At the March 7, 2011 city council meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) was appointed as a hearing officer to consider appeals of recommendations to revoke liquor licenses. To Derezinski's right are Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). (Photos by the writer.)

Also postponed – until the council’s first meeting in April – was a resolution that would outline a way for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to lead the process of transforming surface parking lots currently owned by the city of Ann Arbor to alternate uses.

The resolution, which articulates the so-called “parcel-by-parcel plan,” had already been postponed once before. In explaining the rationale for the postponement, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) cited the desire of the DDA to ensconce the parcel-by-parcel plan in a contractually binding agreement, which he said had not been previously indicated.

Not postponed was a vote on appointing a hearing officer for appeals of recommendations that liquor licenses not be renewed. The original resolution was to appoint the members of the council’s liquor license review committee to a hearing board, but it was amended at the table – to the surprise of some councilmembers – to allow for appointment of just one hearing officer: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Derezinski also serves on the liquor license review committee. Voting against the amendment, as well as the final appointment, were three councilmembers, including Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). Rapundalo chairs the council’s liquor license committee and has served on it since it became a permanent council committee in 2008, as well as before that, when it was an ad-hoc committee.

The council also approved the city’s Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan – an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, which is required by the state for certain grant applications. The deadline faced by the council to renew the five-year plan was April 1, 2011.

In other non-marijuana business, the council approved a “complete streets” policy, authorized a stormwater study in the Swift Run drain system, established a loan loss fund for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, and authorized the purchase of LED streetlight fixtures.

The council also heard its usual range of public commentary and communications from its own members. A public hearing was held on the establishment of a Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement authority (CIA), during which Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber spoke. The Chronicle will cover the mayor’s comments as part of a future report on a CIA public meeting conducted by city planning staff.

Liquor License Non-Renewals

By way of background, the city has in the past faced certain legal hurdles to revoking liquor licenses when a licensed establishment has, in the view of city officials, become a problem. The lack of a due process for making recommendations to the state liquor control board to revoke a license was a barrier to the city to act on problem cases. For example, two years ago the city was faced with a situation where one licensed establishment, Studio 4, had accumulated 20 citations for liquor law violations over a seven-year period. From an Ann Arbor News report by Tom Gantert, published on March 9, 2009 [emphasis added]:

Police say they’ve been called to Studio 4 numerous times in the past two years for incidents ranging from brawls to underage drinking.

From 2001 to 2008, Studio 4 was cited for 20 liquor law violations that were forwarded to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.

“That is excessive,” said Ken Wozniak, a spokesman for the state liquor board.

The nightclub on South Fourth Avenue also is among a handful of businesses the city went after in 2006 for failure to pay property taxes. City Attorney Stephen Postema said Studio 4 didn’t pay its taxes for about five years, racking up a bill of $41,500, but eventually it was paid.

The City Council is in the process of changing its liquor ordinance, and council members say they want to add provisions that would allow them to revoke liquor licenses from problem bars, while still allowing the bar owners due process.

The current ordinance doesn’t have the language for due process, Council Member Stephen Rapundalo said. Wozniak said the state liquor commission couldn’t interfere with a city’s decision to pull liquor licenses.

The city’s mechanism to address the due-process issue grew out of a slightly different dilemma: What establishment  should receive the extra license that had been granted to the city to award at its discretion? On Feb. 20, 2007 the council had appointed an ad hoc committee to help determine which establishment should receive that license – its members were Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Bob Johnson (Ward 1) and Ron Suarez (Ward 1). [Johnson and Suarez no longer serve on the council.] The city council, amid some controversy, eventually awarded the license to the city itself, to be used at Leslie Park Golf Course.

The ad hoc committee had begun to address various issues related to liquor licenses that the council felt were important to continue to address, among them the question of how to deal with problem establishments. And on May 5, 2008, the ad hoc committee was established as a permanent committee of the council, with Suarez, Rapundalo and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) as members.

By May 18, 2009, the city council was ready to approve an overhaul to its liquor ordinance. The Chronicle’s report from that meeting gave the revision only a glancing mention. [On the same night, the council approved the city's budget for the year.] The key passage in the new ordinance, relevant to Monday night’s deliberations, is the following [emphasis added]:

Prior to filing an objection with the [State of Michigan's] liquor control commission to renew a liquor license, the City Council shall do the following:
(a) Serve written notice on the licensee, which shall include:
i. Notice of the proposed action and the reasons for the action.
ii. Date, time and location of hearing on the matter and a statement that at the hearing licensee may present evidence and arguments on its behalf, confront witnesses and may be represented by a licensed attorney.
(b) Hold a hearing no earlier than 10 days after service of the written notice on the licensee. The hearing may be conducted by Council as a whole or by a Hearing Officer or Hearing Board appointed by Council for such purposes. If a Hearing Officer or Board is appointed, it shall be the Officer/Board responsibility to make a recommendation to City Council for the Council final review and decision.
(c) City Council shall make a written resolution as to its findings and determination and mail same to licensee and the Liquor Control Commission.

The original resolution before the council would have appointed, as a general principle, all members of the city’s liquor license review committee to a hearing board to make recommendations to the city council on decisions not to renew liquor licenses. The current three-member committee consists of Rapundalo, Anglin and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

The need to appoint a hearing officer or board was prompted by a Feb. 25, 2011 meeting of the council’s liquor license review committee, when the members recommended non-renewal of annual licenses for some on-premise liquor-licensed businesses. According to the city clerk’s office, those establishments are The Arena and Studio Four for tax issues, and the Fifth Quarter for being a public nuisance. If taxes are paid, the hearings for The Arena and Studio Four will be canceled. Live at PJs had been on the list, but they have since paid.

At the Sunday night council caucus the evening before, attended by Anglin, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Anglin mentioned the liquor license item to his council colleagues. He did not indicate that the proposal would change the following night to one where the liquor license committee could decide to appoint one of its members to serve as a hearing officer, or that he and Derezinski had apparently decided – at a meeting of the liquor license review committee not attended by Rapundalo – that Deresinski would serve as the hearing officer.

Liquor License Hearing Board/Officer: Council Deliberations

Anglin and Derezinski introduced the background to the resolution. Derezinski said the council would need to take action in April, based on the state’s process.

After Anglin indicated that Derezinski would be appointed as the hearing officer, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned whether his characterization of the resolution had been accurate. After comments from mayor John Hieftje and Derezinski, it emerged that Anglin had intended to make an amendment to the resolution. Higgins got clarification that the intent of the amendment was for Derezinski to serve as the sole hearing officer for the appeals.

Higgins said she had a problem with just one person serving as the hearing officer. She’d served “way back when” on a review committee, and said that the city attorney’s office at the time had recommended that the full committee review it. They’d wound up having a two-day “mini-trial” and that all three members had listened to it. She stated she was not in favor of having just one person hear the appeal. Higgins said she hadn’t heard a compelling argument for it.

Anglin added that the committee meeting where the issue had been discussed had been attended by the city clerk, the police department and the treasurer’s office.

Rapundalo said he had not attended the last committee meeting, and that he was puzzled by the idea that the hearings would be adjudicated by just a single hearing officer. He suggested that the more minds that are present, the better it would be. He said he thought the system they had in place was pretty effective, and that it had taken care of the more routine violations. For the more flagrant violations, however, Rapundalo felt that it would best serve the appellant to have as many people listening as possible, so they could come to a consensus or at least a majority view. He said he would not support the amendment.

At Hieftje’s request, city clerk Jackie Beaudry clarified that the outcome of the hearing would be a recommendation to the city council, and that the city council would make a final recommendation.

Derezinski argued that having just a single hearing officer would prevent deadlocks. At the last meeting, Derezinski said, Rapundalo had not attended – what would happen if the two members who were present could not agree? Derezinski contended that in administrative law, having one single hearing officer is a very common pattern. He also said that it’s a matter of administrative efficiency to have just one officer. He reiterated Beaudry’s point that the ultimate decision would come before the whole city council. Derezinski argued for the minimum due process that is required.

Rapundalo indicated that he could appreciate the issue of possibly deadlocking, but said it was far worse to have just a single hearing officer. He also questioned the efficiency argument, pointing out that the hearing would be part of the regularly scheduled meeting of the liquor license review committee on Friday.

Outcome on the amendment: The council voted 7-4 to amend the resolution to provide for a single hearing officer. Dissenting were Rapundalo, Higgins, Briere and Kunselman.

In light of the successful amendment, Higgins wanted to know if the hearing officer would be reporting back to the liquor license review committee so that the recommendation to the city council came from the committee. Derezinski told Higgins that the recommendation to the council would be coming from him sitting as the hearing officer. Higgins said the idea that the recommendation would be coming from a single councilmember gave her “great pause.”

Anglin asked for clarification about whether the hearing officer’s recommendation would be final. City attorney Stephen Postema told Anglin that the recommendation from the hearing officer would still have to come to the council.

Higgins asked if Derezinski was going to be providing all the information to the city council on which he’d based his recommendation, stressing again that it would be just the recommendation by one person. She felt she’d need to review the information in greater detail than she would if the recommendation were coming from the entire committee. She told Derezinski that she’d want all that information to be provided, because he’d be having the final say on something.

Derezinski responded, “It’s a final recommendation, and I’ll take that under advisement.”

Outcome on the resolution: The council voted 8-3 to provide for a single hearing officer to hear appeals on recommendations for non-renewal. Dissenting were Rapundalo, Higgins, and Briere.

DDA-Led Development

Before the council was a resolution that would have authorized the city’s Downtown Development Authority to create a parcel-by-parcel plan for the development of downtown city-owned surface parking lots. [.pdf of the resolution with the parcel-by-parcel plan] The council had also considered but postponed a vote on the proposal at its Jan. 18, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, objections to the proposal included “resolved” clauses in the resolution that would (1) require placement of items on the city council’s agenda; and (2) under some circumstances require the city to reimburse the DDA for its expenses.

At its Jan. 5 board meeting, the Ann Arbor DDA board had approved a resolution urging passage of the council resolution, which had been circulated as early as the city council’s Dec. 20, 2010 meeting, when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had attached a copy of the the draft resolution to the council’s meeting agenda, and alerted his council colleagues to it at that meeting.

DDA-Led Development: Parking Contract Background

By way of background, the development process for downtown city-owned surface lots is one of two main issues on which the council has been negotiating with the DDA board since June 2010. The other issue is a revision to the current contract between the DDA and the city under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system.

Under the current contract – which runs from 2005 to 2015, with provisions for extending that term – the DDA owed the city a total of $10 million in “rent” of the public parking facilities for the 10-year period. The DDA fulfilled the $10 million obligation in the course of the first five years of the contract. Last year, the DDA unilaterally revised the contract to pay the city an additional $2 million. The “rent” payment is roughly two-thirds of the total amount of parking-related payments made annually by the DDA to the city. In the DDA’s FY 2012 budget, authorized last week by the DDA board, there is roughly $1 million allocated for payments to the city’s street repair fund and for the revenues derived from two surface parking lots not covered under the current parking contract.

During his communications time, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves on the council’s “mutually beneficial” committee, which is charged with negotiating with its DDA board “mutually beneficial” counterpart – stated that “We have met most recently this morning …” [Neither Taylor nor fellow committee member Margie Teal (Ward 4) attended the meeting; Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), the council's third committee member, arrived 40 minutes after the meeting's start. A meeting scheduled for a week prior had been canceled when councilmembers indicated they could not attend.]

At Monday’s council meeting, Taylor indicated that a draft of a new parking agreement had been received and reviewed. He described the discussions between the two committees as “frank” and “fruitful.” Taylor described how the two committees had been working towards an arrangement whereby the parking-related payments by the DDA to the city would be combined into a single sum, expressed as a percentage of the gross revenues to the parking system.

The percentage of gross that would reflect something close to what the DDA had been paying to the city over the last six years would be around 17.2%. In light of the immediate financial burden on the DDA that’s caused by its construction of the new underground parking structure, the city had proposed that the payment start off at around 16% for the first two years of the new contract, and then be increased to 17.5% after that. Taylor described that as the city taking a $300,000 “hit” over the first two years of the agreement. [The currently estimated gross parking revenues for the parking system are around $14 million.]

What was in the draft contract as the DDA’s counter proposal, Taylor said, was a payment of 14% for the first two years and 15% after that, which was an additional diminution of the payment to the city.

The 14-14-15 position on the DDA’s part and the 16-16-17.5 position on the city’s part had been fairly rigid for some time, Taylor reported. He said he was “daylighting” the circumstances in order that some flexibility be built into the budget planning that the city administrator would be doing in preparing a budget proposal in April. The council will vote on the budget in May.

[The status of the negotiations was reported by The Chronicle two months ago: "Parking Money for City Budget Still Unclear." Also previously reported by The Chronicle was city CFO Tom Crawford's stated strategy for handling a DDA payment that might fall short of the city's expectations – namely, to tap the city's general fund reserve. Crawford feels that the shortfall would not persist past the first two years of the contract: "Engaging the FY 2012 Budget."]

DDA-Led Development: Council Deliberations

In his opening remarks about the resolution, Taylor noted that the DDA appeared to be interested in creating a contractual, binding relationship – instead of working based on city council and DDA board resolutions – and in light of that he wanted to postpone the issue until the council’s first meeting in April. A draft of that contract has been provided to the council’s mutually beneficial committee.

The resolution before the council was not written to have contractual precision, said Taylor, and was not intended to place obligations on a party or give rights to another party. So he asked his colleagues to postpone the issue for four weeks, until the council’s first meeting in April. He said he was still in favor of the DDA performing the useful tasks as described in the resolution, but with the introduction of a contractual context, there needed to be additional time for consideration.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that during the council’s Jan. 18 meeting, she’d argued forcibly about the DDA taking the responsibility as outlined in the resolution. She said she didn’t see any revisions that had been made to the document to accommodate her recommendations. She wanted to see a revised document. Taylor assured Higgins that her concerns had been noted by the committee.

Outcome: The council voted, with dissent by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the DDA board, to postpone their vote on the parcel-by-parcel DDA-led development plan until April 4, 2011.

Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) Plan

The council was asked to consider approval of the Park and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan for the city. The plan provides an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, and is updated every five years – this version of the planning document covers 2011 through 2015. The updated document is required by the state in order for the city to be eligible to apply for certain grants. The deadline faced by the city council for approving the plan, to make the city eligible for state grant applications, is April 1.

The city’s park advisory commission recommended approval of the plan at its Feb. 15, 2011 meeting. The city’s planning commission also recommended approval at its Feb. 15, 2011 meeting. Several members of the public had weighed in on the plan at the meetings of those bodies as they considered the PROS plan. However, no one spoke at the formal public hearing before the city council on Monday night.

PROS Plan: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had concerns over the justification for the way that land value is calculated in the plan, in the context of parkland donations.

By way of background, the city has a strategy in place to encourage parkland donation to the city by developers when new residential developments are planned – the city’s policy is to allow developers to calculate density of their development as if the donation of parkland had not taken place. The strategy serves the goal of maintaining the city’s ratio of parkland acres to residents.

Because some sites are so small that a donation of part of the site to the city as parkland isn’t feasible, the city offers a payment-in-lieu-of-donation program. From the PROS plan:

The average over the past five years has been approximately $12,000 per acre for greenbelt purchases, and for in-City parkland has been $200,000 per acre. If combined, the average cost for parkland purchase is $55,000. This number is used to calculate contributions in lieu of land.

Smith noted that the inclusion of land costs outside the city lowered the cost rather dramatically. She asked what the rationale was for that. She said she was hesitant to be a stickler about it and force the plan to be reconsidered by the planning commission. [This would likely have had the result of causing the state's deadline of April 1 to be missed.] Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, told Smith this had not come up during the planning commission’s discussions. He stressed that the commission had discussed the plan thoroughly – at least an hour and a half.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park plannner who oversaw the PROS update, noted that there is another place in the plan where she intended to update it after submission to the state – related to precise, current census data, which is not yet available. So the formula for calculating the payment-in-lieu costs could also be updated.

Derezinski thanked Kuras for her hard work on leading the plan’s five-year revision.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what state grants the city was applying for. Kuras told him there were three: (1) Gallup canoe liveries; (2) a skatepark; (3) boat launches at Argo and Gallup.

Smith noted that the plan distinguishes plazas and smaller open spaces in the downtown area in the city’s inventory of parks – she was happy to see that included. Kuras noted that the issue had arisen in the Downtown Development Authority focus group – Smith serves on the DDA board. Kuras said that people downtown are not looking for soccer fields – for those who are looking for more suburban-style parks, there are some on the near periphery to downtown, Kuras concluded.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) weighed in saying that he was 95% in favor of the plan but had some problems with it that would lead him to vote against it. He then read aloud a statement with objections, including issues with the proposed Fuller Road Station and public-private partnerships in the parks.

Mayor John Hieftje praised the work that had gone into developing the plan.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the PROS plan, over dissent from Anglin.

Complete Streets

Before the council was a resolution expressing its commitment to the concept of “complete streets” – the idea that streets should be constructed to accommodate a full range of users, from pedestrians, to bicyclists, to public transit vehicles, to privately owned automobiles.

The impetus for the city’s proclamation comes from the state of Michigan’s enactment in 2010 of Public Act 134 and 135, which amended the state’s planning enabling statute and the transportation funding law. The resolution is meant to make sure that Ann Arbor continues to qualify for state transportation funding.

In the resolution approved by the Ann Arbor city council, the city’s complete streets policy is described as including the city’s transportation master plan, the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, a city council resolution setting aside a percentage of Ann Arbor’s Act 51 funds for non-motorized transportation, and a policy that includes construction of non-motorized elements as part of each road construction project and requirements in the city’s public services standards.

At its March 1, 2011 meeting, the city’s planning commission briefly discussed the resolution that would be coming before the city council. Planning commissioner Erica Briggs had expressed some disappointment that the city wasn’t taking additional steps beyond what’s set by the state.

Complete Streets: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje said that the state legislature had used Ann Arbor’s local policies as a model for its state act, but that Ann Arbor still needed to convey formally its commitment to complete streets.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution on complete streets.

Swift Run Stormwater Study

The council was asked to approve a $88,250 contract with J.F. New to conduct a study of the Swift Run drain system near the city’s composting facility. The study is prompted by a 2009 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) inspection. The inspection determined that a small pond near the northern compost pad required maintenance.

At that time, the MDNRE also requested improvements to the stormwater management system at the compost facility to reduce the impact of nutrient loading on the Swift Run drain. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for biota in the Swift Run drain.

The concept behind the study is to examine the various interconnected ponds and ditches as a unified system, so that the MDNRE’s concerns can be satisfied. J.F. New was selected from seven engineering firms that responded to the city’s request for proposals.

Swift Run Stormwater: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know why the project budget was $120,000 when the contract with J.F. New was only for $88,250. Craig Hupy, who heads the systems planning unit for the city, explained that city staff time would also be used for the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with J.F. New for a stormwater study.

PACE Loan Loss Fund

Before the council was a proposal to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the city’s planned Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The money for the fund comes from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Through its PACE program, which is still under development by the city, Ann Arbor will help property owners finance energy improvements through voluntary special assessments. By establishing a loan loss pool, the city can reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

PACE: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor would be moving faster than other communities on this kind of program and he would be happy to see it when it is in place.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the creation of the PACE loan loss fund.

LED Streetlights

The council acted on a resolution to purchase 500 LED cobra head streetlight fixtures from Lumecon for $315,968. The city owns roughly 1,800 streetlights citywide – 1,000 downtown and 800 elsewhere in the city. [In the city, DTE owns roughly 5,200 of the streetlights.] The city has embarked on a program to replace the streetlights it owns with LED fixtures, which consume less energy and require less frequent bulb changes, thereby saving on maintenance costs. The purchase of the 500 LED fixtures would allow the city to complete the LED conversion of city-owned lights.

LED Streetlights: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) got clarification that the purchase was being paid for by a grant – from the U. S. Department of Energy. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) got clarification that it’s just the heads, not the poles that will be replaced.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of LED streetlight fixtures.

Communications and Comment

There are multiple slots on every agenda for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Fire Department

In his communications, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – who chairs the council’s labor committee – asked the city attorney to explore the legalities involved with a recent move by Allen Park, Mich. – that community had decided to send layoff notices to nearly its entire fire department.

In the city of Ann Arbor, the council had approved an expenditure to complete a fire protections services study at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting after discussing the possibility at its budget retreats and work sessions of transitioning the department to a combined full-time/paid-on-call type department.

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

During public commentary reserved time, Alan Haber addressed the council on the topic of the future use of the city-owned Library Lot – the space that will sit on top of the Fifth Avenue parking structure that’s now under construction. He told the council he he hoped they were convinced that Valiant’s proposal for a hotel/conference center was not a good idea. He said that if Vivienne Armentrout’s analysis had not convinced them, then Chuck Skelton’s report should have. He said that while mayor John Hieftje had called West Park Ann Arbor’s Central Park West, what Ann Arbor needs is a Central Park Central.

Later in the meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser noted that the Library Lot RFP review committee would be meeting the following day. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also made note of the meeting on the following day.

[At that March 8 meeting, the committee voted unanimously to recommend to the city council to proceed with a letter of intent with Valiant, the developer of a proposal recommended by The Roxbury Group, a consultant hired by the city to evaluate responses to the city's RFP. There is now a city council work session on the letter of intent scheduled for Monday, March 14, starting at 7 p.m. at the Community Television Network (CTN) studios on South Industrial.]

Comm/Comm: Roger Fraser’s Replacement

At the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje noted that Roger Fraser had previously announced his departure from the city to take a job with the state treasurer’s office. Hieftje said he wished Fraser the best. He said he’d met with mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins to discuss a transition process for moving ahead and that this recommendation would come before the council at its next meeting, on March 21.

Comm/Comm: Access to Basics

Thomas Partridge addressed the council twice during public commentary periods – at the beginning and the end of Monday’s meeting. He contended that the civil rights issues from the 1960s have still not been completely addressed and he called for greater access to affordable housing, transportation and education.

Comm/Comm: Palestine

Sol Metz told the council he’d been working a long time against the genocide of the Palestinian people, which he said began in 1948. He allowed that here locally, it’s difficult to have an impact on the issue. However, he noted that the mayor and councilmembers often attend an annual fundraiser held by the Jewish Federation, which he said helps fund the continued genocide of the Palestinian people.

He also noted that he was a member of an organization that had been the subject of a city council resolution that had condemned that organization’s activities. [The group to which Metz was referring demonstrates every Saturday outside a local synagogue, holding signs that typically call for actions like divestment of U.S. funds from Israel.]

When members of his group had addressed the council, councilmembers did not listen, he said, but instead worked on their computers. On one occasion, a councilmember had turned their back on the speaker. [The councilmember Metz meant was Joan Lowenstein, who no longer serves on the council. She had swiveled her chair around during the public commentary.] His group had asked for the city’s human rights commission to pass a resolution, but subsequently, that commission had been reorganized, he said.

Metz concluded by inviting the mayor and the council to attend a presentation on March 29, at 7 p.m. at the Malletts Creek Library.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 21, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Evan Pratt, left, gets a handout from Jeff Kahan of the city's planning staff prior to the commission's Feb. 15 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier in the evening, the plan was also approved by the city’s park advisory commission. Both groups suggested minor revisions, and the document will next be forwarded to the city council for final approval in early March.

Updated every five years, the PROS plan is a comprehensive look at current assets and future needs. The current update spans 2011 through 2015. It’s a document required by the state to qualify for grant funding.

Discussion of the PROS plan was the main agenda item at Tuesday’s meeting, which lasted less than an hour. The commission also set a public hearing for its March 1 meeting, regarding a request by Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity to convert the church at 730 Tappan Ave. into a fraternity house.

During his communications, commission chair Eric Mahler reported that the city’s Library Lot review committee – the group that’s evaluating potential development atop the city-owned underground parking structure being built on South Fifth Avenue – will meet next on March 3. Tony Derezinski, who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, highlighted two upcoming public forums regarding a Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement authority, set for Feb. 23 and March 2.

No one spoke during public commentary on Tuesday, but nine students from Skyline High School attended the meeting as part of a class assignment. 

PROS Plan Update

Planning commissioners have given input on the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan at several previous meetings. [See Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Postpones Parks Plan" and "Planning Commission Weighs In on Parks"] A public hearing was held on the plan at the commission’s Feb. 8 meeting. On Tuesday, no one from the public spoke on the issue.

PROS Plan Update: Staff Report

Amy Kuras, the city’s parks planner who’s coordinated the current update, gave a brief report on revisions that had been made since the Feb. 8 meeting. Highlights include:

• In a chart providing census data related to parks acreage, information was added to reflect non-city parks and open space acreage, including land owned by the University of Michigan, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Public Schools.
• Greenview and Dicken Woods Nature Area were added as part of the inventory section.
• Information was added to compare Ann Arbor with national standards: “National standards exist, although there are wide variations in their application, for the ideal amount of park acreage per resident. The National Park and Recreation Association standard for park acreage is approximately 10 acres per 1000 people. Ann Arbor’s park system ratio is much higher, at over 18 acres per 1000 people, but this is based on Ann Arbor residents placing parks as an important value for the community. Having a neighborhood park within ¼ mile of every resident is a goal that is nearly achieved as this is considered a reasonable distance for pedestrian access, although there are a myriad of factors that influence that distance, including major streets that need to be crossed, other public open space, such as public schools with play areas, and amount of private green space available to residents.”
• Information was added about the distinctiveness of downtown parks and open space, and about factors used in planning for parks in urban areas.
• The map of the city’s greenbelt was updated to include properties acquired and preserved.
• Additions were made regarding the proposed Allen Creek Greenway: (1) mentioning that the desire for a greenway would include the floodway portions of city-owned properties at 415 W. Washington, 721 N. Main, and First & William; and (2) a master plan for the greenway should be developed with stakeholders, including the University of Michigan and Ann Arbor Railroad.
• Explanations for budget pie charts were added.

PROS Plan Update: Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg thanked Kuras for changing the chart with census data to include information about non-city parks and open space. However, she noted that the parks acreage-per-resident calculation hadn’t been altered to reflect that change. Factoring in the non-city parkland and open space would change that calculation dramatically, she said, especially for the city’s south sector. She also suggested that future PROS plans include a chart indicating how much of the city is within a quarter-mile of greenspace. [One of the city's goals is to have a neighborhood park available within a quarter-mile for all residents.] Such a chart would help them identify gaps.

Carlberg also had a question about the parks and recreation budget. The budget charts indicated that for fiscal year 2011, general fund revenues for parks and recreation were $2.41 million, but expenses were $3.64 million. How could this be, she asked, since expenses should equal revenues.

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, explained that unlike an enterprise fund, which is expected to cover its expenses with the revenues it generates, the parks and recreation operations are covered by the general fund. It’s not expected that revenues will cover expenses, he said. The roughly $1.2 million difference is a net cost to the general fund, he said. [The public market and the golf courses operate as enterprise funds, though they also tap general fund dollars.] Smith suggested adding a sentence of explanation to the budget section.

Carlberg indicated that it still wasn’t clear, and said they should both think about ways to better explain it.

Diane Giannola said she had concerns with two sentences in the section on the Allen Creek Greenway: “Since 2005, the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, a non-profit corporation, was established, to help with design and acquisition of the greenway. A report outlining a proposed route was completed by the Conservancy in 2008.”

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, and parks planner Amy Kuras, who led the effort to update the PROS plan.

The conservancy isn’t a city-sanctioned entity, she noted, nor has the city council approved the conservancy’s plan. The sentences read more like a marketing brochure for the group, she said, and it’s confusing, since the city also had a separate task force on the greenway. She asked that the sentences be deleted.

Erica Briggs said she understood Giannola’s point, but that it might be helpful to have information about the conservancy as an additional resource for people who are interested in the greenway. After more input from other commissioners, Kuras was directed to remove those sentences and include them as a footnote to the section.

