had begun with a moment of silence in memory of Meri Lou Murray, who died on July 22. Near the close of the meeting, describing Murray’s methods during her long service as a county commissioner, Tetens said “she was strategic – she was not a consensus builder. She worked through sheer force of will.” She pushed hard for county parks, for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, for federal highways, and for mass transit, he said.

Tetens noted that WCPARC and other county staff members had contributed pages and pages of memories for her obituary, which Grace Shackman wrote from that material. In part, the obituary described Murray’s efforts with the county parks system:

Meri Lou will be best remembered as the founder of the County Parks system. In her first term she was the driving force in the creation of the County Parks and Recreation Commission on which she served for 24 years. Once the parks commission was established, she convinced the road commission to allow the parks commission to take over several roadside picnic sites – the very first county parks. She helped develop the first parks master plan, and then, in 1976, convinced the board to put parks financing on the ballot. The parks system has blossomed into a world-class parks system comprised of 15 parks, 22 natural preserves, and many miles of trails.

She was adept at forming coalitions across party lines and geographic entities to reach common aims. A believer in regionalism, she co-founded UATS (urban area transportation study), an intergovernmental committee to work on transportation issues including dispersing federal highway funds and was a leader of the county block of SEMCOG (South East Michigan Council of Governments). In 1996 she almost single handedly stopped the governor from taking federal road money away from local governments. She convinced members of both parties on the county commission to pass a resolution opposing this and did the same thing at SEMCOG, as well as meeting with federal officials.

Tetens told the commission that she did not want a big funeral ceremony, and had asked a group to organize a celebration of her life. After talking to Tom Murray, her husband, Tetens said the county planned to host an event at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center at a later date.

Present: Robert Marans, president; Patricia Scribner, vice president; Nelson Meade, secretary; Janice Anschuetz, Janis Bobrin, Jimmie Maggard, Fred Veigel, Dan Smith. Also WCPARC director Bob Tetens and deputy director Coy Vaughn.

Absent: Barbara Levin Bergman, Rolland Sizemore, Jr.

Next meeting: The commission will not meet in August. The next meeting will be Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012 at 7 p.m. at the parks and recreation commission administrative offices, 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

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

Ray Fullerton, a board member of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, passes out a letter to planning commissioners that makes suggestions for revising the city's Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. In the background is planning commissioner Kirk Westphal. (Photos by the writer.)

The postponement coordinated with a similar move made last month by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, which rescheduled its vote to its Feb. 15 meeting in order to allow for additional public input.

The PROS plan provides an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, and is updated every five years. The updated document is required by the state in order for the city to be eligible to apply for certain grants.

A public hearing on the PROS plan drew three board members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, a nonprofit dedicated to developing a park running through Ann Arbor from Stadium Boulevard to the Huron River, roughly following the course of the original Allen Creek. They advocated for stronger support of the greenway within the PROS plan.

PROS Plan Update

Updated every five years, the city’s Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan is a comprehensive look at current assets and future needs. The current update spans 2011 through 2015. It is reviewed by the park advisory commission (PAC) and the planning commission before being forwarded to city council for a final vote, then sent to the state.

The effort is being led by parks planner Amy Kuras. The planning commission has previously given Kuras feedback, most recently at its Jan. 11, 2011 working session. [The Chronicle's report on that working session provides a detailed look at the PROS plan draft.] Planning commissioners were originally scheduled to act on the PROS plan at their Feb. 1 meeting, which was canceled due to severe weather warnings. They pushed back the vote to Feb. 15, to coincide with the park advisory commission’s vote on that same day. PAC had pushed back action to allow time for additional public input.

Tuesday’s planning commission meeting included an update from Kuras on changes in the draft, a public hearing and more than an hour of commissioner questions and comments.

PROS Plan Update: Staff Report

Kuras began by summarizing changes that had been made to the draft PROS plan since she last met with planning commissioners. [.pdf file of changes to the draft]

Amy Kuras, the Ann Arbor parks planner, gave an update to the city's planning commission on the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, which is nearing completion.

She noted that the window for including public commentary had officially closed at the end of January, though additional feedback from public hearings and the parks and planning commissions could still be incorporated. In addition to input from the general public, the main feedback had been given by the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, the parks and planning commissions, and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), which advocated incorporation of more information about non-motorized transportation plans.

There had been a lot of feedback about the use of 2000 Census data – people thought the PROS plan should use the more recent 2010 data, she said, but it wasn’t yet available. As soon as it was provided, the plan would be updated with that information, she said.

