The projects will be managed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. Three projects relate to stormwater control along the Allen Creek, with the goal of reduced flooding downstream and decreased e. coli and phosphorous entering the Huron River. They include: (1) up to $435,000 for stormwater control along South Fourth Avenue between Huron and Liberty streets; (2) up to $1.155 million for stormwater control along Madison Avenue between South Seventh and Main streets; and (3) up to $575,000 for stormwater control along South Forest from South University to an area north of Hill St.

The county board also approved bonding for up to $465,000 to design and build rain gardens in Ann Arbor, and up to $700,000 to plant trees throughout the city. No specific locations were identified for these projects, which are part of the Huron River Green Infrastructure initiative.

All five projects have been approved to be funded through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s Clean Water Revolving Funds low-interest loan program.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Bob Galardi was elected chair of the budget & finance committee for the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at PAC’s May 21, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, described the project, which is being paid for out of the city’s stormwater utility fund – not the parks and recreation budget. It will involve regrading the perimeter of the park in the fall, then putting in native plants next spring. Soil excavated to create the rain gardens will be used to elevate the park’s central lawn area, which often has standing water following heavy rains. The work will be done prior to improvements planned for the park’s playground next year.

Later in the meeting, commissioners voted to recommend awarding a contract for roof replacement at the Mack indoor pool, located within the Ann Arbor Open school near the corner of Miller and Brooks. The recommendation is to select Pranam GlobalTech Inc., which put in the low bid of $193,000. A 10% construction contingency brings the project’s budget to $212,300, with a portion of that amount to be paid for by the public schools.

Also recommended was using $8,280 from the public market fund to upgrade a surface parking lot – known as the “sand lot” – on the Fourth Avenue side of the farmers market. The paving is viewed as a short-term solution, pending longer-term improvements expected at the market in a few years.

Commissioners also elected Bob Galardi as chair of PAC’s budget & finance committee. He replaces Tim Doyle as committee chair, following the end of Doyle’s term on PAC earlier this month. Jen Geer – Doyle’s replacement on PAC – was confirmed by the city council the previous evening but did not attend PAC’s May 21 meeting. Geer has worked with Galardi and councilmember Christopher Taylor – an ex-officio member of PAC – in another capacity, in the performing arts. Most recently, she was executive producer for the Ann Arbor in Concert production of Ragtime, performed at Michigan Theater on May 18. Both Taylor and Galardi were lead performers in that show.

Updates during PAC’s May 21 meeting covered a range of topics, including news that bids for construction of the new skatepark came in a little higher than anticipated. Parks staff and skatepark designer Wally Hollyday will be reviewing the bids to see what options are available. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith reported that at PAC’s June 18 meeting, commissioners will be presented with a resolution to award a construction contract, as well as an agreement between the city and the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark related to operating the skatepark.

Other updates from Smith included the fact that parks staff is gearing up for Memorial Day weekend, with the opening of the city’s outdoor pools. He also highlighted the completed renovations of ball fields at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park, and improvements made at Liberty Plaza. In addition to removing some bushes there, he said, “we also removed all sorts of things that were in the bushes, which are no longer there – and I’m glad they’re not.”

Other brief reports were given regarding work of PAC’s dog park and downtown park subcommittees, and public forums for the North Main-Huron River task force. Public commentary focused on input from the Library Green Conservancy, which is advocating for a park or public space atop the city’s Library Lane parking structure.

Arbor Oaks Rain Garden

Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, was on hand to brief commissioners about a project to build rain gardens in Arbor Oaks Park. The park is located in the Bryant neighborhood, near the Bryant/Pattengill elementary schools east of Stone School Road and north of Ellsworth. The park is near the city’s Bryant Community Center, which is operated by the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN) under contract with the city.

From left: Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith and Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator.

Hancock said he got involved with the neighborhood in 2007, when CAN invited city staff to come and talk with residents about drainage problems in that area. [For some background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: "Bryant Neighbors Dig into Drainage" and "Water Main Project Set for Bryant Area."]

Houses in the neighborhood are mostly built on clay with crawl spaces. There’s very little topography for water to drain, Hancock said, so water tends to pool under the houses.

University of Michigan students got involved too, he noted. They surveyed the neighborhood about problems with drainage and flooding. The results revealed certain areas where the problems were clustered, including the area around Arbor Oaks Park. Most of the homes that are located there reported flooding on their land adjacent to the park. [UM student Mark Zheng produced a 7-minute video on these issues that's posted on YouTube: "Bryant Drainage and Flooding Remediation – Taming the Water."]