Giannola also flagged another section, which referenced the city-owned Library Lot. [An underground parking structure is being built on the site at South Fifth Avenue, and the city is exploring what kind of development, if any, should be put on top of the structure. It is considering a project for a hotel and conference center that was proposed in response to a city-issued request for proposals (RFP).]

Giannola objected to a clause [indicated below in italics] in the needs assessment section, related to neighborhood parks and urban plazas: “Discussion concerning downtown open space should continue, especially as the underground parking structure at the library lot is constructed, as well as to plan for developer contributions and small pocket parks.” The clause is too political, she said, given the controversy surrounding development of the Library Lot. The PROS plan should be a neutral document, she said.

Evan Pratt agreed, saying they had previously discussed the desire not to attach specific projects to general policy statements.

As the discussion came to a close, Wendy Woods asked how copies of the PROS plan would be made available, after the plan is finalized. Kuras replied that they expect most people to access the document online, but that there will be some copies at city hall, for a fee. Woods clarified that the fee would simply cover the costs of printing – it would not be a revenue stream for parks and recreation.

Outcome: The planning commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. It will next be voted on by the Ann Arbor city council for final approval.

Communications, Updates

There were several updates and communications from staff and commissioners on Tuesday.

Communications, Updates: Budget, Washtenaw Avenue Corridor

Tony Derezinski, a planning commission who also represents Ward 2 on Ann Arbor’s city council, reported that the council had a work session the previous night on a “very dreary subject” – the FY 2012 budget. [The Feb. 14 work session focused specifically on police and fire services. Earlier budget work sessions have covered the 15th District Court and the community services unit, which includes planning and parks.] Derezinski said the process is daunting, given that they need to address a $2.4 million deficit. There will be cuts, he said, “unless miracles happen, and I don’t see one on the horizon right now.”

Derezinski also highlighted two upcoming public forums regarding a Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement authority, set for Feb. 23 and March 2. [The Feb. 23 event will be geared toward business owners and held at 7:30 a.m. at Paesano Restaurant, 3411 Washtenaw Ave. The March 2 meeting 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.] He noted that all four jurisdictions that are spanned by Washtenaw Avenue – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township – have passed resolutions of intent to explore forming a corridor improvement authority (CIA), but added “that was the easy part.”

Communications, Updates: Planning Projects, Retreat

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, gave several updates. She noted that the staff’s work plan for the year has been updated – projects include the Washtenaw Avenue corridor project, South State Street corridor project, medical marijuana ordinances and the A2D2 design guidelines review process, among others. [.pdf file of FY2011 planning staff work plan]

Rampson also noted that they’d be scheduling a planning commission retreat soon – last year, that occurred in late March, she said, and March would likely be a good time for it again this year. [See Chronicle coverage of the March 30, 2010 retreat: "Ann Arbor Planning Priorities Take Shape"]

Communications, Updates: DDA, AATA

Rampson reported that she attended a partnerships committee meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority last week. The committee has been working on a proposal – called the parcel-by-parcel plan – to redevelop city-owned surface parking lots in the DDA district. [See Chronicle coverage: "DDA Embraces Concept of Development Plan"] The committee wanted to know more about how that might happen, Rampson said, and she characterized the discussion as a good one.

It sounds like the DDA is interested in exploring development for the area around the city-owned Library Lot underground parking structure, she said, which includes the surface parking lot at the former YMCA site and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s Blake Transit Center.

Derezinski had also attended the DDA partnerships meeting, and said it was “a lot more civil” than the previous one. He said there have been “directional” issues between the DDA and the city, which he added are being worked out.

[By way of background, the parcel-by-parcel plan was an outgrowth of discussions between the DDA and the city to renegotiate a parking agreement that governs the DDA's management of the city's parking system. At the council's Jan. 18, 2011 meeting, councilmembers deliberated on a resolution that would have articulated the DDA's role in redevelopment of the surface lots. They ultimately voted to postpone action on the resolution. Chronicle coverage: "DDA-City Deal Stalls"]

Regarding another DDA-city project, Eric Mahler reported that the city’s Library Lot review committee – the group that’s evaluating potential development atop the city-owned underground parking structure being built on South Fifth Avenue – will meet again on March 3. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, DDA executive director Susan Pollay said the meeting will be held at 9 a.m. in the fourth floor conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron St.]

Related to the AATA, Rampson briefed commissioners on the transit agency’s efforts to develop a countywide master plan. She had attended a Feb. 14 forum on the issue, which she said was well attended. [For more information about the master plan effort, see Chronicle coverage: "AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates"]

Communications, Updates: Citizen Participation

Erica Briggs reported that the commission’s citizen participation committee met last week. They’ve decided that their next step will be to survey people who’ve already been involved in giving input in some way, to get feedback on ways to improve the citizen participation process.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, March 1 at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Before the meeting, park advisory commissioner John Lawter receives the final draft of the PROS plan from park planner Amy Kuras. Looking on is commissioner Gwen Nystuen. (Photos by the writer.)

Before approving the plan, the commission heard public commentary on the issue, as well as an update from park planner Amy Kuras about how some concerns had been addressed in revisions to earlier drafts. Later in the evening, the city’s planning commission also signed off on the plan. The PROS plan is set to come before the city council on March 7.

Heard during public commentary was criticism of the PROS plan for language it contains describing public-private partnerships for park services. One example of a potential partnership arose later in the meeting, when parks and recreation deputy manager Jeff Straw outlined a request for proposals, currently in draft form, that would explore interest from vendors in providing food concessions at park facilities.

The commission also approved a recommendation to raise fees slightly at the city’s golf courses for some items. Consideration of the fee increase came prior to the year’s regular budget decisions, so that the city council can consider and give final approval to the fee increases before the city’s golf courses open for play in the spring.

Also at the meeting, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith reviewed the parks budget presentation that had been made at a Jan. 31, 2011 city council work session. Smith also gave commissioners an update on two items concerning Argo Dam. He described how intake lines for a well that’s used for measuring water levels in the pond – so that the dam gates can regulate that level – had become clogged, and had ultimately required hiring a diver to unclog one of them.

The second Argo-related item was an update on the planned bypass channel which was recommended by the city’s park advisory commission and approved by the city council last year. Insurance issues are still being worked out with the contractor, Smith said, and construction will not start as early has had been hoped. Construction is not expected to be complete before the end of the construction season – in November.

Commissioners also agreed that before the city council approves the operating agreement between the city and the University of Michigan for the planned Fuller Road Station, they would like an opportunity to review that agreement.

At the meeting, commissioners also heard about a setback in a construction project that’s already nearing completion – renovations to the drainage system in West Park. Eight swirl concentrators were installed as a part of the project – four near the north Seventh Street entrance and four near the south entrance on Seventh. Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, reported that four out of the eight swirl concentrators were in some state of failure, and that one of the four had experienced a catastrophic failure. The other four are also suspected to have problems.

West Park Swirl Concentrators: Catastrophic Failure

During the 2010 construction season, the city undertook major renovations to the drain system in West Park. Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, seemed glum as he gave an update to park commissioners about a setback in the work. Most of the work in the park is complete, he said. The work around the park amenities, like the play area and the bandshell, is complete. The plantings for the wetland basins are not yet done, because spring is a better time to set them out.

View looking northeast from Seventh Street at the edge of West Park: site of the failed swirl concentrator. The backhoe had departed by the time this photograph was taken.

He began the discouraging part of the report by describing how there is currently a big yellow backhoe at the northwest end of the park on Seventh Street. The presence of the backhoe, he said, was due to a “catastrophic failure” in the new stormwater infrastructure that had been installed. During the construction work in the park, Hupy said, changes were made to the drain system. Eight swirl concentrator units – which help remove solids in the stormwater stream – had been installed as part of the drain system improvements, he explained. Four units were installed near the north Seventh Street entrance of the park and four units were installed near the south entrance on Seventh.

He told commissioners that one of the units on the north end had failed catastrophically and that the three other units on the north end were in some state of failure. They also suspect that the four units on the south end may be suffering similar failures. It’s not clear what caused the failure, Hupy said – the city has used such units at various other locations around the city. There are lawyers and engineers involved, he said, so there’s not yet any public statement that’s available.

Hupy also described how during heavy rains last year, the side of Seventh Street opposite the park had experienced a backup of water. It’s not completely clear, he said, whether the water backup was due to the construction configuration, or if it was due to changes in the park drainage system. The intent of the project, Hupy said, was of course to improve the drainage, not make it worse.

The use of the park amenities like the bandshell or the play area, he said, should not be affected by the work that will be required to put the swirl concentrators back in working order. They’d need to be dug up and rehabbed or replaced. Hupy indicated that the city hoped to be able to use the same source of funds that had paid for the project – a combination of federal stimulus and revolving loan – to effect the repairs.

Commissioner Tim Berla asked what exactly “failure” meant. Hupy told him the unit simply collapsed – nobody was hurt, though. Sam Offen wanted to know how long the repair would take – weeks or months? Hupy estimated that it would take until the end of the construction season – November.

Commission chair Julie Grand wanted to know what the implications for flooding are, with the swirl concentrators out of commission. Hupy explained that the walls directing water into the concentrators have been removed. The stormwater flow into the grates in Seventh Street was converted to overland flow through the park as a part of the project, he continued, so that should give an improvement in the stormwater management.

PROS Plan

The Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, which provides an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, 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. The process – led by park planner Amy Kuras – began in late 2009. The city’s park advisory commission was scheduled to vote on the plan at its Jan. 18, 2011 meeting, but that vote was postponed, because the time for public input had been set to last through Jan. 24.

PROS Plan: Public Comment

Dorothy Nordness led off public commentary by citing three areas of disappointment with the draft PROS plan. First, she cited a lack of commitment to a downtown greenway in the plan. It’s important to think well into the future, she said, not just about how to get through the next year or two. She said she grew up in Minneapolis, where planners had thought ahead and the city had developed a park system that led people to love it at first sight. She challenged Ann Arbor to do the same. Her second criticism was that Ann Arbor settles for parks without a special designation as “parkland” with accompanying protective language preventing sale or lease of the land. The general “public land” designation used by the city is not sufficient to prevent the altered use of parkland. She gave as an example the Fuller Road Station site, which she called “under siege.”

As her time elapsed, Nordness addressed the language in the plan dealing with public-private partnerships, saying that any such partnerships needed to have periodic evaluation. [.pdf of remarks by Nordness]

PROS Plan: Staff, Commissioner Comment – Public-Private

Park planner Amy Kuras summarized for commissioners a series of revisions she’d made to the plan since they’d seen it at their January meeting. Highlights included:

• Section I: open space inventory now includes non-city open space; language about the city’s transportation plans and its open space millage has been added.
• Section II: language has been added to include relationships between the parks system and independent nonprofits like Leslie Science and Nature Center.
• Section III: information about the FY 2011 budget has been moved to an appendix; information on budget trends has been added.
• Section IV: references to the “drain commissioner” have been updated to “water resources commissioner;” the font size for maps had been increased; the fact that Narrow Gauge is a nature area has been made clear; the relationship between Dicken Woods and the schools has been made clear.
• Section V: language has been added about how park acquisition standards are developed; the section on downtown parks has been expanded; information on the city’s parkland charter amendment has been added; a map showing just the greenbelt boundary area has been replaced with one showing the specific properties protected by investments from the greenbelt millage.
• Section VI: projects that are now known will be completed are described that way (like the Argo Dam bypass channel); a section on public-private partnerships has been added, which includes language about evaluating the risks of such partnerships.
• Section VIII: a section about the greenway has been added, but no map has been included, because it’s not yet a part of any of the city’s master plans.

When Kuras finished ticking through the revisions, commissioner Tim Doyle wanted to know what the next step is. Kuras explained that later that day the planning commission would vote on the plan. Then it would be forwarded to the city council for their consideration on March 7. In connection with grant applications, the state’s deadline for final approval of the PROS plan, Kuras said, is actually March 1. She’s received an extension from the state, and later that evening she’d be FedEx-ing the plan to the state office, with a note saying that it is stilling pending approval by the city council.

The city will still be inside a different deadline for expiration of the current plan, which is April 1, Kuras explained.

Commissioner Gwen Nystuen wanted to know if there were any grants the city wanted to apply for that could be affected by not having the PROS plan approved. Yes, said Kuras, giving the Gallup Park canoe livery and a skatepark proposal as examples.

Mike Anglin, one of two city council ex-officio members of PAC, expressed concern about the exploration of public-private partnerships mentioned in the plan. Any RFP that would include divestment by the city in its parks should include input from PAC, he said. Anglin alluded to the RFP for the privatization of Huron Hills golf operations as an example of inadequate input from the public and PAC.

Kuras clarified that the added language she’d mentioned about public-private partnerships simply reflected the feedback from the planning commission for the section of the PROS plan that summarizes their input as a focus group. That section reads:

4) 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.

Colin Smith stressed that inclusion of the concept of public-private partnerships is not new to the revised version of the PROS plan that PAC was being asked to consider. It’s been included in previous versions, and it’s also been emphasized that the risks must be balanced with the benefits.

Mike Anglin, an Ann Arbor city councilmember representing Ward 5 who also serves as an ex-officio member of the park advisory commission.

Smith addressed Anglin’s specific complaint about the RFP for Huron Hills golf operations by pointing out that the proposal had been discussed by the city’s golf task force and also by PAC itself. It had been a very public process, Smith said, and feedback from the public had been incorporated into the RFP.

The idea, said Smith, is that the city needs to look at opportunities for public-private partnerships, which is not to say that the city must take every one of those opportunities.

Commission chair Julie Grand also took exception to Anglin’s description of the Huron Hills RFP process, saying that she’d been present on the golf task force representing PAC for the RFP discussions, and had represented PAC at the interview with Miles of Golf, a local business that had responded to the RFP. She concluded that the Huron Hills RFP illustrated well that the city had weighed the risks and the benefits – the city ultimately rejected the Miles of Golf proposal.