Kuras gave a section-by-section report of changes that had been made to the draft. Here’s a sampling:

• Section I – Community Description: Information was added about the city’s updated transportation plan, including a description of issues with the railroad cutting off park access, and improvements to the Border-to-Border Trail along the front of Fuller Road, at the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station. A paragraph was added to explain that any proposed sale of parkland must be placed on the ballot for a vote by the general public, as required by city charter.  A sentence was added about the process of rezoning parkland parcels, noting that questions have been raised as to whether parkland is sufficiently protected and whether zoning should include more restrictive language for parks.
• Section II – Administrative Structure: Information was added about facilities that are owned by the city, but are run by private nonprofits – including the Leslie Science & Nature Center, and the Community Action Network, which manages the city’s Bryant and Northside community centers.
• Section III – Budget & Funding: Following the suggestion of planning commissioners at their January working session, Kuras said she moved the FY 2011 budget information from this section into an appendix, and included more information about general budget trends. More explanatory text was added to make the budget-related charts clearer, she said.
• Section IV – Inventory of the Park, Recreation and Open Space System: The parks maps will be replaced with maps that have easier-to-read text and legends.
• Section V – Land Use Planning & Acquisition: A map will be replaced with a larger one showing the location of properties protected by the greenbelt millage. An explanation was added to distinguish between criteria for acquiring greenbelt property and city parkland.
• Section VI – Planning Process for the PROS Plan: In the section that summarizes feedback from the planning commission, these sentences were added: “Staff should explore all opportunities to generate revenue, including public/private partnerships. A balanced view must include all possible risks inherent with acceptance of private funding.” In the section regarding the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), an explanation was added, noting that one of the plan’s consensus points was that certain types of limited commercial development should be encouraged along the Huron River, especially in the Argo/Broadway area.
• Section VII – Goals & Objectives: A goal was added to explore public/private partnerships, while considering their long-term effects. Several objectives were removed that did not specifically relate to parks and recreation.
• Section VIII – Infrastructure Needs Assessment: Several additions were made that related to the Allen Creek Greenway, including information related to the history of the proposed project and recommendations of the city’s Allen Creek Greenway Task Force.
• Section VIX – Action Plan: The capital projects criteria section was updated to align more closely with the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) rating system. Also, an explanation was added that these criteria have been tailored to park projects. And a sentence was added that states: “The Allen Creek Greenway is not listed under a specific year as the construction of new trails and park areas are contingent upon both land acquisition, master plan approval and an implementation plan.”

PROS Plan Update: Public Hearing

Four people spoke during the PROS plan public hearing, including three board members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy.

Jonathan Bulkley, chair of the conservancy’s board, told commissioners that if it is designed properly and if zoning changes are made carefully in conjunction with that design, then the greenway will provide a return to the city that will exceed its costs. It’s not an overnight project, he said – the earliest reference that they could find to it is in the 1981 PROS plan. But now is the time to act, and each passing day of inaction makes the project more difficult, he said. “It’s an opportune time to move forward, and it’s a time for action.”

Bulkley said the conservancy has held talks with officials from the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Railroad and potential donors. A solid backing in the updated PROS plan would provide a catalyst to these entities, he said. The major change to the plan requested by the conservancy is to give the greenway a separate subsection in Section VIII (Infrastructure Needs Assessment). The greenway is currently an item listed in the subsection on potential new recreational facilities and parks amenities.

Board member Ray Fullerton continued this thread, inviting commissioners to check out the conservancy’s website for more information, including a video with remarks from supporters. The greenway trail would be for a variety of users, including bicyclists, runners, and people with baby strollers. The idea is to make the three-mile stretch as lively as possible. The railroad is only running two trains a day, he said – the conservancy hopes to secure the railroad’s right-of-way for the greenway. He noted that they’ve looked at similar projects in 18 other cities, including Flint, Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids. The best greenway is in Seoul, South Korea – a project that Fullerton described as breathtaking. The conservancy hopes to take the lead in the greenway project, he concluded, much like a lead sled dog is needed on a team.

Joe O’Neal, who’s also a conservancy board member, began by apologizing to commissioners – “we don’t mean to be ganging up on you tonight.” They weren’t asking for money or land at this point, he said. But they do need the city’s support. One donor told them, “When the city’s behind you, I’m behind you, but not until.” O’Neal then reviewed three of the requests they were making for revisions to the PROS plan:

• Adding a bullet point in the parkland acquisition subsection of Section VIII (Infrastructure Needs Assessment): “Designate the floodway portions of city-owned First & William, 415 West Washington and 721 North Main as parkland.”
• Adding a bullet point in the neighborhood parks & urban plazas subsection of Section VIII (Infrastructure Needs Assessment): “Begin the process of developing a Master Plan for the Allen Creek Greenway showing potential alignment and its relationship with all neighborhoods along the route, the Downtown, the University of Michigan (more specifically, the Athletic Campus), the Huron River Greenway (Border to Border Trail), the Ann Arbor neighborhoods south of Stadium Boulevard, and the opportunities to the south through Pittsfield Township to Saline.”
• Labeling the Allen Creek Greenway on two of the maps.

O’Neal concluded by noting that the properties along the proposed greenway will never again be as available as they are now, given current market conditions.

Rita Mitchell raised concerns about information on a chart in Section I (Community Description), which included data on parkland acreage per 1,000 residents in different parts of the city. The lowest by far is in the central district, which includes downtown, at 3.7 acres per 1,000 residents. She noted that if there’s an effort to increase residential density in this area, there should be a commensurate effort to increase parkland there. Mitchell said she opposed the Fuller Road Station project – a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that’s proposed on city-owned land now designated as parkland – and supports the greenway. There’s a lot of community support for the greenway, she said.