The students came up with a concept plan about how to solve some of the problems through a variety of approaches. CAN has done a lot of work in the area, Hancock said – for example, uncovering catch basins that were covered with two or three feet of soil. CAN also got a grant from Washtenaw County to regrade some of the back yards and install storm sewers.

The area around the park, Hancock said, seemed to lend itself to putting in rain gardens, and to lower the grade a little to accommodate the drainage from adjacent properties. For the past few years, the city has partnered with Washtenaw County’s office of the water resources commissioner to do projects funded by the state’s revolving loan fund. These low-interest loans are used to fund stormwater management projects. For “green” projects, the state also offers a 50% loan forgiveness program. “So we have been chasing this money more aggressively than most communities,” Hancock said.

Residents had reported that the lawn area in the center of the park stays wet too long after a storm, and isn’t useable for much of the year. So in addition to lowering the grade around the park’s perimeter for the rain gardens, the soil from that regrading can be used to raise the grade in the center lawn area, to make it more useable, Hancock said.

After bidding out the project, the city hired InSite Design to do design work for $53,000, subcontracting with Anderson Engineering to do the survey work. Erie Construction, which did five other large rain gardens for the city last summer, had the low bid of $158,000 for building the rain gardens. Residents are aware of the project, he said, and so far the city hasn’t received any complaints about the plans.

Construction would start the day after Labor Day, Hancock said. Access through the park to the school will be maintained during construction. The regrading will be done this fall, with plantings done next spring. It’s expected that the work will be finished in early June of 2014. The contractor will be responsible for maintenance on the rain gardens for one year.

Arbor Oaks Rain Garden: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson asked about the funding source. Jerry Hancock replied that it would be funded from the city’s stormwater fund, not from the parks and recreation budget.

Jackson also wondered what the city’s liability is for flooding and drainage problems in people’s homes. Hancock replied that the drainage issues in that neighborhood are primarily on private property. In this case, the city has the opportunity to help the neighborhood. “It’s not necessarily our responsibility, but we have the funding mechanism and capability to do it, so we’re just trying to help this community out,” he said.

Map showing location of Arbor Oaks Park.

In response to another question from Jackson, Hancock said that the majority of the rain garden-related work will take place around the park’s perimeter in lawn areas, and won’t affect the playground area and basketball court. No structures will be removed and no sidewalks will be relocated. A few trees will be relocated, and additional trees will be planted.

Because of the regrading, the rain gardens will accept water from surrounding properties, Hancock explained. The root structures of native plants in the rain gardens are 1-3 feet deep and break up the soil so that water infiltration can occur more easily. There would only be ponding water for a very short period after a rainfall, he said, before it infiltrates. The area also has catch basins as part of its existing stormwater management system.

Christopher Taylor said it’s his recollection that maintenance periods are typically longer than one year. Some contracts have been up to three years, Hancock replied. But because of the funding constraints of using the state revolving loan fund, the contract had to be set up this way.

Taylor also noted that there’s been some concern about the park’s utilization. He asked Hancock to talk about outreach efforts, and about how the project might improve the park’s usability. Regarding outreach, Hancock reported that CAN holds monthly meetings for residents. A couple of years ago, the city planned to do road repairs and water main replacement in the neighborhood. City staff attended meetings to explain the work, and based on feedback, additional elements were added to the project. The city got a county grant to do some additional work, using fiber-optic cameras on private storm sewers to find out why water isn’t draining. That’s when they discovered catch basins that were buried in back yards, among other things.

The usability of the park’s center area has been cited by residents in the past, Hancock said, and this rain garden project is a good opportunity to improve that situation. It also helps the project’s budget, he said, because it eliminates the expense of hauling off soil from the site.

Most of the other rain gardens in the city have been built in areas where the soils are more porous, Hancock noted. In the Bryant neighborhood, the soil is poorer, with more clay, so the project will include bringing in topsoil. He added that the city is also willing to tackle the project because of its success with native plants and rain gardens in other areas. Staff are confident that it will work in locations with less porous soil, too, like Arbor Oaks.

Julie Grand confirmed with Hancock that efforts have been made to reach all residents who live adjacent to the park. CAN has sent out notices at various points in the overall project so far, Hancock said. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith said he thought that notices regarding construction should come directly from the city and county, rather than CAN. He wanted to make sure the mailing list is complete.