Smith then gave various examples of public-private partnerships in the park and recreation system. Bryant Community Center and Leslie Science and Nature Center are operated by independent nonprofits, he said. The city’s recent promotion with Stonyfield Farm yogurt is another example, he said, as well as Zingerman’s products sold at Gallup canoe livery.

Gwen Nystuen said she thought Anglin’s point was important. She’d heard comments that the inclusion of public-private partnerships in the PROS plan made it sound like there was pressure to make money from the parks. Proposals like parking cars at Allmendinger and Frisinger parks on football Saturdays and the Huron Hills RFP were different from smaller, less permanent issues like concessions in the parks. She was concerned that permanent changes be treated differently from more minor decisions. Nystuen felt that PAC should have been more involved in the Huron Hills RFP than they were.

Smith responded to Nystuen by saying that the reality of the city’s situation is that it’s in a hard spot. They need to ask the question about whether to have a public-private partnership – even though they might answer, “No.” They need to look under every rock, he concluded.

Commissioner Tim Berla gave the city’s farmers market as another example of a public-private partnership. He noted that there had been a lot of upheaval in the community about the Huron Hills proposal, but in the end, nothing happened. It’s always important to weigh whether a proposal is good for the community or rather is simply good for some business. That could be done, he felt, without trying to impose a lot of rules for how public-private partnerships had to operate. The important thing is to make sure everything in the decision-making process is transparent, he said. He said the Huron Hills proposal showed that they’re doing a good job of that.

The discussion on the PROS plan concluded with a clarification from Smith, in response to some questions from Nystuen, about some budget information included in the plan. Administrative costs are not included in the costs of operating individual facilities, he explained.

Outcome: The park advisory commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the PROS plan.

Golf Course Fees

Before the commission was a recommendation to raise certain fees at the city’s golf courses. Power golf cart rentals for 9 holes at Leslie Park and Huron Hills would increase from $7 to $8; for 18 holes, the rental fee would increase from $13 to $14. City staff estimate the increases would generate $25,000 in additional revenue per season.

Weekend fees for 9 and 18 holes at Leslie Park golf course would increase by $2 and $1, respectively, and the twilight fee would increase to $16, up from $15. These increases would generate an estimated additional $12,500 in revenue per season. In addition, the commission approved raising the senior citizen qualification age to 59 for the 2011 season. That’s part of a consultant’s proposal to incrementally increase the qualification age from 55 to 62 by adding one year to the minimum age annually.

By way of introducing the proposed fee increases, Colin Smith told commissioners that the idea was to make sure that fees are still in line with other courses in the area. The fee increase for 18 holes of golf on the weekend would put Leslie at $30, Smith said, which is what the Pierce Lake course charges. The proposed increases had received unanimous support from the city’s golf task force two months ago, but they had not come easily to that conclusion.

Smith explained that the fee increase was coming to PAC in advance of the regular budget, because they wanted to get the fee increase in front of city council for final approval before the courses open in the spring.

Commissioner David Barrett got clarification that the budget impact was expected to be an extra $25,000 annuallyl from cart rentals and an extra $12,500 annually from the increase in fees for play. Commissioner Karen Levin wanted to know how often the fees were set. Smith explained that they’re reviewed every year to make sure they are in line with the competition.

Commissioner Tim Doyle wanted to know if there was a difference in price between city residents and non-city residents. Smith told Doyle that there was no difference. A recommendation from Golf Convergence had been to eliminate the different fees. Especially for Leslie, Smith said, differentiating between residents and non-residents on price was perceived negatively. It didn’t seem to make sense to pay more because you drive farther to get there.

Doyle wondered if there might be an impact on season pass sales if the price per round went up. Smith allowed that the fee increases could be a very minor additional economic incentive to purchase a season pass, but he did not think it would amount to more than a couple of extra passes sold.

Commissioner Sam Offen asked if there was any kind of combined season pass for various area municipal golf courses. Smith said there was not a season pass available, but that there was discussion of trying to coordinate marketing efforts.

Smith also clarified that once fees are set, staff has the flexibility to be creative about creating “specials.” He gave as an example a special deal where golfers could play 18 holes of golf for $18 if they started before 8 a.m. The tee timesheet between 7-8 a.m. is now full, he reported.

Mike Anglin wanted to know what the expected number of rounds would be at Huron Hills for the upcoming season. Smith put the numbers in perspective: In 2007, Huron Hills had seen 13,000 rounds played. Last year that number had risen to 22,000 rounds. This coming year, he’s hoping for 25,000 rounds, he said.

Commission chair Julie Grand asked for some explanation for the use of full-time year-round staff for the golf courses. Smith explained that the analysis of the previous season and planning for the upcoming season is done during the time the courses are closed. Smith said it’s not just the golf task force that has been instrumental in improving the number of rounds played over the last three years at the city’s golf courses. He attributed a lot of the success to the efforts of the city’s full-time golf course staff.

Smith also pointed out that the golf courses are not unique in having year-round staff, despite being open only part of the year. Canoe liveries follow that staffing strategy as well, he said. It’s during the off-season that programs are upgraded, and trends are studied. During the season, there’s only time to implement what has been developed during the off-season.

Commissioner Gwen Nystuen was curious to know if the off-season planning by the golf staff included use of Huron Hills for winter activities like cross-country skiing. Smith said he’s asked staff to contact local businesses that sell cross-country skis and snowshoes to begin a conversation about some kind of partnership, but indicated that he was not optimistic that it would generate revenue.

Outcome: PAC voted unanimously to recommend raising some of the fees associated with the city’s golf courses.

Budget Review

On the commission’s agenda was an update from parks and recreation manager Colin Smith on the parks and recreation planned FY 2012 budget. He reported from the city council’s budget work session on Jan. 31, 2011, which focused on the community services area, of which parks and recreation is a part. [.pdf of parks and recreation budget impact sheet]

Budget Review: Public Comment – Golf Courses

A large part of the discussion at the city council’s budget work session focused on options for the Huron Hills golf course. [.pdf of staff memos on golf course options and a $287,000 general fund supplement to the parks] At the park advisory commission meeting on Tuesday, commissioners heard public comment from two speakers who addressed the topic of Huron Hills golf course.

Nancy Kaplan told the commissioners that she was pleased with the apparent consensus reached by the city council at their Jan. 31. 2011 budget work session that Huron Hills would continue to be used as a park and that it also seemed agreed that the best economic use of the land is its current use – as a golf course. She expressed some concern about the fact that the city employs full-time, year-round employees for Huron Hills when the golf course is only open for part of the year. She suggested exploring additional opportunities for recreation at Huron Hills during the winter – ice-skating, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. She stressed that she was pleased that Huron Hills remains parkland.

Ann Schriber told the commissioners that she was pleased that the Miles of Golf proposal had been turned down. She described how there are more than 100 people involved in the effort to make sure that Huron Hills is kept as parkland, yet “nobody has ever asked us” for their input on ways to ensure its future as parkland. She said the city had spent $50,000 on a consultant and that her group, Ann Arbor for Parkland Preservation, had spent $10,000. With $60,000, she said, surely they could come up with something.

Budget Review: Staff, Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Before the meeting started, Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation for the city Ann Arbor, distributes written material to commissioners.

Smith told Berla that an accounting of how the parks budget had been treated the same as other parts of the budget since 2007 was now prepared in draft form. Berla had requested a report on that at PAC’s Nov. 16, 2010 meeting.

Commissioner David Barrett recalled that he’d been there during the 2007 “kerfuffle” and that the concern had been that the newly-passed millage was being swallowed up by reductions of general fund support to the parks. He gave credit to then-councilmember Bob Johnson for working it out. There’d been a feeling that the public voted and was then being hornswoggled, Barrett said.

Smith said that the city’s accounting at the time had been correct, but that perceptions had been otherwise and so the $287,000 had been supplemented to make the parks whole.

Summarizing the apparent council consensus that Huron Hills would remain a golf course for the next two years at least, Smith said that the cost to the city to use the property as a golf course was in line with, if not less than, any non-golf uses.

Argo Dam Update: Bypass, Funding, Water Levels

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith gave commissioners updates on two different Argo Dam-related issues. The first was news that the hoped-for construction start for the Argo Dam bypass channel would not be realized. The city was meeting with the contractor and is still working out insurance issues, he said. It will take until the end of the 2011 construction season to complete the work, he said.

In response to a question from John Lawter, Smith said that the issue of the parks responsibility for funding dam maintenance would be addressed during the budget process. [At issue is whether the funding for dam maintenance at Argo is appropriately taken from the city's drinking water utility fund, even though Argo is considered a recreational dam. The city council debated the issue most recently at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting, when the council approved the construction of the bypass channel at Argo, which will eliminate the need for canoeists to portage around the dam.]

Smith also reported that near Argo, intake lines for a well that’s used for measuring water levels in the pond – so that the dam gates can regulate that level – had recently become clogged, and had ultimately required hiring a diver to unclog one of them. When the water level in the well is low, the dam gates close in order to raise the level. When the water level in the well is high, the dam gates open to lower the level. If the intake pipes – which are between 1.5-2.0 inches in diameter – become clogged, the water level of the pond cannot be properly regulated.

The city’s first attempt to clear the lines was to use compressed air to blow out the lines. Ultimately a diver had to be hired to dive into the water, Smith said, to clear one of the lines. Work on the other line, which is a backup, will wait until warmer weather. All the dams have such regulators, he said, and they do become clogged from time to time. Clearing out the lines is a routine event, though he allowed that hiring a diver in the middle of winter made it “non-routine routine.”

Park Concessions RFP

Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation, briefed commissioners on a draft of a request for proposals (RFP) he’s working on for concessions in the city’s park’s facilities. In light of the concerns about public-private partnerships that had been expressed earlier in the meeting, Smith playfully asked commissioners to “be kind” to Straw.

By way of backround, Straw told the commission that a few years ago the city had discontinued most of the concessions in the parks. They’d instead provided vending machines. That had allowed staff to focus on programs and services. Concessions weren’t completely eliminated, he explained, giving the golf courses, canoe liveries and Veteran’s Memorial Park ice rink (but not the pool) as examples.

The staff has heard feedback from park users that it would be nice to have concessions available. So the RFP would be to provide concessions. Straw said that except for the Veterans Memorial Park pool, the locations where the city is soliciting concessions proposals have dedicated space and facilities for concessions – it would be a win-win, he said. There would be no expense to the city. He hopes to be able to issue the RFP in the spring, and if there are responses that are agreeable, the city might be able to implement concessions operated by a private vendor starting with the new fiscal year, which is July 1, 2011, if not sooner.

Straw emphasized that the idea is not to commercialize the parks – it’s to provide a service that park users want. For a swimmer who wants to spend the afternoon at the pool, to get food they’d have to leave and come back. The RFP would include Buhr Park ice rink and pool, Veterans Memorial Park ice rink and pool, Fuller Park pool and athletic fields, and the Southeast Area Park.

They would entertain proposals involving “mobile carts,” too, he said. [In subsequent commissioner deliberations, they clarified that this did not mean that a vendor would be wandering up to park users soliciting purchases, but rather it means something akin to a food cart on the street – it'd be hauled to a location, and then at the end of the day would be put away.]

The city is not looking to discontinue the vending machines, because concessions might not be staffed for the entire time a facility is open, Straw explained. The RFP will include an expectation that some kind of sponsorship donation be made for exclusive use of the facilities and that donation would be put towards the city parks scholarship program.

Sam Offen said he thought issuing the RFP for concessions is a great idea. In response to a question from Offen, Smith said that he thought the city stopped selling concessions at its parks sometime around 2003 or 2004. He said when it was done by the city, it simply wasn’t done very well.

Offen wanted to know if someone responding to the RFP had to bid on all the locations – yes, said Straw. But if they don’t have success with that approach, they might have to try something else. Offen was also curious to know what the financial arrangement with a vendor would be like. Straw said that under the RFP, the vendors would make some kind of proposal – a percentage of gross, percentage of net, flat rental or sponsorship.

In response to another question from Offen, Straw said that the RFP does not provide any preference for Ann Arbor businesses right now.

Gwen Nystuen called offering concessions a good idea – it’s a nice thing that people enjoy, she said. She wouldn’t want to limit it just to vendors who would handle all locations. She said she liked the idea of a local business handling it.

Christopher Taylor, one of two city council ex-officio representatives to PAC, kidded Straw about what he meant by “no expense to the city.” Straw allowed that there would be some cost of utilities like gas, electricity and water. But there would be no inventory, supplies or staff costs, he said. Taylor confirmed further with Straw that utilities could not be charged to vendors because they’re not separately metered. There would be some amount of oversight and compliance, but basically whatever revenue the city realized would be “all margin.”

Tim Doyle wanted to know if the impact of clean-up costs had been factored into projections. He figured there would be some additional cost to cleaning up after park users who used the concessions. He said his first thought was to require that soda only be sold in cans with a deposit to ensure that someone had an incentive to go around and pick them up – but it had quickly occurred to him that there were many other kinds of trash that the strategy would not cover. He suggested that the RFP include a provision that any contract awarded to a vendor have a clause requiring a “re-look” after a certain period of time.

John Lawter suggested that recycling be thought about in connection with the clean-up issue. Doug Chapman drew out from Straw the fact that vendors would need to pass a health code inspection.

Doyle suggested that vendors would need to be sensitive to price – people might be turned off if costs were prohibitive. They’d hear complaints if a vendor were charging $7.50 for a hot dog, he said. Straw assured Doyle that the city wanted to make sure there are affordable options. Straw also said that they wanted to make sure there are healthy options, as well.

Julie Grand expressed some concern about the idea of mobile concessions, saying that it’s a challenge as a parent when options are presented in a manner where they are “in your face.” Straw clarified that once the concession is set up on a given day, it would not move around.

Straw concluded by saying he thought the RFP would be issued sometime in the month of March.