PROS Plan Update: Commissioner Deliberations

Several commissioners thanked Kuras for her work, and praised her efforts over the past year in getting input for the PROS update. They also offered a wide range of comments and questions. For this report, their discussion is organized by topic.

PROS Deliberations: Density, Parkland Acreage

Bonnie Bona asked Kuras to discuss how they should be viewing the downtown area, with regard to density and parkland. Have other communities come up with formulas to calculate density? Perhaps quantity isn’t the best way to look at it, she offered.

There’s been a lot of dissent on this topic, Kuras said. Many people feel that downtown is a different animal regarding parks and open space, she said. People living downtown aren’t looking for soccer fields – people are recreating differently, and that recreation includes public as well as private areas, like sidewalk cafes. Creating plazas and other hardscape areas are more of a priority. Kuras also noted that there are several parks that are peripheral – but within walking distance – to the downtown, including West Park and Wheeler Park.

Bona said that assuming they accepted this description, there’s nothing in the PROS plan that would give guidance about this issue to the planning commission or residents. She suggested adding some description to articulate these characteristics of the downtown area.

Among other things, this chart of census data shows the amount of parkland acreage per 1,000 residents for different areas of the city. (Links to larger image)

Evan Pratt clarified that the calculations of acreage didn’t include land on the University of Michigan, the public school system or parkland owned by Washtenaw County. He noted that because of that, the statistics end up looking skewed – not all of the city’s open space and parkland is reflected in those calculations. Kuras noted that although the chart doesn’t reflect it, there are maps with that information indicated, and the non-city parkland is described in narrative form elsewhere in the plan.

Jean Carlberg observed that the chart is the kind of thing that will be used by people in the future to justify certain actions. For that reason, it would be helpful to include data on parkland and open space owned by the county, UM and others for each district, she said, because it greatly changes the picture. For example, she said she lives in the south sector, which has the second-lowest amount of city-owned park acreage per 1,000 residents. Yet there’s a lot of school-owned land that’s well-used in that area, she said. The 141-acre County Farm Park is also in that area, but it’s not factored into the chart because it’s owned by Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, not the city.

PROS Deliberations: Allen Creek Greenway

Bona noted that some of the requested revisions from the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy are very specific. They asked that specific city-owned properties – First & William, 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main – be designated as parkland, for example, and requested that the city begin developing a master plan for the greenway that includes specific areas. She expressed concern that specifics for the greenway are being added to the PROS plan just because the project is getting a lot of attention, whereas that level of detail isn’t included for other projects. She felt the plan should be consistent, not reactive or based on the most current popular topic. The plan shouldn’t just plug in directives simply because someone asked for them.

Wendy Woods asked Kuras if she was changing the plan every time she got input – what’s the process for doing that? Some changes can actually have broad implications, Woods noted. Giving the greenway a separate section, for example, could have an impact on future funding.

Kuras replied that it’s an issue she has struggled with – do you give a project a special section, just because people are lobbying for it? It’s a question of fairness, she said. Regarding the greenway, Kuras noted that it’s already mentioned multiple times in the PROS plan. Because it’s in the plan in a significant way, it’s not clear that it needs a special section, she said.

From left: planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs.

Kirk Westphal said he echoed the concerns expressed by Bona and Woods, about singling out the greenway. Evan Pratt agreed that it didn’t need a separate section. He noted that the greenway’s history goes back even further than 1981, to at least the late 1960s and early 1970s. Greenway discussions began after a major flood in 1968, he said, when Ann Arbor’s west side in particular was hit hard. A greenway was one idea to address the flooding problem.

Diane Giannola said that creating a separate subsection for the greenway elevates it in importance – it isn’t clear that city council has decided that. She also suggested that reference to the greenway be removed from the section on existing parks and facilities – that section doesn’t include other proposed projects, she noted, like the skatepark.

PROS Deliberations: Budget Issues

Tony Derezinski, referring to the action plan, noted that some projects indicate they’ll be privately funded, like the skatepark. He wondered if there are any projects that might be funded in part through revenues, rather than the general fund – perhaps the canoe liveries could be funded this way? Kuras said that none of the major capital projects are funded through revenues. The exceptions would be projects in the two “enterprise” funds – for the public market, and the golf courses – that might be partially funded by revenues generated from their operations.

Derezinski followed up by asking if the staff considered raising fees. That’s a challenge, Kuras said. They re-evaluate fees each year, but are cautious about making them too high. Part of their mission as a public entity is to provide parks and recreation for all residents, regardless of their ability to pay, she noted.

Eric Mahler thanked Kuras for including projections for 2012-2013 as part of the budget information – even more projections and trends would be helpful, he added. Mahler noted that the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage expires in 2012. He assumed the budget projections are based on a continuation of the millage, but that needs to be clarified in the plan. Part of the section also mentions the guidelines that city council approved in 2006, prior to the millage vote. The implication is that those guidelines are still observed, he said, but that should be clarified too. References to FY 2007-08 should also be updated, he said.

These are the guidelines, as stated in the PROS plan draft:

Annual allocation for maintenance is to be between 60% and 80% and for capital improvements between 20% and 40%, with a total annual allocation being 100%.