Grand said that once people understand what’s happening, they’ll be excited. It’s just the shock of seeing workers show up that might be an issue, she said.

Grand also asked how this project fits with plans for giving the Arbor Oaks Park playground a significant overhaul. Smith replied that the playground project will begin in 2014, after the rain garden is completed.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Farmers Market Parking

Plans for an upgrade to a surface parking lot at the Ann Arbor farmers market was on PAC’s May 21 agenda for consideration. The work would be paid for with $8,280 from the market fund balance.

The cordoned-off “sand lot” parking area at the Ann Arbor farmers market, with an entrance off of Fourth Avenue.

Known as the “sand lot,” it’s located on the Fourth Avenue side of the market, where a house was demolished several years ago. Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation, said it has been used as a makeshift area for vendors, but has deteriorated over time.

The Ann Arbor public market advisory commission had recommended the work and appropriation at its April 18, 2013 meeting. According to a staff memo, the work would include “saw cutting and stripping the asphalt, grading the existing aggregate, and adding 3 inches of asphalt mix.” It’s a short-term approach intended to make the lot more useable until longer-term improvements at the market are determined.

The project is already underway so that it can be completed before the market’s busy season. Because of that, it will be paid for initially out of proceeds from the parks maintenance and capital improvement millage, to be reimbursed from the market fund balance. The total market fund balance as of Feb. 28, 2013 was $684,145.

The public market – located in Kerrytown, north of Catherine between Fourth and Fifth avenues – is part of the city’s parks and recreation unit, but operates as an enterprise fund. That means the intent is for the operation to be self-sufficient, without support from the city’s general fund. The market manager is Sarah DeWitt.

Farmers Market Parking: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson asked about the materials that would be used. Jeff Straw confirmed that the lot would be paved with asphalt. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that although the lot is known informally as the “sand lot,” it’s actually built from a variety of materials, including asphalt that’s “in various states of decomposition.” To call it a sand lot is somewhat misleading, he added. “It’s not some place where you’d be playing volleyball, let’s put it that way.”

Christopher Taylor asked whether any consideration was given to using a porous surface. Straw replied that this is viewed as a 2-4 year solution, so from a cost perspective, it made more sense not to use more expensive porous pavement. The entire market area will be considered for improvements in a few years.

Jackson wondered what ideas are being considered for the broader market improvements. Straw listed several possibilities, including additional enclosures that could be used during the winter, as well as a gazebo-type building, more seating, and a way to create better flow for customers and vendors.

Outcome: PAC unanimously recommended approval of the project. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

New Roof at Mack Pool

On PAC’s May 21 agenda was a resolution regarding roof replacement for the city of Ann Arbor’s Mack indoor pool, located within the Ann Arbor Open school near the corner of Miller and Brooks. Staff had recommended awarding a contract to Pranam GlobalTech Inc. for $193,000 to cover the roof replacement and painting refurbishment. A 10% construction contingency brings the project’s budget to $212,300.

Pranam provided the lowest of two bids. The other bidder was Wm. Molnar Roofing Co. Inc., which bid $271,319 for the work. Pranam was previously selected to replace the roof at Veterans Memorial Park Ice Arena. The contract for that project was approved by the city council at its May 20, 2013 meeting.

Park advisory commissioner Graydon Krapohl.

According to parks staff, the existing roof from the early 1990s was expected to last just 15 years. There are leaks and rusted steel lintels and joists, which need to be replaced. The project also includes removing rust and painting the pool ceiling and joists.

Funding for the project is available from two sources: (1) $186,088 from the fund balance of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage; and (2) $26,212 from the Ann Arbor Public Schools, which pays annually into a capital facilities escrow account earmarked for Mack Pool.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described the timeframe for the project as relatively tight. Because Mack Pool is jointly used by AAPS and the parks system, the work needs to be completed this summer, while school is out of session. The timing is intended to avoid a “complete kerfuffle” in the fall, he said. The pool is not open during the summer months.

Smith also highlighted the fact that AAPS will be contributing to pay for the project. A few years ago when the city considered closing Mack Pool, a city task force was formed to explore options. There had been a lot of discussion about how the schools could contribute to operating expenses and future capital expenses, Smith said. As a result, AAPS is making annual payments into a capital escrow fund to be spent on projects like this. The schools have paid about $13,000 for each of the past two years, so this project will be using that revenue as part of its funding source.