Fuller Road Station

During the slot for commissioner-proposed business, Gwen Nystuen expressed concern about how Fuller Road Station would be moving ahead. She reviewed many of the issues associated with the project, chief among them, the fact that the location – which is currently a 250-space surface parking lot – is city parkland. The city-university project would include around 1,000 total parking spaces as well as bus bays in its first phase and is later expected to include a train station.

Despite what the name plate says, this is park advisory commissioner Gwen Nystuen.

A point of  agreement among commissioners was the importance of the resolution that they’d passed at their June 15, 2010 meeting about the Fuller Road Station project. [Chronicle coverage: "Park Commission Asks for Transparency"]

Colin Smith told commissioners that currently the city attorney’s office is still working on the Fuller Road Station operating agreement between the city and the University of Michigan. He said he did not think, as Mike Anglin suggested, that it was on the agenda for the city council’s second meeting in March.

Commissioners made clear they want to make sure they have a chance to review the operating agreement before the city council votes on it. David Barrett drew an analogy to pouring cement on a deal – it shouldn’t begin to harden before PAC can have an impact on it.

Nancy Kaplan returned to the podium at the conclusion of the meeting during the second opportunity for public comment, and said she’d attended all the public meetings on the Fuller Road Station, and that the public who’d attended had almost universally objected to the station. She told commissioners that a group of UM graduate students is also opposed to building the station.

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

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

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]

Park advisory commissioners Sam Offen, left, and Tim Doyle look at a schematic of the proposed Allen Creek Greenway during a presentation at PAC's Jan. 18 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

A speaker during PAC’s public hearing on the plan had pointed out that the official public commentary period runs through Jan. 24. That prompted discussion among commissioners about whether to hold off until all possible commentary is heard – though some indicated there’d already been ample opportunity for feedback. Another public hearing on the PROS plan will be held at the planning commission’s Feb. 1 meeting, with a vote by that group set for Feb. 15. City council is expected to hold a public hearing and vote on the plan in early March.

Tuesday’s PAC meeting included two presentations. Mike Quinn, a board member of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, described the group’s efforts and asked PAC to convey a sense of urgency about the project to city council. And Scott Rosencrans, a former PAC chair, gave an update on the Ann Arbor skatepark: “The big news is that this is the year we build the skatepark.”

Updates from city parks staff included a quarterly financial report, during which parks manager Colin Smith reported that parks & recreaction is looking at 2.5% cuts during the next budget cycle. Commissioners also got briefed on the outcome of the Miles of Golf proposal to take over operations of the Huron Hills golf course – a proposal rejected by the city late last year – and an update on planned improvements at the Gallup Park canoe livery. Staff will hold a public meeting with concept plans on Tuesday, Jan. 25 at the livery, starting at 7 p.m. If the plan is approved, the city is poised to apply for state grant funding for the project, estimated to cost about $450,000.

Action on PROS Plan Postponed

The Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, which provides an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, 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. The process – led by parks planner Amy Kuras – began in late 2009 and is nearing completion, with final input being solicited on a draft. A resolution was on the agenda at PAC’s Jan. 18 meeting to recommend approval of the plan, and a public hearing was held to get additional feedback.

[For additional details on the plan itself, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Weighs In on Parks" Files in .pdf format of the draft PROS plan sections: Intro and Section I: Community Description, Section II: Administrative Structure, Section III: Budget & Funding, Section IV: Inventory, Section V: Land Use Planning & Acquisition, Section VI: Planning Process, Section VII: Goals & Objectives, Section VIII: Needs Assessment, Section IX: Action Plan]

PROS Plan: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during a public hearing on the PROS plan. Alice Ralph said she was speaking on behalf of Rita Mitchell, who wasn’t able to stay long enough to participate. Mitchell had prepared written remarks, which Ralph read, stating that it would be premature for PAC to vote on the PROS plan at this meeting. The city has indicated that public commentary will remain open through Jan. 24, and that public hearings at PAC, the planning commission and city council would be held in February and March.

[She was referring to the following paragraph, posted on the city's PROS plan website:]

Comments may be submitted until Jan. 24, 2011 to be considered for inclusion in the plan. In February and March, public hearings will be held at the Park Advisory Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. Dates will be posted as they are confirmed. To submit comments e-mail a2parks@a2gov.org.

Reading Mitchell’s remarks, Ralph stated that PAC hasn’t yet heard from the public, and that insufficient notice has been provided to the public about the opportunity for input. Will another public hearing be held at PAC? How will additional public input be incorporated into the plan, if PAC votes on it now? In addition, there were several specific comments directed at the plan itself. She opposed the concept of public/private partnerships, stating that it could lead to the piece-by-piece dismantling of the parks system. She cited Fuller Road Station and the Huron Hills golf course RFP process as examples. The current draft uses 2000 census data – 2010 data should be used instead. She also said there is a lack of clarity on the budget that’s included in the draft. She described here remarks as the start of her comments, and that she’ll be sending more. [.pdf file of full remarks]

George Gaston spoke briefly, saying he wanted to echo the comments that Ralph had made. He urged commissioners to postpone their voting on the PROS plan until all public input was received.

PROS Plan: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Tim Berla asked Amy Kuras to review the public process that had been done so far for the PROS plan. She said it started about a year ago, when a steering committee was formed to provide guidance on updating the plan. An online survey was open for three months, yielding about 820 responses from the public. They held three public forums, which she said weren’t particularly well-attended – about 30 people in total came to those. In addition, CDs of the draft are available at parks facilities, she said.

The public comment period to respond to the draft itself is dictated by the state, Kuras said. There’s a mandatory 42-day period from the time that the draft is released – that period ends on Jan. 24. She noted that in addition to the public hearing at PAC, there will be one at the planning commission on Feb. 1, and another at city council in March. She’s also solicited feedback directly from PAC and planning commissioners at work sessions. [See Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Weighs In on Parks"]

Gwen Nystuen said she supported waiting until the public commentary period has ended before voting on the draft. In response to a question from Nystuen about timing, Kuras said they needed to have final approval of the plan by all entities on April 1. If the city doesn’t meet that deadline, it won’t be eligible for certain state grants, she said. It’s not clear whether the city would remain ineligible for an entire year, or for a shorter period.

David Barrett said it was important to point out that more than 820 people had responded to the online survey. He elicited from Kuras that the previous report had used a phone survey, with about 600 responses.

Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who’s an ex-officio member of PAC, clarified that amendments could be made to the plan even after it is approved. He noted that over the past few years, the city has been involved in rezoning efforts, changing the zoning of city-owned property to “public land,” and adding transportation facilities as a possible use for parcels zoned as public land. That “might be a very radical change that’s taken place,” he said.

Perhaps a five-year plan is a model of the past, Anglin said. The council might want to review the document more frequently. He noted that he doesn’t use the parks much himself, but he’s proud that the city has these amenities – PAC serves as a custodian of that legacy. Anglin concluded by saying he was glad to know the plan could be amended.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks manager, said that one option for PAC would be to pass the resolution at that meeting, but make it contingent on possibly incorporating additional public commentary. He also pointed out that even if commentary is received, that doesn’t mean it will automatically be included in the plan. “It will be considered,” he said.

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, voiced support for that approach. She observed that Kuras had met with PAC members last week at their land acquisition committee meeting, and they’d given feedback to her then. There have been multiple opportunities for input, she said, and this isn’t the last one.

Karen Levin proposed taking a vote at PAC’s next land acquisition committee meeting, on Feb. 1. [LAC is a committee that includes all PAC members. Its meetings are open to the public, but are held at Cobblestone Farm and are not televised.] Berla observed that it would be unusual not to take a vote on such a public topic at their main meeting.

Tim Doyle suggested adding the word “draft” into the resolution, making it clear that they were voting on a document that wasn’t yet completed. With that change, he said he’d support voting on it at the current meeting.

Sam Offen felt uncomfortable taking action before all the public commentary had been collected. It might be the last comment they receive from the public that prompts discussion and revisions, he said. For that reason, he supported postponing a vote.

Saying he didn’t want to prioritize the “food chain,” David Barrett clarified that the normal process would be for PAC to vote first, then the planning commission, and finally city council. If it could be worked out, he’d feel more comfortable waiting until after Jan. 24 to vote. He also praised Kuras for the tenor of the report, saying the document reflected the public commentary that had been made so far, but didn’t judge that commentary.

Because the planning commission has scheduled a public hearing on the plan for its Feb. 1 meeting, that group could vote on it at their Feb. 15 meeting, Smith said. He suggested that PAC also take a vote at their Feb. 15 meeting. [PAC meets prior to the planning commission – their meetings start at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., respectively.] That way the vote is televised, and there’s adequate time to incorporate public commentary, he said. Kuras said her plan is to compile a summary of public commentary by the end of next week, which she’d provide to both PAC and the planning commission.

Grand concluded the discussion by observing that consensus seemed to be reached on taking a vote at their next Feb. 15 meeting. She thanked Kuras for her work, saying “it’s a beautiful document.”

Allen Creek Greenway

Mike Quinn, a board member of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy and a senior principal at Quinn Evans Architects, gave a presentation to commissioners and asked for their support of the walking/biking pathway. He described the greenway as ambitious, with the goal of transforming a stretch of land that’s now considered blighted – extending from East Stadium and South State, running north along the railroad right-of-way through town and ending at the Huron River. The transformation would have major economic benefits, he said, and the time is right to act – the economic downturn provides an opportunity, he said.

The conservancy – a 501(c)3 nonprofit – is trying to facilitate discussions between major property owners needed to make the greenway a reality: the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Railroad and the city of Ann Arbor. Quinn reported that board members Joe O’Neal and Jonathan Bulkley were meeting with mayor John Hieftje that day. Members of the group also met recently with the owner of the Ann Arbor Railroad, and got a positive response, he said. And officials at the university have said they won’t impede the idea, Quinn reported – a response that greenway supporters consider positive.

Quinn noted that the PROS plan mentions the greenway briefly, but the conservancy hoped that PAC could give the project more energy.

Mike Quinn gave a presentation on the Allen Creek Greenway project at the Jan. 18 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

It’s critical to get a design in place so that people will have a proposal they can react to, Quinn said. There are three city properties that the conservancy hopes the city will commit to the project: 1) A surface parking lot at First & William, 2) the 415 W. Washington property, a former city maintenance facility, and 3) 721 N. Main, another city maintenance yard. He noted that all of the city land at First & William is located in the floodway, making it difficult to build there, but ideal for the greenway – the other two properties are partially located in the floodway.

In discussions last year, Quinn said city councilmembers had raised safety concerns, given that the proposed route would include crossing many streets. Conservancy members agree that it’s a problem, but it can be addressed, he said.

In response to a question from commissioner Tim Doyle, Quinn said the conservancy assumes the greenway would eventually become the responsibility of the city’s parks and recreation unit. He noted that it would connect with Washtenaw County’s border-to-border trail, and would promote efforts to create a more walkable, bikeable community.

After some wrangling with set-up, the presentation concluded with a five-minute video featuring community members – including Eppie Potts, Margaret Wong and Grace Shackman, among others – talking about why they support the project.

Quinn again asked PAC to convey to city council a sense of urgency about the greenway.

Ann Arbor Skatepark

Scott Rosencrans was in familiar territory at Tuesday’s PAC meeting. A former chair of the commission, he was on hand to make a presentation on behalf of the Ann Arbor skatepark project. He’s now a board member of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, and told commissioners that he’s also the group’s project liaison. He thanked the public for voting in the December Pepsi Refresh competition, an online effort to win $250,000. Though they didn’t get the prize, they came in 20th out of 200 projects in their category, which was based on online votes throughout the month. He thanked the city for helping promote the competition, saying that even though they didn’t win, they raised awareness about the project.

Rosencrans reported that the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark recently added two new board members – himself, and Sam Saalberg, a teen who’s representing users of the skatepark. He also noted that Trevor Staples, a long-time leader of the skatepark effort, decided not to run for president, though he’ll remain on the board. Instead, Joe Galante was elected to that position.

Skatepark organizers are running a major donor campaign, cultivating five- and six-figure contributions, Rosencrans said. At the same time, there’s an active grant-writing program too. They’ve received a great deal of financial and logistical support from local businesses and individuals, he said, and are raising funds through selling merchandise, including items sold at Acme Mercantile on West Liberty.

But the big news, Rosencrans said, “is that this is the year we build the skatepark.” There are deadlines they need to meet – Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation has committed $400,000 to the roughly $1 million project, but that offer expires on Jan. 1, 2012 if skatepark organizers can’t raise matching funds. An agreement with the city of Ann Arbor has set aside land at Veterans Memorial Park until 2014 to use for the project, but city officials can reconsider that date if sufficient funding hasn’t been raised by 2012, Rosencrans said. He’s optimistic they can do it, but said there’s a tremendous amount of work to do.

Next steps will include writing and issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for a firm to provide construction drawings and technical oversight to the project. They’ll need to form an RFP review committee, get their funding in place, go through the construction bid process, “and then we’ll build the darn thing,” he said. The skatepark will be a world-class facility, Rosencrans told commissioners, serving an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 skateboarders. “I think this will be a project all of us can be proud of.”

Several commissioners had comments or questions. David Barrett asked about parking – when baseball or softball games are played at Veterans Memorial Park, the parking gets tight. Are there plans to expand it? Rosencrans said it wasn’t part of their design and he didn’t know of any plans by the city to expand parking. He noted that there was also a large parking lot at the shopping center across the street. Colin Smith, parks manager, confirmed that the city didn’t intend to expand parking. He noted that even at peak usage, the lots were rarely if ever completely full. He also pointed out that the park is on a bus line, and it’s anticipated that many users of the skatepark will take the bus or come from surrounding neighborhoods.

Sam Offen asked whether they expected to raise the entire amount this year – if not, would they start construction, even if they still needed additional funding to complete the project? Rosencrans said the preferred scenario is to raise all the money and build it this year. It’s possible to build it in phases, but that’s not optimal and would likely increase costs overall, he said.

Tim Berla asked what the commission could do to help the project. He said it was interesting that the PROS plan listed several parks capital projects with funding identified, but that the line item for the skatepark was unfunded.