Originally, the Natural Area Preservation Program budget received a minimum 3% annual increase to enhance the stewardship of increased acreage of natural park areas. As part of the FY2011 budget process, and as recognition that the revenue generated by the millage was decreasing, this guideline was amended to provide equality between all City units receiving funding from this millage.

If future reductions are necessary in the City’s general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, during any of the six years of this millage, beginning in the fiscal year of 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the Parks and Recreation System, after subtracting the revenue obtained from fees for parks and recreation, will be reduced no greater than the average percentage reduction, for each particular year, of the rest of the City general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, for each of the applicable six years of this millage.

If future increases occur in the City’s general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, during any of the six years of this millage, beginning in the fiscal year of 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system, after subtracting the revenue obtained from fees for parks and recreation, will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage increase, for each particular year, of the rest of the City general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, for each of the applicable six years of this millage.

The millage is not subject to a municipal service charge, but is subject to appropriate information technology and fleet charges.

PROS Deliberations: Misc. Comments

Park security: Westphal asked whether Kuras had information about the incidence of crime in various parks – do some parks have more crime than others? The downtown parks are more problematic, Kuras said, with higher incidence of drug use, panhandling and other crimes. Since the city’s park ranger program was dismantled several years ago, the parks staff have worked with police to monitor the parks, and identify which ones need more police presence. That’s difficult, she noted, since there have been cutbacks in the police force, too. Westphal suggested including some information about that – it could alert them to which parks are working well, and which ones might need help. They might then be able to address problems in part through other means, like zoning decisions, for example.

Collaborations: Derezinski said he was especially interested in efforts to collaborate with other entities. He wondered how much the city currently partnered with the Ann Arbor Public Schools Rec & Ed program, for example? Kuras said the city parks staff works with them closely. For one thing, Rec & Ed uses a lot of the city’s parks for its programs, but it hasn’t gone the other way – there’s hasn’t been much effort on the city’s part to use the schools’ property. She said she wasn’t personally involved in those collaborations, so she couldn’t talk about it in detail, but said she knew there was a lot of dialogue between the two entities.

Electronic vs. print versions: Erica Briggs said the graphs and other images in the plan’s electronic version were sometimes difficult to read. For example, sometimes the page breaks bump the legend for a chart into the next page, causing the reader to scroll back and forth. As more people use the electronic version rather than a printed copy, it’s worth considering how to make it more readable, she said. Perhaps displaying it in landscape mode, rather than vertically, would be helpful.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to postpone action on the PROS plan until their Feb. 15, 2011 meeting.

Misc. Communications, Updates

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, briefed commissioners on several items during the Feb. 8 meeting.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning staff.

Arbor Dog Daycare

At its Dec. 21, 2010 meeting, the planning commission approved a special exception use for Arbor Dog Daycare, a business located at 2856 S. Main St., near the corner of Eisenhower. Rampson reported that the staff had received a call last month from one of the neighbors, Tim Thieme, who was upset because he hadn’t been notified of the meeting. [The project had come before the planning commission multiple times, including an Oct. 19, 2010 meeting during which Thieme spoke against the special exception use.]

At the Oct. 19 meeting, Thieme had not signed up to be notified of future meetings on the issue, Rampson reported. However, he had subsequently emailed the planning staff asking to be notified, she said – they somehow didn’t see the email, and he hadn’t been notified of the December meeting. He was very upset, she said, and they apologized and offered him the opportunity to speak to the commission during public commentary.

He also sent an email to the staff, which was included in the Feb. 8 meeting packet. [.pdf of Tim Thieme email] It reads, in part:

I am very disappointed that I received no notification of this hearing as the City Code requires. Because there was no notification of the topic being discussed I question the legality of the decision. Perhaps you could try to give me an answer as to why the granting of the Special Exemption is legal before I consult my own attorneys for their help in obtaining an answer.

Commissioner Bonnie Bona asked Rampson to clarify what is required by city code. The code requires that the city notify neighbors of a public hearing, Rampson said. If it’s postponed for more than six months, they’re required to re-notify. However, if the project comes back within that six-month timeframe, there’s no obligation to do direct notification again, she said. They do alert the public in other ways, she said, including by publishing their agenda in the Washtenaw Legal News, through email alerts and by posting it on the city’s Legistar system. There are also sign-up forms at planning commission meetings.

Erica Briggs clarified that although it didn’t work in this instance, the public can still email or call the planning staff and asked to be notified about upcoming projects. That’s true, Rampson said – and they will work to avoid situations in the future like the one that occurred with Thieme.

Updates from Council: Medical Marijuana, Heritage Row, Design Guidelines

Rampson and Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also serves on city council representing Ward 2, gave several planning-related updates from the Feb. 7 city council meeting.

Derezinski said the council spent considerable time fine-tuning the medical marijuana licensing proposal, and worked through about three-quarters of the proposed amendments before voting to postpone additional action.