New Roof at Mack Pool: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl asked how many weeks the project would take. Jeff Straw, deputy manager for parks and recreation, estimated the work would take 6-8 weeks to complete, depending on weather.

Ingrid Ault questioned part of the resolution stating that eight votes were required: Did that refer to PAC or the city council? [Only seven PAC members were present at the May 21 meeting.] Smith confirmed that the eight-vote requirement related to the city council.

Outcome: PAC unanimously recommended awarding the Mack Pool roof replacement contract to Pranam GlobalTech. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Galardi Chosen as Budget Chair

Tim Doyle, whose term ended on May 17, had served as chair of PAC’s budget & finance committee. On May 21, PAC chair Julie Grand nominated Bob Galardi to replace Doyle in that role. Doyle had not sought reappointment to PAC.

Galardi has served on that committee since soon after being appointed to PAC in July of 2012. His term as committee chair will run until PAC’s September meeting, when the commission elects all officers.

Jen Geer – Doyle’s replacement on PAC – was confirmed by the city council the previous evening but did not attend PAC’s May 21 meeting. Grand said she’d called Geer in the morning to report that the council had acted, but Geer was not able to attend on such short notice.

Geer has worked with Galardi and councilmember Christopher Taylor – an ex-officio member of PAC – in another capacity, in the performing arts. Most recently, she was executive producer for the Ann Arbor in Concert production of Ragtime, performed at Michigan Theater on May 18. Both Taylor and Galardi were lead singers/actors in that show. Geer is also on the board of the Burns Park Players, a nonprofit in which Taylor and Galardi are also involved.

In nominating Galardi, Grand said she hoped the work wouldn’t be too strenuous, because the city’s budget for the coming fiscal year – beginning July 1 – had just been set. She confirmed with parks and recreation manager Colin Smith that in a mid-term election of this kind, PAC’s bylaws stipulate that a two-thirds majority approval is needed – or at least five votes.

Outcome: Galardi was unanimously elected chair of PAC’s budget & finance committee.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the April 16 meeting, as well as time for public commentary.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, provided several updates. He noted that the city’s outdoor pools are opening on Memorial Day weekend, which is traditionally the kick-off date for the summer season. Staff is being trained and everything is on track for the opening, he said.

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

The newly renovated softball fields are being completed on time and games are expected to start on May 31. He suggested that commissioners check out the fields at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park, saying that the difference is like “night and day.”

The farmers market is now open on Wednesdays for the season, he noted, and the Wednesday night market will resume on June 5.

Last week, the city received bids for construction of the skatepark at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The bids came in a little higher than anticipated, Smith said, so they’ll be reviewing the bids to see what options are available. At PAC’s June 18 meeting, Smith said, the commission will be presented with a resolution to award the construction contract, as well as an agreement between the city and the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, related to operating the skatepark. Smith said he’s been working with Trevor Staples of FAAS on the agreement. He characterized it as quite simple, compared to the original memorandum of intent.

Work is underway at the Gallup canoe livery, which will re-open on May 25. Construction started about six weeks ago, Smith said, but will be put on hold from Memorial Day weekend until after Labor Day. “You can certainly see a change – it looks really nice,” he said.

Summer day camp numbers are higher than they’ve been for several years, Smith reported, adding that it is encouraging news. Also, the Ann Arbor senior center was recently awarded a $4,000 grant from the Ann Arbor Kiwanis for a cultural arts & education lecture series.

Smith also highlighted the May 18 Adopt-A-Park program kickoff, which was well-attended, as well as work at Liberty Plaza as a part of the downtown Ann Arbor Blooms Day event. He said First Martin, which owns the building adjacent to Liberty Plaza, has been a great partner in maintaining and sprucing up the plaza. Smith said in addition to removing some bushes, “we also removed all sorts of things that were in the bushes, which are no longer there and I’m glad they’re not.”

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

Christopher Taylor is one of two city councilmembers who serve as ex-officio non-voting members of PAC. He reported that on the previous night – May 20, 2013 – the council had passed the city’s budget for fiscal year 2014, which begins July 1. He noted that the amendments made to the budget resulted in an extra $22,977 coming to the parks and recreation budget, because of the “parks fairness” resolution. “So your job is slightly easier,” he said.