Rosencrans replied that personal contributions are welcome – he offered to facilitate donations. Spreading the word about the project is also important, he said. Smith pointed out that the memorandum of intent between the city and the skatepark organizers – which PAC approved – was the same language used in the PROS plan. Berla asked whether PAC could ask council to try to find skatepark funding, if the organizers came close to meeting their financial goal, but fell short. Smith indicated that if it gets to that point, there’s nothing prohibiting the city from revisiting the question of funding.

Julie Grand asked how much they’d raised so far. Rosencrans said they it takes time to cultivate donors, and that there were several five- and six-figure donations that hadn’t yet been finalized. They’ve raised about $80,000 so far, he said. An invitation-only fundraiser is being planned for potential supporters, he said – mayor John Hieftje and Zingerman’s co-founder Paul Saginaw have agreed to speak at the event.

Gallup Park Livery Improvements

Amy Kuras, the city’s parks planner, gave commissioners a briefing on planned improvements for the Gallup Park canoe livery. Renovations are needed because the use of the facility has outgrown its original design, she said, and it’s outdated in terms of energy efficiency and other features. They hope to expand the facility’s meeting room, improve the safety of the path approaching the livery, and give people barrier-free access to the facility and dock area.

City staff will hold a public meeting with concept plans on Tuesday, Jan. 25 at the livery, starting at 7 p.m. If the plan is approved, they hope to apply for state grant funding.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, elaborated on the issue of grant applications. As their staff has decreased over the years, he said, they’ve had less capacity to seek grants. The application process isn’t very time-consuming, but administering the grants takes staff resources that they don’t have. However, the state last year awarded about $100 million for 80 parks-related projects statewide, out of about 120 applications, Smith said. Given those good odds, it makes sense for Ann Arbor to apply, he said. City staff believes the Gallup livery project would have a good chance, given the livery’s high usage and clear need for improvements.

The city has some consultants on retainer, Smith said, who might be used to administer the grant. But even if a consultant’s fees are paid out of the grant, it would still be worth it, he said. The project is estimated to cost between $450,000 to $500,000. Kuras estimated that the cost of a consultant to administer the grant would be around $5,000.

Offen asked whether the city plans to tear down the existing building, or renovate it. Kuras described the current structure as beautiful – it wouldn’t be torn down, but it would be reconfigured. For example, they might add doors to open onto a patio area, to create an indoor/outdoor space for events.

In response to another query from Offen, Kuras said she had talked to the city’s energy office, and that there might be opportunities for other grants for features like solar panels.

Smith concluded the presentation by urging the public to attend the Jan. 25 forum and give feedback on the project.

Quarterly Financial Report

Sam Offen, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee, gave a brief report on the second quarter financial update for parks and recreation. [.pdf files of second-quarter update and FY2011 forecast]

There are no surprises, Offen said. For the overall parks & recreation operations, expenses are $47,500 lower than budgeted, and revenues are $35,000 higher than budgeted, for a net gain of $82,500 over the first six months of the fiscal year. Revenues were $50,000 higher than budgeted at the two golf courses – Huron Hills and Leslie Park – and expenses were $15,000 lower than budgeted. Revenues were higher than budgeted at several other facilities, but down at Mack Pool, Fuller Pool and the Argo canoe livery.

Offen commented that the parks staff is doing an excellent job at maximizing revenues while keeping expenses down.

Parks manager Colin Smith reported that as of the first six months of the year, parks & recreation operations were $17,500 “to the good” of their anticipated $1.2 million general fund subsidy for the fiscal year. It was a small percentage under budget, he noted, but they were pleased that they are so close to their target.

Smith also described the process for the upcoming two-year budget cycle of fiscal 2012 and 2013. The city council has already started budget discussions, he said, including budget retreats they held in December and January. Parks managers will be going over the budget in detail with PAC’s budget and finance committee, then bringing a recommendation to the full commission in April. That recommendation would be reviewed and voted on by PAC, then forwarded to city council.

This year, in addition to that process, each service area of the city will be preparing “impact sheets” with ideas about how to cut expenses and raise revenues. They’ll be giving presentations at city council work sessions on those impact sheets, he said. Parks is part of the community services unit, which will be making its presentation to council on Jan. 31. He expects to get feedback and guidance from council at that point, which will be incorporated into the budget.

Smith reported that parks & rec has been asked to cut its budget by 2.5% – or about $93,000. He described this as a manageable number, which can be made up through a combination of increased revenues and decreased expenses. In particular, Smith said they anticipate revenue opportunities at the Argo livery in the wake of improvements being done there this year. [The city council recently approved a $1.17 million project to build a bypass channel in the Argo Dam headrace and add whitewater features. See Chronicle coverage: "PAC Recommends Argo Dam Bypass"]

Related to the Argo Dam project, Smith reported that earlier this month, the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission had agreed to fund the full cost of border-to-border trail improvements being done in conjunction with the bypass channel, for $112,500. The city had hoped for half that amount, Smith said, and appreciated the county’s enthusiasm for this project.

Huron Hills Golf Course Proposal

Tim Berla asked parks manager Colin Smith to brief PAC on the outcome of the Huron Hills Golf Course proposal from Miles of Golf, which had been rejected late last year.

Last year, the city had issued a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit ideas for improving operations at the city-owned course. Two groups submitted proposals, but only Miles of Golf – a Pittsfield Township business – was chosen by a selection committee to move forward in the selection process. The business owners made a presentation at a Dec. 3 public meeting, but were informed later in the month that the city would not be pursuing their proposal.

At Tuesday’s PAC meeting, Smith said that the selection committee’s charge was to make a recommendation to Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, who would then decide whether to forward that recommendation further. The committee felt that the proposal didn’t make sense for the city, Smith said. It asked for a $3 million capital contribution from the city, and the project’s risk outweighed its potential reward. The proposal also didn’t factor in operating costs that the city would still need to cover even if Miles of Golf took over operations of the course, he said.

In addition, there was a heavy emphasis on the firm’s retail business, which made members of the selection committee uncomfortable, Smith said. And though the revenue projections in the financial forecast were very aggressive, they still didn’t hit the amount needed for proposed financial incentives to the city to kick in. For all of these reasons, Smith said, the committee didn’t believe the proposal was one that the city should pursue.

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair who also served on the selection committee, added that the RFP had indicated the goal of proposals should be to improve the game of golf in this community. The Miles of Golf proposal, with its retail focus, wouldn’t do that, she said.

Smith noted that the process had been a contentious one for the community, and he gave Miles of Golf credit for trying to put together a proposal that would address the city’s needs as well as their own. “That should be commended, regardless of the outcome,” he said.

Public Commentary

John Satarino, a former PAC member, spoke against the proposed Fuller Road Station, a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan parking structure, bus depot and possible train station. He said a deed restriction placed on the property when it was bought by the city from a Detroit Edison subsidiary in 1931 requires that it remain for park purposes only. The city has spent more than $1 million on the project already, he said, partly with PAC’s blessing and partly because of the commission’s passivity.

He criticized the public forums held by the city about the project, describing them as heavily managed and reminiscent of the Third Reich. The station’s annual operations subsidy will cost millions, he said, but word about that hasn’t seemed to reach the Ann Arbor taxpayer yet. He concluded by saying that the city might have to sell off parkland to pay for it – and city officials are tooting their own horns “while Tree Town dies.”

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

Absent: John Lawter, councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [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.

Forest Hill Cemetery in Ann Arbor. Planning commissioners pointed to cemeteries and the University of Michigan campus as adding to the downtown greenspace, in addition to city-owned parks. The discussion prompted one commissioner to quip: "Bring a basket to the casket!"

One of those focus groups took place at a working session for planning commissioners earlier this month, where Kuras asked for feedback on a range of topics, including the possibility of changing zoning to better protect parkland – an issue raised during debate about the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Also discussed were the role of parks and open space in the downtown area, and whether the city should acquire land for an Allen Creek greenway. And commissioners weighed in on the city’s practice of asking developers to contribute land or cash in lieu of land for parks – developers of Zaragon Place 2 will likely be paying the city $48,000 for that purpose, for example.

The nearly two-hour discussion touched on a whole host of other topics as well: How far should the city go in crafting public/private partnerships, like putting cell phone towers in parks? Beyond a traditional playground, how can the city become more kid-friendly – with amenities like fountains, or objects to climb on? Are pedestrian malls really an awful idea?

The city is soliciting more general public input on the PROS plan in several ways: via an online survey, email that can be sent to prosplan@a2gov.org, and a series of public meetings. The next meeting is set for Tuesday, June 29 at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm Barn, 2781 Packard Road. The current 232-page PROS plan (a 10MB .pdf file) can be downloaded from the city’s website.

The goal is to have a draft of the plan ready for review by October. The planning commission is one of several city groups – including the park advisory commission and city council – that must vote on the final document by year’s end. It also gets forwarded to the state for approval. The plan, which includes a detailed inventory of the current parks system as well as plans for its future, is typically required when seeking state and federal funding.

At the June 8 working session, Kuras posed six questions to planning commissioners. Those questions and responses from the group form the framework for this report.

Public Land Zoning

Question: There has been much discussion of late because of the Fuller Road Station that there should be a special category of park zoning that would be more tightly regulated than just PL (public land) zoning. What are your thoughts about changing the zoning to reflect more stringent rules concerning development on parkland?

The issue of public land zoning has emerged in two ways, Kuras told planning commissioners. Jayne Miller, the city’s former community services director, started an initiative to “clean up” zoning in Ann Arbor by rezoning city-owned property as public land (PL), which gives the city more flexibility in determining uses for the land. Even when land is designated as parkland – as is the case for the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station – it’s still zoned as public land. Kuras said a suggestion from the park advisory commission was to look at whether the city should have a separate category of zoning for parkland.

Public Land Zoning: Commissioner Discussion

Calling it an interesting idea, Erica Briggs said that having a parkland zoning designation would give people some level of comfort that the land would be used exclusively for parks. She realized it would create some challenges for the city, however, and said she’d be interested in hearing from Kuras about what those challenges might be. Kuras said the staff wasn’t sure yet what a parkland designation would entail – that’s one reason they were soliciting feedback.

Kirk Westphal said he was in favor of having clearer expectations outlined for how land could be used. But he noted that because of the city’s charter amendment requiring the city to get voter approval if it wanted to sell parkland, it’s already very difficult to repurpose parkland. That makes him wary of putting further restrictions on the types of land use. Westphal worries that they’ll lose flexibility.

Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on city council, noted that this issue had emerged at the June 7 council meeting. They had discussed and approved, on first reading, a change in the list of uses outlined for public land – replacing “municipal airports” with “transportation facilities” in Chapter 55 of the city code. [Council subsequently approved the change at their June 21 meeting.]

Council had debated whether to use a more generic term like transportation facilities, or to enumerate more specifically the types of transportation facilities that could be included, Derezinski said. They had unanimously settled on the more generic term, he said, nothing that planning commission had made that recommendation. It gives the city more flexibility, he said. [See Chronicle coverage of the planning commission discussion at their May 4, 2010 meeting.]

Diane Giannola said it was too limiting to zone the land as parkland. The purpose of public land is to be mutually beneficial for the entire community, she said, noting that’s the case for the Fuller Road Station, which benefits the broader community. Versatility is important, she said.

Jean Carlberg asked whether designating land as parkland – even though it’s zoned as public land – actually protects the land in any way from being repurposed. She had originally thought those protections were spelled out in the PROS plan, but when she looked for it, she didn’t see any reference to it. “That part I found troubling – I assumed it was here but it’s not, that I can see.” It’s important for the public to know what the legal status is for parkland, she said. Generally, Carlberg said she was in favor of public land zoning, but if land is designated as parkland, then the protections for that need to be defined.

Kuras explained that the PROS plan includes a section outlining different categories of parks – such as neighborhood parks or historic sites. Some of those categories, like the natural areas and preserves, have a higher level of protection than others, she said.

Evan Pratt said he looked at the big picture – it ends up being a city council decision. And in the worst case scenario, every year there’s the opportunity to vote for five or six of the 11 council positions. If you don’t like decisions that are being made by the council, you can elect others to reverse those decisions, he said. He understood why people are concerned, but added that sometimes things get stirred up without basis. He recalled a situation when land near a subdivision was to be rezoned, and residents somehow concluded that the intent was for the city to put a road through there. Carlberg suggested that the city provide more descriptive notices for neighbors, which might help clarify what the rezoning means.

Bonnie Bona said she wasn’t sure that zoning was the right place to differentiate between public land and parkland. Even the change in city code language to replace “municipal airports” with “transportation facilities” is simply to make clear what the city is doing, she said – the change wasn’t necessary to allow the city to use the land in that way. The council makes that decision. It’s not clear that the city’s master plan or the PROS plan have any legal bearing – the plans are intended as guidance, Bona said. She agreed with others who view flexibility as important. She also noted that parkland gets acquired for all sorts of reasons, both admirable and political.

Wendy Woods agreed with Bona, also noting that council can ultimately do whatever it wants. She said having better descriptions of land uses in the PROS plan would be good, though she added that few people actually read the plan.

Giannola pointed out that if parkland is given a special zoning designation, someone has to decide which parcels would get rezoned as parkland. She wondered who would make that call, and how those decisions would be made.

Downtown Open Space Planning

Question: Staff has started to discuss ways to plan for open space in the downtown. Given that downtown has a different character and constraints, what do you think the approach should be to a downtown open space plan? What kind and sizes of parks are appropriate, given the size of our downtown?

Kuras told commissioners that parks and planning staff have struggled with this issue, and are trying to decide whether there needs to be a separate open space plan for the downtown area. She gave the example of Main Street, saying that in some ways, it’s where people go to recreate.

Downtown Open Space Plan: Commissioner Discussion

Derezinski noted that the cost of land downtown is a major aspect of the discussion regarding open space and parks. The debate right now is focused on the city-owned Library Lot site, he said, and what development might go on top of the underground parking structure being built there. All of the proposals involve some sort of plaza. Derezinski also pointed to the city-owned 415 W. Washington property – is that a good place for a larger urban park?