He also reported that council, on a 9-2 vote, agreed to waive a portion of development fees for the Heritage Row project. Though the original resolution – sponsored by Derezinski and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) – proposed eliminating the fees entirely, they compromised and will charge $2,000. Derezinski said they hope the residential project, proposed for a stretch along South Fifth Avenue, will move forward “in a fairly expeditious time period.”

Rampson added that the expedited process relates primarily to staff review – they will not abbreviate any of the public input pieces, she said. The developer would be required to hold a citizen participation meeting prior to filing a site plan, she said, and there would be public hearings at both planning commission and city council. She said the project could come before the planning commission in March, with council addressing it in April.

In other action, council approved the A2D2 design guidelines, Rampson reported. It will ultimately be a mandatory review, with voluntary compliance. The council resolution directs the planning commission to put in place a design review process, to be conducted prior to a project’s mandatory citizen participation meeting.

An interim design review committee was also appointed by council – Rampson said it’s expected that they’ll transition to become the official committee. Members are: Chet Hill (landscape architect); Mary Jukari (landscape architect); Dick Mitchell (architect); Tamara Burns (architect); Paul Fontaine (planner); William Kinley (developer); and Geoff Perkins (contractor).

The planning commission’s ordinance review committee will tackle the project first, Rampson said.

Derezinski noted that the council meeting included a tribute to Peter Pollack, a local landscape architect who died late last year. Pollack had served on the design guidelines task force, and was instrumental in that effort. Pollack’s widow, Eleanor Pollack, was on hand to accept the tribute, and received a standing ovation, Derezinski said.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement Authority

Rampson told commissioners that two public forums have been scheduled regarding a possible Washtenaw Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA), for a stretch of Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The first one, on Feb. 23, will be geared toward business owners and held at 7:30 a.m. at Paesano Restaurant, 3411 Washtenaw Ave. The second meeting, on March 2, will be primarily for residents. That meeting begins at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road. There will also be a public hearing on the issue at the city council’s March 7 meeting.

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

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Feb. 15  at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

An article from the May 19, 1936 Ann Arbor News about the city's parks system. Copies of some pages from this 1936 issue were hanging on the walls of the city hall conference room where the planning commission held its Jan. 11 working session, which focused on parks.

The commission will formally consider adopting the PROS plan at its Feb. 1 meeting, when there will also be a public hearing on the plan. It will then be forwarded to city council for final approval.

The plan – a document that in its current iteration is roughly 140 pages long – is required to be updated every five years in order for the city to be eligible for certain state grants. The proposed plan covers 2011 through 2015.

In addition to an inventory of the city’s parks system and assessment of current conditions, the PROS plan includes a listing of goals and objectives for the system, a needs assessment and an action plan. [The draft plan, a 5.1 MB .pdf file, can be downloaded from the city's website. It's also being sold at Dollar Bill Copying – $12.94 for a black-and-white copy, or $43.48 for color. In the following article, The Chronicle has included .pdf files of each of the nine sections separately.]

Commissioners spent about two hours giving Kuras feedback on the draft. Though they offered some revisions, the group praised Kuras for the breadth and depth of the effort – a process which has spanned more than a year.

Kuras began with an overview of how the plan was developed, a process that’s dictated by the state. One of the first steps was forming a steering committee, which included planning commissioner Erica Briggs and city planner Jeff Kahan, among others. They also designed an online survey – using that technology for the first time, rather than doing phone surveys as in the past. Kuras said while six years ago they struggled to get the minimum 600 responses they wanted from the phone survey, the online survey yielded 822 responses. Replies to open-ended questions in particular were given “with great depth, and a lot of passion,” she said.

The plan is shorter than in previous years, in part because the state eliminated some requirements, such as previously mandatory topographical maps, climate charts and other information.

Section I: Introduction and Community Description

Kuras said she beefed up the introduction, and included a review of what’s been accomplished from the previous PROS plan. The intro also summarizes changes between this plan and the last one, she said. For example, “Trails and Greenways” was eliminated as a separate chapter, and its content was incorporated into the section on infrastructure needs assessment.

In the “Community Description” section, Kuras said she eliminated the subjective language that was in the previous version. Issues that have developed over the past five years – like the Fuller Road Station – were also added. [.pdf of draft PROS intro and Section I]

Section I: Commissioner Feedback

Jean Carlberg observed that Ann Arbor is primarily a city of neighborhoods – houses with yards. It’s not Chicago, with large apartment buildings. For her, Carlberg said, that fact influences the necessity of increasing neighborhood parks and parks planning.

Evan Pratt picked up on that comment, saying that except for some areas of the city – like Ward 2 – most homes in Ann Arbor have small yards. That would seem to necessitate the need for parks, driving people to use parks more often.

Kuras noted that the staff does look at park density – that’s reflected in the PROS section on land use planning and acquisition, which mentions one of the criteria for city parks:

The current standard is provision of neighborhood parks within ¼ mile of each residence. Opportunities in areas considered to be deficient (in terms of parkland) are considered as the City attempts to meet access and availability standards.

It’s also mentioned in the needs-assessment section of the PROS plan:

Gaps in neighborhood park service (for residents that do not have a neighborhood park within one-quarter mile or where they need to cross a busy street) should be considered, taking schools in to consideration, including demographics (study done by PAC) when developments may include land dedication or when vacant parcels that are appropriate become available.