By policy, the general fund allocations to parks and recreation must not suffer any decrease beyond what other areas in the general fund do. So amendments to the other parts of the budget can have implications for adherence to this policy. At the end of all the amendments, financial services staff provided the council with an adjustment that needed to be made to the parks budget as an additional budget amendment, in order to comply with the policy.

Taylor also noted that the council confirmed the appointment of Jen Geer to PAC.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Karen Levin reported that the dog park subcommittee met recently and went to look at possible sites for a new dog park – at Veterans Memorial Park, Wurster Park and Buhr Park. The next meeting is set for May 31, when they’ll talk about these options as well as a survey for the public to give feedback.

By way of background, two locations for a new centrally-located dog park were explored at West Park, but ultimately rejected because of protests from nearby residents as well as the New Hope Baptist Church, which is located across the street from the park.

More recently, at their May 14, 2013 meeting, the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commissioners mentioned Ann Arbor’s difficulty in finding a new dog park location. In that context, county parks commissioners discussed their desire to add another off-leash dog park in addition to Swift Run, which the county operates in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. Some commissioners want to include a water element where dogs could play. Jan Anschuetz put it this way: “We’ve done so much to provide water recreation for people – now let’s do it for the dogs.”

Communications & Commentary: North Main-Huron River Task Force

Julie Grand reported that the city’s North Main-Huron River Vision task force would hold a public forum the following night, on May 22, to present some initial ideas and get feedback from residents about possible changes along that corridor.

Larry Baird and Gwen Nystuen at the May 22, 2013 public forum for the North Main-Huron River corridor project, held at the Ann Arbor Community Center.

[About 75 people attended that meeting, which was held at the Ann Arbor Community Center. Grand was among the task force members who made a presentation to the gathering.]

A similar public forum will be held on Wednesday, May 29 at city hall, 301 E. Huron, from 5-7 p.m. The task force then will incorporate the feedback into recommendations that will be presented to the community on Wednesday, June 12, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Community Center, 625 N. Main.

After that, the task force will meet again to finalize their recommendations – on Wednesday, June 19 from 5-7 p.m. at the NEW Center, 1100 N. Main. The final recommendations will be sent to the city council for consideration.

Grand also pointed out that more information is online at the task force website and A2 Open City Hall, where residents can provide feedback by responding to open-ended questions.

Communications & Commentary: Library Green

During public commentary at PAC’s May 21 meeting, Gwen Nystuen, a former park commissioner, spoke on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy. Referring to PAC’s downtown park subcommittee, she said the conservancy members realize how difficult the subcommittee’s work is and they want to help in any way they can. Last July, “on I think the hottest day of the year,” she joked, the conservancy sponsored the Imagine A Park event. It included a temporary patch of grass, a solar fountain, free lemonade and ice water, food from nearby restaurants, musicians, and a chess table. Earthen Jar in particular was helpful providing water, she said. “You wouldn’t believe, would you, that in a $55 million structure, there’s not a faucet on top of that garage.”

Nystuen reported that people attending the event generated a list of ideas for things that you could do if a park were in place at that location. The ideas were gathered from 154 surveys that included a checklist of possible activities, she said. The top five responses were:

• See water flowing or get a drink of water (115 responses)
• Safe place for children to play and parents to meet (113 responses)
• Gardens (107 responses)
• Picnic space (99 responses)
• Public art (98 responses)

Library Green members don’t want to say what should be in this urban park, Nystuen said, but they do think that the Library Lane site is the most central location. At the least, she noted, there should be a drinking fountain there. She wanted PAC to know that the Library Green is continuing to gather information, and that they appreciated the work that PAC was doing regarding downtown parks.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Park Subcommittee

Ingrid Ault, chair of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee, reported that committee members have been meeting with various groups to get input on the issue of downtown parks. She noted that information being gathered by the committee is posted on its website.

City staff, members of the Ann Arbor downtown park subcommittee and others during a walking tour of downtown parks and plazas. This stop is on the second floor “green roof” at city hall. Clockwise from bottom left: Julie Grand, Amy Kuras, Wendy Rampson, Karen Levin, Alan Jackson, Colin Smith, Ingrid Ault, Stewart Gordon, Alice Ralph.

[In recent weeks, the committee has met with representatives of the Library Green Conservancy; with Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker and AADL board president Prue Rosenthal; and with members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, including Joe O'Neal, Alice Ralph and Jonathan Bulkley. PAC member Bob Galardi is president of the greenway conservancy's board.]