Giannola said that urban open space can be within walking distance of downtown – it doesn’t have to be in the core area. Woods noted that West Park – 23 acres south of Miller, between Seventh and Chapin – is within walking distance of downtown.

Carlberg said their discussion seemed to be leading to a conclusion that they need a separate open space plan for downtown. It’s important to look at both daytime and nighttime uses, she said. Carlberg also raised the issue of cost. The former downtown YMCA site, now owned by the city and used as a surface parking lot, is worth several million dollars – that’s a lot for open space, she noted. And since there aren’t a lot of downtown residents, who would they be creating a park for, and what kind of a park would it be? She said she didn’t think parents would bring their children to a playground downtown, for example. Kuras noted that, in fact, the staff has received feedback that some people would like a playground in the downtown area. Carlberg wondered whether they would actually use it, if there were a playground nearer  to their home.

Pratt didn’t think having a large amount of open space downtown made sense – it’s not good planning, he said. He noted that the University of Michigan has a tremendous amount of open space on its campus. Rather than complaining about them not paying taxes, Pratt said, he uses their campus like a park. If anything, the city could look for ways to include more pocket parks. There are also temporary gathering places created when the city closes down its streets for festivals, he noted.

Pratt also maintained that the secret to successful open space in urban areas is programming. Perhaps the PROS plan should include more discussion of programming, he suggested. Derezinski said he used to think it would be good to close down Main Street for a pedestrian mall, but he got “slapped around” by merchants, who told him it created dead space. Woods noted that when the streets are closed periodically, it seems to work well. Derezinski agreed, mentioning that city council had approved street closings for six different festivals at its June 7 meeting.

Bona speculated that density was an issue – pedestrian malls worked in Europe because lots of people lived nearby, but that’s not yet the case in this city. She liked the idea of looking for small parks and programming. What would it take for a pocket park to be successful? Liberty Plaza, at the corner of Division and Liberty, isn’t considered a success, she noted.

Like Pratt, Bona said she uses UM land for recreation. There is also considerable greenspace in the downtown on land owned by churches, she said. Unless you look beyond just city land, sometimes people forget how much greenspace already exists.

Derezinski said there are “great graveyards” that provide greenspace in the city as well, which prompted Woods to imagine a possible Chronicle headline: “Don’t Worry About Greenspace – Go to a Cemetery!” Derezinski added a possible subhead: “Bring a Basket to the Casket”

More seriously, Woods suggested looking at the tops of buildings when considering open space – that has potential, she said.

Briggs made some comments that shifted the discussion a bit. When people talk about downtown parks and open space, they’re usually referring to large areas – but that doesn’t connect to what downtown is, she said. What’s often lacking is a discussion about how downtown space is used. To support local merchants, they need to figure out a way to use the downtown, including overlooked areas like alleys.

Derezinski pointed to the alley by Michigan Theater, which is notable for being completely covered in graffiti, and said it would be wonderful if that could be replicated elsewhere, “with taste, hopefully.” There’s potential for the alley behind Downtown Home & Garden to be a nice passageway, he said, if the City Place apartment complex ever gets built. The alley next to Café Zola, which runs between Washington and Huron, is another passageway that people use, he said, “but it stinks.”

Briggs addressed the issue of playgrounds, saying the city doesn’t need a traditional one, but they do need places for kids to play – boulders to climb on, places to sit, and small attractions like fountains. There needs to be visual interest, which includes public art but also smaller efforts.

Briggs also said that the idea of pedestrian malls shouldn’t be discarded. One option might be to close the street on Friday and Saturday nights after 6 p.m., for example. Just because merchants were against it doesn’t mean they’re correct, she said. However, Briggs also said she wouldn’t make that a priority. It was more important to seek out small, inexpensive ways to make the downtown more interesting.

Westphal picked up on Briggs’ comments. He noted that he’s been influenced by the work of William Whyte, specifically mentioning Whyte’s documentary, “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.” When you ask people about their favorite streets, they’ll typically mention places with lots of activity – sidewalk cafés, little shops and pedestrians. It gets into the debate of public versus private open space, he said.

One of the points that Whyte makes in his film is that successful spaces tend to be privately managed, in places where there’s oversight and guaranteed activity. There are creative ways of making this happen – perhaps the property is city-owned, for example, but privately managed with a guarantee of public access.

So what works now in the downtown area? Westphal asked. Maybe Sculpture Park, in Kerrytown on the southeast corner of Catherine and Fourth. It’s hard to pull off successful open space downtown, he said. If in doubt, don’t do it – because it’s hard to do.

Pratt said he liked Briggs’ idea of art, and noted that there’s money available for that. [The city's Percent for Art program provides funds for public art, and is overseen by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.]

Carlberg pointed to examples of other private/public open space downtown – a small plaza in front of the ice cream store on Main Street, or instances when the front sections of restaurants are opened up for al fresco dining.

Bona looped the conversation back to Sculpture Park – it hasn’t always been successful, she noted. When she first moved to town, she lived in an apartment above the storefronts that overlooked the park. There was a lot of noise from drunks all night, every night, she said. That changed when the area became busier, with more foot traffic. Liberty Plaza suffers from a lack of people, she noted, especially since the lower level offices that overlook the plaza don’t have much activity.

Woods said that sometimes small quirky things draw people out – like the fairy doors, or unusually painted fire hydrants. Briggs added that bike lanes were important too. There needs to be a connection that moves people through the downtown, whether by bike or on foot.

Eric Mahler said his experience with open space downtown comes mainly from sitting on the committee that’s evaluating proposals for the Library Lot, including some that called for keeping it as an open public plaza or park. Open space has to be a destination, he said, which involves planning and programming. There was concern about the cost of maintaining it and policing it, especially at night. When he asked the proposers who would use it, he said he wasn’t satisfied with the answer. In general, he said, he wasn’t impressed by the open space proposals.

Mahler said he agreed with Briggs, that a lot of small things could be done at minimal expense to make a big difference downtown.

As the discussion on this question came to a close, Briggs brought up the issue of the AATA’s Blake Transit Center on Fourth Street north of William, citing that area as one with potential for redevelopment. It’s not a good area now, she said, and if you want to attract “choice riders” to the bus system, Blake has to look less like a bus station. That’s something that needs to be addressed in the planning stages, she said – how to build something that’s attractive, and what kind of programming might go with it.

Negotiations with Developers

Question: Currently, the PROS plan specifies a formula for development that requests a donation of parkland, or cash in lieu of parkland, to maintain a certain ratio of parkland to residents. This has resulted in a number of neighborhood parks that have served the developments directly. In other cases, it is more difficult if there is not land available, as as in the downtown. How do we fairly treat different types of development?

Kuras explained that she often negotiates with developers, asking them to donate parkland or cash in lieu of land, which can then be used in the parks system. It’s been successful in other parts of the city, but is difficult to do downtown – in part because land is so much more expensive, she said. So her question is whether this is a valid approach for the downtown area, and how should downtown developments be treated differently.

Negotiations with Developers: Commissioner Discussion

Carlberg asked what alternative amenities there might be. Perhaps a rooftop area, or exercise space within a building, or a coffee shop – places where the community can meet and not be confined to their apartments. She said the contributions from developers are a boon to the city, and she wouldn’t want to give that up.

Kuras pointed out that Zaragon Place 2 planned to have a fitness center, but it would only be open to residents. [The development agreement for Zaragon Place 2, which was subsequently approved by planning commission at its June 15 meeting, includes a $48,000 contribution to the parks system in lieu of land.]

Briggs suggested that part of the money from downtown developments could be used to hire a consultant, who could create a coherent vision for the downtown amenities – where seating should be be installed, for example, or fountains, or public art. Then, as more developments get built, their contributions can be used to implement the plan. Kuras said she loved that idea.

But Derezinski said he was really troubled by the developers paying, given the high land costs. Is it fair?

Woods joked that her conscience doesn’t bother her on this issue – she views it as a citywide concept of beautification for everyone, not just the residents of one development. Giannola wondered whether it would be legal, if it didn’t specifically benefit residents. That prompted Kuras to say that some people have questioned the whole approach. Rampson later clarified that the program has been in place for at least 25 years.

Pratt pointed out that technically, you can’t demand land or payment from the developer – it’s a request. He liked Briggs’ suggestion of developing a broader plan, with a focus on streetscapes.

Saying she liked the idea of a contribution to the parks system, Bonnie Bona said it should be commensurate throughout the city, including the downtown – she doesn’t have a problem asking developers for it. She also liked the idea of developing a plan and looking at the downtown area holistically. Briggs said it might also serve to energize people, giving them something to be excited about in the face of often controversial development.

Westphal supported the idea of pooling contributions, calling it a kind of savings account that could be used for a strategic plan of areas that need enhancement. He recalled that when the development at 601 S. Forest was debated, residents spoke at public commentary indicating that this kind of contribution was a quid pro quo for the surrounding area. Some people are under the impression that even if the area is well-served by parks and open space, the contribution from developers must be kept in that area, he said – but that’s not necessarily the case.

Kuras commented that for a while, the city was setting aside contributions from downtown developers to use for the Allen Creek greenway. She said she does think that some people view the contributions as compensation for adding density to their neighborhood.

Mahler told Kuras that she didn’t need to go to developers hat-in-hand. She should think creatively about how to negotiate, he said, and present the situation as a win-win – lay out how open space will benefit both the developer and the city. He referenced the book “Getting to Yes,” saying it was all about creating mutual interest with your partner.

Westphal said there might be some advisory services available from the American Planning Association that the city could use, to look at best practices.

Private/Public Partnerships

Question: There has been much discussion – because of budget shortfalls – of partnering more with private companies, whether to sponsor a facility, park, house a cell tower or adopt a picnic shelter. Do you feel that this is something that parks should pursue more aggressively? If so, what type of regulations should be put in place to protect parkland?

The city is trying to think more creatively, Kuras said, but there are both good and bad examples of private/public partnerships. Some companies have approached the city about putting up cell towers in city parkland, which has sparked an internal staff debate, she said. [For some limited Chronicle coverage of private efforts in two city parks – Wheeler Park and Liberty Plaza – see "Parking Deal Talks Open between City, DDA"]

Private/Public Partnerships: Commissioner Discussion

Mahler said he didn’t think there was a public willingness to pursue those kinds of partnerships. Briggs said she wasn’t a huge supporter of sponsorships, and that for things like cell towers, they’d need to protect the visual landscape of the parks. But there might be opportunities to explore, she said.

For Giannola, the question was whether the partnership benefited the community as a whole. If the cell towers are erected in an area that wouldn’t otherwise get service, maybe it’s worth it, she said.

Partnerships would need to be consistent with what’s already being done in the parks, Carlberg said, but otherwise, if it brings in revenues, then that’s good for the city. If a private company sponsors a picnic shelter, for example, and the public can still use it, that makes sense.

Pratt pointed out that there are already some partnerships – Zingerman’s selling its products at the Gallup Park café, for example. The city should ask what’s the broad gain for the parks system, he said, and there are real opportunities. Staff should be as aggressive as the park advisory commission can stomach. Pratt noted that the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) called for developing restaurants along the river, for example.

Woods said if parkland is leased to an entity long-term, then it might as well have been sold – that’s a factor in considering partnerships, she said, alluding to the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Westphal cautioned about the types of partnerships the city might pursue. Having a BP logo on a park shelter would be a lot more desecrating than to have a small restaurant in a park, he said.

Partnerships are inevitable, Derezinski said – but watch your wallet. He noted that the private sector is getting more adept at working with municipalities.

Parks & Transportation

Question: How should the park system interface with the transportation system to increase opportunities for “active living”?

Only a few commissioners addressed this question, and some indicated that they weren’t sure what it meant. Rampson explained that the city puts money into trails within parks, but often the connections between parks weren’t there – and some of those connections might interface with the city’s transportation system. In some ways, it’s a competition for funds, she said. Another example of a disconnect: There’s a recreation center, but you have to drive to get there. Does that make sense?

Bona said there was nothing more important than linkages between parks – and there are a lot of gaps. Briggs agreed, pointing to the example of Bandemer Park. It’s a wonderful park, but it’s impossible to cross North Main to get to it. There’s no excuse not to see the big picture, she said.

Derezinski said the city needs to do a better job of interfacing parks and transportation. It’s especially an issue for people with disabilities, he noted.

Allen Creek Greenway

Question: Should we start to acquire and manage land for an Allen Creek greenway?

Carlberg suggested that the city develop what it already owns along the greenway and see if anyone uses it. She wasn’t in favor of buying more land. Pratt said he generally agreed with that approach.

Bona said that connections of parks along the Huron River are the most important priority. For the Allen Creek greenway, there are already a lot of linkages, she said – you can follow it pretty well using urban streets, though some places aren’t very friendly, like the intersection of Main and Summit. Ultimately, she said she’d rather have one complete greenway than two incomplete ones.

Woods agreed with Bona about prioritizing parkland along the river, or to look at city-owned land for the Allen Creek greenway. She wasn’t in favor of acquiring more land.

Briggs said that before she lived in Germany, she would have advocated more for the Border-to-Border Trail or on-road facilities for bikes, but now she sees the benefits of linear parks. It would be an asset for the community to have a system that benefits everyone.

Derezinski suggested working with nonprofits. Conservancies or others might partner with the city for purchase or maintenence of the greenway, which would be a huge expense, he said.

A fence separates this pavilion from the Olson Dog Park – the dog seen to the right is inside the fenced-in dog park. One couple that uses the park has suggested moving the pavilion inside the fence, so that owners can have a place to take shelter from the elements while their dogs play. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission (Oct. 20, 2009): Last week’s meeting of the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission (PAC) was in many ways a buffet of updates and tutorials, accented with a soupçon of art and a dash of dog park.

City staff talked to commissioners about special events planning and facilities rental at the parks, and gave an overview of how the city’s natural areas are prioritized for restoration. PAC also got a time line for the state-mandated rewrite of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space plan, known as PROS.