But she noted that they don’t differentiate between types of neighborhoods. That is, there aren’t different standards for neighborhoods with large yards compared to those with smaller residential lots.

Carlberg commented that a lot of the city’s small neighborhood parks aren’t well-used. Perhaps that’s because people don’t have enough recreational time, she speculated, or that they use their own yards.

Kirk Westphal noted that another way of measuring park density is acreage per resident. But the real question is where should the city locate its parks to get the most bang for their buck, he said. There’s also a question of quality – why are some parks more used than others?

Kuras pointed out that a lot of neighborhood parks have been acquired as the result of development, “so the process is somewhat opportunistic.” The PROS plan lays out the city’s formula for asking developers to donate parkland as part of a development project – it’s included in the section on land use planning and acquisition. [.pdf of draft PROS Section V on land use planning and acquisition] It’s worth discussing the merits of this approach, Kuras said.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, also noted that neighborhoods go through cycles, depending on who lives there. The same would be true for neighborhood parks, she said – some years, depending on the needs of residents, the parks might be more used than in other years.

Among other things, this chart of census data shows the number and acreage of Ann Arbor parks for different areas of the city. (Links to larger image)

Some commissioners questioned whether certain sections of Ann Arbor are underserved by parks, noting that the southern part of the city seems to have less park acreage, based on data in the “community description” section of PROS. But Kuras pointed out that in addition to the city’s 26.5-acre Southeast Area Park, there are other non-city open areas south of town, which aren’t counted in the analysis – the University of Michigan golf course, for example. Carlberg noted that there’s considerable preserved open space in nearby Pittsfield Township to the south, and that the large residential co-ops in that area include their own parks and playgrounds, which aren’t counted in the city’s tally of parks because they’re on private property.

It’s also true that some areas appear underserved by parks for specific reasons – Kuras cited the upscale neighborhood off of Devonshire. In fact, that area has a great deal of private open space because of its large lots. And property owners there have even told the city that they didn’t want a public park in their neighborhood, she said.

Evan Pratt noted that the PROS description of acreage of parks-per-resident doesn’t reflect University of Michigan property, or playgrounds and fields owned by the public schools. Kuras added that the PROS plan does include maps showing what’s owned by other entities, including Washtenaw County’s large County Farm Park at Washtenaw and Platt, and Pioneer Woods next to Pioneer High School.

Jeff Kahan also observed that the South State Street employment corridor runs to the south, making it more commercial than residential – another factor in the location of parks. This provided an opening for Westphal to make a joke about office parks.

Section II: Administrative Structure

Commissioners spent little time discussion this section outlining the parks & recreation administrative structure, with Jean Carlberg observing, “I’m sure it’s interesting to some people.” [.pdf of draft PROS Section II]

The section explains the organization and responsibilities of the city’s parks & recreation services unit, the field operations services unit, and the community education and recreation department of the Ann Arbor Public Schools, commonly known as Rec & Ed. It also describes the various advisory boards that address parks-related issues, and outlines the ways in which the parks system seeks public input.

The city’s administrative structure has changed dramatically since the previous PROS plan, Kuras said, and there have been growing pains. She noted that in the parks & recreation organizational chart, she is the only park planner for the city – when she was hired several years ago, she said, there were six.

Section III: Budget & Funding

Kuras reported that the section on budget and funding had changed dramatically since the previous PROS plan, with much of the information now being included in chart form. [.pdf of draft PROS Section III]

In addition to providing financial data, the section describes the budget process for the parks system, including a description of the seven city funds that are used for financial support. They are:

• Fund 10 (General Fund): Supports parks administration, along with numerous recreation facilities.
• Fund 24 (Land Acquisition Funds): These funds get revenues from the Open Space and Parkland Preservation Millage and are used to purchase new parkland.
• Fund 25 (Bandemer Park Fund): Designated for use specifically at Bandemer Park.
• Fund 33 (Gifts and Memorials Fund): Donations and developer contributions, and associated expenses.
• Fund 46 (Market Enterprise Fund): Enterprise fund for Farmers Market operations.
• Fund 47 (Golf Enterprise Fund): Enterprise fund for golf course operations.
• Fund 71 (Parks Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage): Millage revenues support capital projects, park planning functions, and volunteer outreach.

Section III: Commissioner Feedback

This PROS draft includes detailed financial data from FY 2011, which runs from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. Much of the discussion for this section revolved around whether to include that level of information at all, how to present the information most clearly, and whether to move it to an appendix.

Evan Pratt observed that the PROS plan covers a five-year period, but the financial data represents only one year. That might be sending mixed messages about the purpose of this report, he said – perhaps that level of detail should be eliminated.

Bonnie Bona suggested that including revenues and expenses from the past five years would be helpful in setting the context, more so than a one-year snapshot. Others noted that the FY 2011 data would be outdated after this year.

Eric Mahler proposed including a narrative about financial trends and projections – keeping the information about funding sources, but including the specific FY 2011 budget in an appendix. There appeared to be consensus on this approach.