Ault noted that during the committee’s most recent meeting, on May 14, the group had gone on a walking tour of downtown parks, plazas and other relevant areas. They looked at places that were considered successful public gathering spaces, as well as city-owned sites that are part of the Connecting William Street study.

[The tour, which The Chronicle attended, included the second-floor green roof at city hall – which is accessible to the public and includes picnic tables – as well as Sculpture Plaza at Fourth & Catherine. Also visited were the five city-owned parcels that were the focus of Connecting William Street: the Kline lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William); the lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William); the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure; the former YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth); and the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, north of the downtown library.]

The committee’s next meeting is on Tuesday, May 28 at 5 p.m. in the south conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron. These meetings are open to the public.

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

Absent: Missy Stults.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. PAC’s land acquisition committee meets on Tuesday, June 4 at 4 p.m. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

Next downtown park subcommittee meeting: Tuesday, May 28 from 5-6:30 p.m. at city hall’s first floor south conference room. More information about that group is on the subcommittee’s website.

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

Eric Lipson and Mary Hathaway attended the Sept. 18, 2012 Ann Arbor park advisory commission meeting to advocate for more green space in the downtown area, specifically on top of the Library Lane parking structure. (Photos by the writer.)

PAC took action on one of those topics, passing a resolution to give formal input on the Connecting William Street project. That effort, led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, is process to examine five city-owned parcels for possible redevelopment. All but one of the sites are now used as surface parking lots.

PAC did not advocate that a particular site be turned into a park. Rather, the resolution recommends that the Ann Arbor city council seek additional evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to use a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the parks system. PAC also recommends that the council refrain from adopting plans for the five city-owned lots before resolving the question about open space in the Connecting William Street area. [.pdf of final Connecting William Street resolution]

At the start of the meeting, three members of the Library Green Conservancy – advocates of creating a commons on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure – spoke during public commentary. [The Library Lane site is one of the five properties included in the Connecting William Street project.] They urged commissioners to support their plan for a park at that location, adjacent to the library. The underground structure was built with a foundation to support a high-rise building on the site, in addition to a plaza area. PAC’s recommendation to the city council did not highlight that particular site.

Also during the meeting, commissioners heard from two speakers during public commentary who supported the creation of more dog parks. One speaker noted that despite potential problems – such as dog fights and the fact that ”pooping can occasionally go unnoticed” – a dog park poses no greater liability than a skatepark, pool or “even simply sidewalks.”

Colin Smith, the parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that staff did not support an unfenced option, but indicated that they’re exploring possible locations for one or more fenced-in dog parks. One possible site: A parcel on the east side of West Park, near the entrance off of Chapin.

PAC also was briefed on plans for rain gardens and other biodetention measures at Miller Nature Area and Garden Homes Park, in connection with a major reconstruction of Miller Avenue next year.

Smith also updated commissioners on letters of objection that had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater in the Huron River, near the Argo Cascades. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. For a full report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”

It was the last meeting for commissioner Doug Chapman, whose term ended on Sept. 30. At the city council’s Oct. 1 meeting, his replacement was confirmed: Melissa Stults, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

Connecting William Street

On the agenda was a resolution to make a recommendation to city council regarding a downtown park. The resolution came in response to a request from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which had asked park commissioners for input on the Connecting William Street project. That effort is focused on developing a plan for five city-owned properties along William Street, between Ashley and Division. Four of the parcels are surface parking lots; the fifth is a parking structure at Fourth & William.

PAC members previously had a lengthy discussion on the issue at their land acquisition committee meeting in early September. [See Chronicle coverage: "Park Commissioners: More Green, Please."] They concluded that the possible development scenarios being floated by the DDA did not include sufficient green space or parkland.

Connecting William Street: Public Commentary

Three people spoke about the need for a downtown park. Gwen Nystuen – a long-time PAC member who was term-limited and left the commission this summer – said she was part of the Library Green Conservancy, advocating for more open space downtown. She hoped that PAC’s resolution would highlight the fact that there aren’t many parks or much open space right now. The Connecting William Street choices seem to be “dense, dense or denser,” she said, but a survey done by the DDA had found that a desire for more open space was one of the top four responses. With more dwelling units being added downtown, the city needs more open space, she said.