But we’ll start with the saga of a man and his dog, and what he’d like the city to do to make their time together more enjoyable.

Public Comment: Olson Dog Park

During the public commentary portion of the meeting, Otto Freitag told commissioners that he and his wife take their poodle Heidi to the Olson Dog Park nearly every day. Inside the fenced-in area there are two picnic tables for people to sit, but no covering over it, he said. In the summer, “we sit there and literally cook in the sun.”

But just outside the fence, two other picnic tables are covered by a canopy, he noted. “I have never seen anybody even with a Coke sitting there,” he said. “Wouldn’t it be nice to have that inside park?”

Freitag said he appreciated the city’s park system, and used it frequently even though he is a resident of Webster Township. He said he was willing to help pay to move the canopy, if necessary. “I’m retired but I have $200 for the left side of the table,” he joked.

Scott Rosencrans, PAC’s chair, told Freitag that they’d actually met before at the park – Rosencrans recalled that Freitag had brought water bowls for the dogs, and grease for the gates. Yes, Freitag said, noting that he’d also replaced the latch on the gate, “but I don’t do windows.”

A separate dog-park note came up later in the meeting. Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – reported that Swift Run Dog Park will be temporarily closed starting at 6 a.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 27, through 6 a.m. on Saturday, Oct. 31. The staff will be doing maintenance work and making improvements in the holding pen area to make it more accessible for people with disabilities, he said.

Public Comment: Art on the River

Speaking during the meeting’s public commentary time, William Dennisuk introduced himself as a visiting artist and lecturer at the University of Michigan, who’d recently arrived from Finland. He’s proposing a project called Vessels – a series of art installations along the Huron River, and at sites on UM’s campus. The project could serve to bring together the city and campus communities, he told commissioners. A handout he provided to PAC puts it this way:

“In my own project I would like to raise subtle questions about our interaction with the watery world; how we contain it, divide it and structure it for our own purposes. I am interested in how we impose, or overlay, our man-made order on the natural order. In this case I am specifically interested in how the so-called “town and gown” structures might cooperate when it comes to a discussion of the use of water. In this respect I am hoping that art might facilitate, or become part of  a larger dialogue on our various uses of the natural world and our relationship to the environment.”

The art installations would be built of a grid-like mesh of welded bronze, about 6-7 feet high and of differing diameters. A concrete base for each piece would sit on the riverbed, covered with natural stones. He said he’s hoping for a late March-early April installation, with the artwork in place during the summer, then removed.

Dennisuk referred PAC members to his website for more background on his work. He said he hopes to return to PAC next month for a more formal presentation.

Commissioner Sam Offen asked whether Dennisuk had contacted the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission as well. Dennisuk said that he had, but that they had told him to come to PAC as a first step.

Update: Special Events and Facility Rental

Jessica Black, supervisor for the parks and recreation customer service center, gave a presentation on rentals and special events at the city’s park properties. Rentals of park space and shelters are increasing, she said, from 394 in 2007 to 763 in 2009. [Rental revenues for fiscal 2010 are projected to be $280,706 – link to budget sheet showing rental revenues.] Black attributed the increase to better promotion and marketing, as well as better use of a scheduling database.

The most popular parks for events are Gallup, Bandemer, Island and Allmendinger. Size and impact varies, she said, from special one-time events like races or festivals, to large scale affairs such as weddings, corporate picnics and family reunions, to smaller gatherings like birthday parties. Film industry activity is also increasing – Black cited this summer’s filming of “Flipped” at Virginia Park as an example.

The University of Michigan is the No. 1 user of park facilities, Black reported, specifically citing groups from the Ross School of Business and the School of Social Work. There are also regular events that rent space, like the Sunday Artisan Market, which uses the Farmers Market area, as does the Kerrytown District Association’s Trunk-a-Palooza, which runs on Thursdays from July through early September.

Other events have included an annual fundraising dinner for Ozone House, held in the Farmers Market space; the HomeGrown Festival and Kerrytown Bookfest, also held at the Farmers Market; the outdoor Sonic Lunch series held at Liberty Plaza; and the A-Square Fight Club’s fundraiser “Boxing at Buhr Park,” held during the summer at the ice arena there.

The recently renovated Cobblestone Farm is another popular location, Black said. All Saturdays from March through October of 2010 are already booked, she said. The facility can be reserved up to 18 months in advance, and is used for weddings, fundraisers, and corporate meetings, among other things. Starbucks held a regional meeting there, and the company’s CEO spoke with roosters crowing in the background, Black said. General Motors held a team-building exercise and the parking lot was filled with the automaker’s newest vehicle models.

Black told commissioners that her office, which is located at Cobblestone Farm and has a staff of two full-time employees, is the first point of contact for people who need to book a parks and recreation facility. They review the applications, insurance and permits, as well as answer any questions from the general public.

After Black’s presentation, several commissioners had questions or comments. Sam Offen asked whether Cobblestone Farm had a liquor license. It’s possible to serve wine and beer there, Black said, but an event organizer needs to get a temporary license if they want to serve hard alcohol.

Mike Anglin, who’s a representative to PAC from the city council,  asked for an assessment of the filming at Virginia Park. He noted that the community’s perception was colored by the fact that the film crew required some tree trimming, but that the positive outcome was the formation of a tree conservancy.

Colin Smith said that the filming of “Flipped” was extremely advantageous to the city, bringing in around $7,000 plus a $5,000 donation to the parks scholarship fund. The production company also built a new basketball court, which would have cost the city around $25,000, and hired a local contractor to build a road in the park, then remove it and restore the property, which the workers “thought was pretty funny,” Smith said. He also noted that about 300 people in town for the shoot stayed in local hotels and ate in local restaurants – another benefit to the economy.

As for the tree trimming, Smith said the branches that were trimmed on a sycamore in Virginia Park were no more than 1.5 inches in diameter. The trees in the park are “just fine,” he said. “They’ll be in the movie, too.”

Commissioners also discussed a complaint that someone had made who had reserved Cobblestone Farm for an event, then canceled and wanted more of their money refunded. The city’s policy is to refund 50% of the amount if the cancellation occurs 90 days or more prior to the event; after that, no refund is given. Black said the policy is clearly spelled out in writing when people sign a contract, and that staff makes it clear verbally. Tim Berla urged the staff to consider refunding more money if the facility is re-rented to someone else after the cancellation.

Berla also said he’d noticed vehicles parking around the West Park bandshell and on the paved walkway during this summer’s Radio Free Bacon series, which was held at West Park. He wondered what the rules were for parking. Black said there are strict rules against parking inside the park, which is one reason why it’s not use more heavily. She planned to meet with RFB’s Terry Farmer and said she’d discuss it with him.

Natural Area Preservation: Priorities

Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s Natural Area Preservation program, or NAP, gave a presentation on how the staff assesses the quality of more than 1,200 acres of natural areas that the city owns, and how they evaluate land for potential acquisition. One reason for such an assessment, he said, was to help staff prioritize which properties – or portions of property – to work in, and what type of work to do, given limited resources.

The primary method they use is called floristic quality assessment, or FQA. Indicators used in this assessment include the total number of plant species at a site, both native and non-native; the number of native species only; and the number of endangered, threatened or “of special concern” species, as designated by the state’s Department of Natural Resources.

In addition, each area is given an average “coefficient of conservatism” based on the plants in the site. This scale of 1-10 reflects the botanical quality of a site, and is used – along with the other factors mentioned above – to calculate a Floristic Quality Index, or FQI. The FQI is determined by multiplying the average coefficient of conservatism by the square root of the number of species in a site, Borneman said. The higher the number, the higher the site’s quality or diversity, from a botanical perspective.

FQIs higher than 35 are generally thought to be worth protecting, Borneman said. Natural areas within the city have a range of FQIs. A chart provided to commissioners showed that Gallup Park’s wet prairie has an FQI of 51.7, for example, while the Bandemer prairie rates an 18.4. Most of the woodlands have FQIs above 30, except for Dhu Varren Woods, which has a 29.6.

Borneman noted that plants aren’t the only factor that determines the quality of a natural area. Dolph Nature Area, for example, has an FQI of 39.1 but is considered even more valuable than that number might indicate because it’s a great habitat for birds. A few of the other factors used to assess a site include survey findings on butterflies, breeding birds, frogs and toads; whether the site provides a buffer for existing natural areas; or whether the land is a greenspace in an urban area.

The staff also give the city’s natural area sites a conservation priority of 1-4, a ranking which helps focus the city’s restoration efforts, Borneman said. Sites are given a priority ranking based in part on FQI, but also factoring in the percent of woody invasives, herbaceous invasives and herbaceous native plants on the property. In addition, factors such as the amount of volunteer interest in a site, animal populations, educational uses and visibility are considered.

The city has 120 acres with the highest-priority ranking. These areas are given priority for invasive species control, prescribed burns and stewardship workdays.

Restoration efforts can make a dramatic difference, Borneman said. As an example, he showed an old photograph of Cedar Bend Nature Area, the city’s oldest park dating back to 1907. In the photo, the forest is relatively open and sunny, he noted. But by the 1990s, non-native species had taken over and created a denser environment. Staff and volunteers worked to open up the woods, Borneman said, and now native plant species are returning that haven’t been recorded there in decades.

Following Borneman’s presentation, PAC chair Scott Rosencrans said that he’d requested the talk so that commissioners could use these rankings as tools when discussing land acquisitions.

Responding to a question from commissioner David Barrett, Borneman said the current millage that funds NAP expires in 2013, so it will likely be on the ballot for renewal in November 2012.

Borneman also invited commissioners and others interested in NAP to attend a volunteer potluck on Thursday, Oct. 29. The event begins at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road.

Quarterly Budget Update

Colin Smith reviewed the budget for parks and recreation, just after PAC unanimously elected commissioner Sam Offen as chair of the group’s budget and finance committee. [.PDF of PAC meeting packet – budget information is provided after the minutes from PAC's September 2009 meeting.]

Much of the discussion focused on the city’s two golf courses, Huron Hills and Leslie. Smith noted that revenues at Huron Hills Golf Course are projected to be $10,000 higher than originally budgeted, due to increased play there. But the golf courses are still being subsidized from the city’s general fund reserves, Smith clarified, responding to a commissioner’s query.

“I had the impression the golf courses were doing better,” Scott Rosencrans said. Smith reminded commissioners that the city projected the golf courses would take six years or so to break even meet their financial goals. The courses are moving in that direction more rapidly than expected, he said.

For fiscal 2009, Leslie Golf Course had revenues of $780,537 and expenses of $904,103 – “so it’s moving in the right way,” Smith said. In 2008, revenues were $626,130 but expenses were lower too, at $737,752. Commissioner Julie Grand explained that expenses were higher in 2009 because of implementing recommendations made by a golf course task force appointed to find ways to make the courses self-supporting. Those recommendations included bumping up staffing levels, which added to administrative costs. [Link to spreadsheet for Leslie Golf Course.]

Since Leslie has more options for revenues – last year the city granted it a liquor license, for example – the staff expected it to do better than Huron, Smith said. Revenues from concessions were up $40,000 in 2009 compared to the previous year. Smith said that food sales were up as a result of the liquor license, and during the off season, the staff plans to evaluate the menu and look at the configuration of the space in the clubhouse, to see if they can improve sales even more.

Commissioner Gwen Nystuen asked Smith whether there was anything on the horizon that concerned him. He said there was nothing out of the ordinary happening with the budget forecast, but there are certain things that always worry him, like the overall economy. However, revenues are keeping steady, he said.

Update: PROS Plan

Amy Kuras, a city of Ann Arbor planner, told commissioners that it’s time for the state-mandated update of the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space plan – a document that’s about an inch thick, she noted. Known as the PROS plan, it must be updated every five years, and needs to be completed by the end of 2010. Since the process takes about a year, they’ll start in December 2009, she said.

The city will appoint a task force, that will include two to three PAC commissioners as well as city staff, Kuras said. The last time the city overhauled the plan, they hired a consultant to help, she said, adding that they might forgo the consultant this time, based on initial staff discussions.

Other steps include:

• Develop an email survey – rather than the phone survey that was used five years ago – and a marketing plan to notify the public about this process.
• Review the existing PROS plan to see what’s been accomplished, and to determine what needs to be updated.
• Update the data, which includes census information, park inventory, a description of the city’s administrative structure, and maps, among other items.
• Conduct a needs assessment with the staff.
• Hold focus groups with the public, as well as public meetings for broader input.
• Based on input, update the plan and write new chapters, if necessary. The last rewrite added a section on greenways, Kuras said – this time, it might be appropriate to add a section on downtown open space.

The goal is to finish the rewrite by May or June, then send it out to various governing bodies – including PAC, the city planning commission, SEMCOG, city council and others – for review in the summer and early fall.

Sam Offen asked if there was already money in the budget for a consultant. Kuras reported that there was $180,000 budgeted for a consultant on the PROS plan, but that the full amount wouldn’t likely be needed.

Mike Anglin, one of the city council’s representatives on PAC, asked whether the plan would reflect last year’s ballot initiative. A change in the city charter was approved, requiring that the city seek voter approval for the sale of any city-owned park property. Kuras said that the task force would likely address that in the update.

Misc. Updates

-

Senior Center, Mack Pool

Colin Smith reported that the task force for the Ann Arbor Senior Center would be holding two public meetings – one on Oct. 23 (see Chronicle coverage: “Seniors Weigh In On Fate of Center“) and another on Tuesday, Oct. 27, from 6:30-8:30 p.m., at the Burns Park facility, 1320 Baldwin Ave.

Similar meetings would be held for Mack Pool, Smith said, probably in mid-November – no date has been set. Both the senior center and Mack Pool were slated to close in a budget proposed earlier this year by the city administrator, Roger Fraser. Groups have mobilized to find alternatives to closure.

Leslie Science Center

Commissioner Sam Offen reported that Kirsten Levinsohn, director of the Leslie Science Center, who has worked there since 1989, is planning to leave next spring. He said the center has started the search for a new director. Offen is on the board of that nonprofit.