Section IV: Inventory

The inventory section attempts to classify the city’s 157 parks and facilities, covering just over 2,000 acres. Six classifications are used: (1) neighborhood parks, (2) urban parks/plazas, (3) recreational facilities, (4) historic sites, (5) community-wide parks, and (6) natural areas. [.pdf of draft PROS Section IV]

In addition, this section inventories other parks-related properties held by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Public Schools, Washtenaw County, the state’s Dept. of Natural Resources, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority – as well as parks in neighboring townships and cities.

The inventory also includes an extensive listing of grants received over the years – dating back to 1973 – to fund the development and operations of the city’s parks.

There was little discussion of this section by commissioners.

Section V: Land Use Planning & Acquisition

This section provides a detailed look at the history of Ann Arbor’s parks and open space acquisition, starting in 1988. [.pdf of draft PROS Section V]

It also outlines the process and criteria for acquiring parkland, as well as various methods that can be used for acquisition. The section also discusses the city’s greenbelt program.

Section V: Commissioner Feedback

Most of the discussion focused on the issue of donations by developers. From the PROS draft:

During the City’s review of residential development plans – a final plat of a subdivision, a planned unit development, or a site condominium – each developer is asked to dedicate land for parks and recreation purposes to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the development in question. These donations are not mandatory in the absence of state enabling legislation but rather are a discretionary contribution by the petitioners.

The 1981 PROS Plan established a rationale for dedication of land in new residential developments based on the ratio of households in the City to acres of neighborhood-scale parkland. The ratio then was 4.9 acres of neighborhood parkland for every 408 households or 1,000 new residents or .012 acres of neighborhood park per household. This amount of new parkland was felt to be the minimum amount to maintain the existing level of service for neighborhood parks. With each subsequent update of the PROS Plan, the formula for neighborhood parkland was adjusted to reflect changes in demographic and land acquisition patterns. The current formula was updated based on 2000 Census data and an average of current land values.

In December 1985, City Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that allowed developers to donate land for parks and still receive the dwelling unit density that would be allowed before the dedication in terms of gross lot area. This amendment effectively reduced the cost of parkland dedication to developers. Large-acreage developments could accommodate an on-site park and still achieve a density of dwelling units as though the park did not exist. The parkland is counted as part of the open space required by the Zoning Ordinance.

The amendment has made negotiating for parkland much easier as a part of larger developments. Smaller developments of under 15 acres have less flexibility in site layout and often have difficulty providing an adequate park site while still building the maximum permitted number of dwelling units. There have been some instances where the dedication of land or cash in lieu of land has been inadequate, but generally the new developments are provided parkland through this process.

Wendy Rampson noted that the section doesn’t indicate how the city makes a judgement about when it will accept cash in lieu of parkland. That might be useful to clarify, she said. Kuras indicated that the cash-in-lieu option is usually accepted when there’s no land available – especially for downtown developments, where land is scarce and more expensive.

Kuras gave an example of 601 S. Forest, a residential development being built in the South University area. She said she’ll likely use the developer’s cash donation for parks to improve the alleyway near the building, perhaps with trees and public art. Though the funds aren’t going directly to parks, they’ll still be used for purposes that serve the public interest, she said, adding that perhaps they should make that approach more explicit in the PROS plan.

There’s also an option to get credit for private open space and recreation in a development. Rampson said the planning commission will be seeing an example of this soon, when Avalon Housing’s 1500 Pauline project comes before the city’s planning commission for site plan approval. The project, a low-income residential development, is on the agenda for the commission’s Jan. 20 meeting.

Kirk Westphal asked whether indoor space is within the city’s purview for these decisions. Kuras said the key is accessibility – a rooftop park on an apartment complex would provide recreation space for residents, but not the general public. In that case, it might get credit under the provision for private open space and recreation.

Section VI: Planning Process

The section outlining the planning process for the PROS plan includes a description of the steering committee, efforts to gain input from the city’s staff and general public, and results of an online survey, which garnered 822 responses. Also included are responses from three public meetings held specifically to get input on the plan. [.pdf of draft PROS Section VI]

Section VI: Commissioner Feedback

The section also summarized input from related task forces and reports, including the Huron River Impoundment and Management Plan, known as HRIMP. Kirk Westphal, who served on that task force, noted that the summary didn’t include mention a consensus from the HRIMP task force that recommended commercial development along the river.

Evan Pratt clarified that the concensus was for “limited” commercial development. They intended it to be something more like a place to get a drink along the river, he said, “not a Target.” He added that the Huron River Watershed Council is developing a “water trail” plan that would include a similar recommendation, and Dexter officials are also focused on that kind of limited development for the stretch of Huron River that passes through that village. He suggested adding the recommendation to the PROS plan section on goals as well.