Eric Lipson, another member of the Library Green Conservancy, told commissioners that he’d been heartened to hear some of them ask why there isn’t more green space in the Connecting William Street scenarios. It’s been disappointing to see the scenarios lacking in this regard, especially because there have been several large-scale studies that promoted the idea of more green space. In the Calthorpe plan, for example, the only site-specific mention of public space was the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Now, that space is being used for surface parking, he noted. The conservancy wants as much of that area as possible to be used as a plaza.

Lipson noted that a plurality of responses to the DDA survey had listed urban open space as a priority, yet it’s not in the Connecting William Street plans – except for a “tiny” amount of green space on top of Library Lane. The argument that downtown parks attract bad elements is no excuse, he added. That’s a problem, but it shouldn’t be a reason to shut down parks. The Library Lane site would be perfect, Lipson concluded, because of its proximity to the library, the AATA’s Blake Transit Center, and local restaurants.  He hoped that commissioners would listen to a large segment of the population as they considered this issue.

Conservancy member Mary Hathaway agreed with the points made by Nystuen and Lipson, and said she wanted to address the question of why the top of the Library Lane structure should be used as a park, rather than other parcels. For one thing, the city already owns it, she said. The city still owes money on the former YMCA site on William between Fourth and Fifth, and it might be good to sell it before the balloon payment is due. The suggestion that the downtown library could build on top of the Library Lane structure is impractical, she said. It’s a financial disadvantage to the library to build anywhere except its current site, at the corner of Fifth and William.

Hathaway also pointed out that city officials don’t want different ideas for each of the four surface parking lots that are part of Connecting William Street. They want a connected plan – that’s reflected in the project’s name, she said. There’s a strong desire for a pedestrian-friendly design. People should be led to enjoy walking from Main Street to State Street and beyond, with a series of green, enticing paths. The central feature of that would be right next to the library, she said. The land there is already connected with a diagonal path to Liberty Plaza and an east/west path between Fifth and Division. It would draw people in, she said. So she hoped commissioners would consider the Library Lane site as the prime location for a downtown Central Park. She brought handouts and larger drawings that showed how a park could occupy that space as well as a building, in a very attractive way – the conservancy isn’t opposed to a building there, she noted.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Julie Grand began the discussion by saying she drafted the resolution based on her view of the consensus that commissioners had reached at their Sept. 4 land acquisition committee meeting. The draft resolution read as follows:

Whereas, the DDA has been charged by City Council to make recommendations regarding five City-owned lots through its Connecting William Street initiative;

Whereas, the PROS plan recommends that PAC work with the DDA to consider plans for downtown open space, including, but not limited to the Library Lane lot;

Whereas, the PROS plan reflects PAC’s commitment to, “assure citizens a voice in the decision-making process of the park, recreation, and open space system, including acquisition, planning, and development”;

Whereas, many community members have expressed a preference for a downtown park in this area;

Whereas, PAC recognizes the potential benefits of downtown density, the value of mixed-use interface with downtown open space, and the importance of creating a safe, attractive programmable space in the downtown;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street may be insufficient;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that there is more than one potential site for open space within the five City-owned properties;

Resolved, that PAC recommends additional input from City staff regarding the evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to utilize a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the Parks system.

Resolved, that PAC recommends that City Council refrain adopting plans for three of the five City-owned lots prior to resolving the question of open space within the Connecting William Street area.

Alan Jackson asked a question of Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. Given that the resolution calls for input from city staff, Jackson said, does the staff actually have the resources to handle that?

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, talks with former PAC member Gwen Nystuen prior to the start of PAC’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Smith described it as a multifaceted issue. Staff is currently providing information on multiple sites, including 721 N. Main, 415 W. Washington, the Library Lane site, Liberty Plaza and the overall issue of downtown parks, per the mayor’s request. [Mayor John Hieftje had attended PAC's August meeting and asked commissioners to help prioritize action regarding downtown parks.]

“It’s work that needs to be done,” Smith said.

Grand continued, saying that the point of the resolution is to state that no hasty recommendations should be made without the input of parks staff.

Tim Berla said that overall, he supported the resolution. But he felt they should take it a step further, and state that there should be a park in the William Street part of downtown. He believed that PAC is in agreement on that, and should go on the record about it.

Bob Galardi said he wanted to ask a procedural question. Does PAC decide where parks should be built? [In addition to serving on PAC, Galardi is a member of the  leadership & outreach committee of the Ann Arbor DDA's Connecting William Street project.]

Berla replied that PAC can advise city council on anything it wants. If PAC members agree on an exact plan, they can recommend it to council. That doesn’t mean that the council will do it, he noted.