Section VII: Goals & Objectives

Kuras indicated that this section hasn’t changed significantly from the previous PROS plan. The one major change was the addition of the Huron River Impoundment and Management Plan (HRIMP) recommendations. [.pdf of draft PROS Section VII]

The section was organized into eight major goals, with more detailed objectives provided for each goal:

1. Provide an efficient recreation and open space system, where all the components will complement each other in providing a broad spectrum of services while minimizing duplication, where necessary.
2. Achieve and maintain a balanced parks, recreation and open space system, accessible to all of the community.
3. Assure a firm financial basis for the park, recreation and open space system.
4. Assure adequate and suitable provisions of land and facilities to meet present and future parks, recreation and open space needs in terms of maintenance and development.
5. Foster the quality of life in Ann Arbor by paying particular attention to the park, recreation and open space system as a visual and functional resource.
6. Assure citizens a voice in the decision-making process of the park, recreation and open space system, including acquisition, planning and development.
7. Develop recreation programs, services and facilities after assessing changing trends and community needs.
8. [This goal was taken from the HRIMP report.] A healthy Huron River ecosystem that provides a diverse set of ecosystem services. “We envision a swimmable, fishable and boatable river, including both free-flowing and impounded segments, which is celebrated as Ann Arbor’s most important natural feature and contributes to the vibrancy of life in the City. The river and its publicly owned shoreline and riparian areas create a blue and green corridor across the City that contains restored natural areas and adequate and well-sited public trails and access. Ample drinking water, effective wastewater removal and a full range of high quality passive and active recreation and education opportunities are provided to the citizens of Ann Arbor. Ongoing public engagement in the river’s management leads to greater stewardship and reduced conflict among users.”

Section VII: Commissioner Feedback

Jean Carlberg noted that there’s one mention of an objective related to low-income residents, but there’s no indication of what action has been taken. It would be nice to see an accounting on this, she said.

The PROS objective to which Carlberg referred is this:

i. Address the recreation and service needs and interests of disadvantaged persons and residents of public housing sites and cooperatives. Also, improve access to parks and recreation services for low-income residents City-wide.

Kuras said that one huge improvement for low-income residents is that the city has contracted with the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN) to manage community centers in two low-income neighborhoods: the Bryant Community Center and Northside Community Center.

Kirk Westphal brought up Liberty Plaza, an urban park at the corner of Division and Liberty that he described as his “bugaboo.” [The park is consistently mentioned as a problem for the city, in part because it's underutilized and a hangout for panhandlers. The issue also had been raised when Kuras spoke to commissioners about the PROS plan at a June 2010 working session.] He noted that in the needs assessment section, the Downtown Development Authority had mentioned the importance of having “eyes and ears” in the urban parks:

Planning for urban parks must take into consideration urban issues, including homelessness, panhandling, drinking, etc. All parks need to have “eyes and ears.” Open space alone does not mean a successful open park, and size and location are extremely important in the planning of a downtown open space.

But Westphal pointed out that it’s not mentioned as a goal or objective. Kuras responded by saying that the parks & recreation unit doesn’t have the staff to do programming. It’s an issue they’re aware of, she said, and they’re trying to encourage others to do more programming in locations like the West Park bandshell, for example. She said in the past they’ve tried similar things at Liberty Plaza – asking food vendors like Pilar’s to set up there during lunch hours, for example. Some programming is done there by local businesses, like the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch, which features weekly musical performances during the summer months.

Commissioners discussed how this might be added to the section on goals and objectives, perhaps in the context of public/private partnerships. Rampson noted that Sculpture Plaza – at the southeast corner of Fourth and Catherine – became a success when businesses in that area started to embrace it. It would help Liberty Plaza if Ann Arbor SPARK would vacate the lower level of the building adjacent to the plaza, she said. SPARK, an economic development agency, uses the space for offices – a more active use, like a restaurant or retail business, might help bring life to the plaza, said Rampson.

Section VIII: Needs Assessment

In this section, city staff and the general public were surveyed to develop a detailed list of needs for existing parks and facilities, as well as for future acquisitions and projects. [.pdf of draft PROS Section VIII]

Kuras noted that five years ago, a dog park was highlighted as a major need, based on public input. Though a centralized dog park is still identified as a need, this year it was a skatepark that drew the most interest, though she added that those responses seemed to be at least in part due to an organized effort by skatepark advocates to distribute the survey to supporters.

Other needs identified for new projects include the Allen Creek greenway, and several other trails and greenway connections throughout the city.

Commissioners had little comment on this section.

Section IX: Action Plan

The final section of the PROS plan focuses on a general action plan for the parks system, including staff projects, volunteer projects and capital improvements. [.pdf of draft PROS Section IX]

Kuras said she tried to align the proposed PROS plan more closely with the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). [The planning commission approved the 2012-2017 CIP at their Jan. 4, 2011 meeting. It is being forwarded to city council for final approval.]

A detailed list of projects is included in the previous section on needs assessment – the action plan outlines how the parks staff prioritizes those projects.

Section IX: Commissioner Feedback

The draft PROS plan includes fiscal year and estimated cost of projects in the CIP plan. Kuras said it makes her a little nervous to include this, however, since it raises the expectation that the projects will occur in those years and at those costs. Bonnie Bona suggested stripping out the specific years and dollar amounts, and to simply include a list of the projects that are being considered.

When no other questions or suggestions were forthcoming from commissioners, Kuras thanked them for their time and feedback.