Galardi then highlighted one of the resolution’s whereas clauses: “Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street is potentially insufficient;…” He wanted to know what amount of open space would be considered sufficient: Is there some sort of ratio?

Grand noted that there are recommendations about open space in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and technically, the downtown area meets those guidelines. But that doesn’t mean PAC can’t evaluate what might be needed if more buildings are constructed, as proposed in the Connecting William Street scenarios.

Galardi ventured that they were being more qualitative than quantitative in their approach. That’s definitely true, Grand said – it’s fuzzy.

Berla characterized the project as a new approach for the city, and he hoped that in five years the downtown density of businesses and residents would be higher than anywhere else in Ann Arbor. But they don’t have experience in this kind of thing, he noted. He referred to a resolution that he had prepared, which he did not formally bring forward, that proposed looking at a much larger section of downtown, not just the Connecting William Street area.

Smith offered to come back at a later date with additional information about the guidelines that Grand had pointed to from the PROS plan, as well as some comparative data from other communities. He noted that there is a desire for more green space – that was reflected in responses to the DDA’s survey.

Referring to another point in the PROS plan, Grand said part of their task is to plan for the future and anticipate future needs. This resolution fits in with that mission, she said.

John Lawter felt that perhaps the final resolved clause could be stronger, and that they should mention any deadlines that might apply. Galardi clarified the next steps. There will be another public meeting in October, then the committee will develop recommendations to present to the city council. PAC’s resolution will be part of the mix when the committee evaluates all the feedback it has received.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Where to Put the Park?

Some of the discussion centered on where to focus the possible recommendations for a park or open space. Galardi wondered why the draft recommended looking at only three of the five sites for Connecting William Street?

Park advisory commissioner Bob Galardi is also a member of the  leadership & outreach committee of the Ann Arbor DDA’s Connecting William Street project.

Grand replied that in previous discussions, no one seemed enthusiastic about recommending a park at the Ashley site, on the west side of the project area. And it wouldn’t be feasible to recommend it for the large parking structure at Fourth and William.

Galardi felt that all sites should be considered, so that they wouldn’t be pre-selecting.

Tim Doyle pointed out that they also had focused on just the three sites because those were the best positioned to make a connection between Main Street and the University of Michigan campus. That goal shouldn’t be forgotten, he said.

Berla highlighted a point he’d made previously: That the city should decide where it wants to put a park before selling off any property. He’d be open to sites other than the three possibilities in the Connecting William Street area, but the main thing is to make a decision about a park location before selling or developing anything.

Smith cautioned against identifying a specific location for a park without knowing what might be located around it. That could result in an impractical, underused park, he said. Smith felt that development and a park needed to happen in a coordinated way.

The two councilmembers who also serve as ex-officio members of PAC – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – were asked for their opinions about what advice would be most helpful.

Taylor suggested it would be helpful to know what kind of features PAC would like to see. A tree-filled and canopy-laden park? Playgrounds? A “soft” public meeting space? The council would also be interested in knowing PAC’s rationale – why commissioners feel that a particular type of park is important.

Anglin said this discussion had been very meaningful, in terms of looking at the future of the city’s first urban park. He felt that such a downtown park would exceed the usership of even the Ann Arbor farmers market. There might be opportunities for performance art, he said, if the public art millage passes. [The mechanism of a millage would allow for more flexibility in funding certain types of projects, like temporary performance art. The current Percent for Art program, which uses capital dollars, does not allow for that.] Anglin felt a park could be an economic generator, drawing people downtown.

There was some discussion about whether to include a whereas clause about the value of an urban park for economic development, but that addition didn’t gain traction.

Galardi noted that the main message PAC wants to sent to the DDA and city council is that they need to more actively consider green space in their planning. As far as the ideas mentioned by Taylor, Galardi thought PAC still needed to “get our act together” on that. He said he’d be comfortable passing the more general resolution, to give quick feedback to the DDA.

Karen Levin noted that they could address more detailed issues at a retreat, which has not yet been scheduled.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – How Much Green Space?

Part of the discussion centered on how to quantify the amount of green or open space needed in the downtown area.

Referring to the three scenarios that the DDA had presented at PAC’s August meeting, Ingrid Ault noted that the amount of green space in each scenario was the same, although density levels for residents and businesses varied widely. She felt it was important to send a message to the council that there should be a proportionate increase in green space, as density increased.

When she referred to the scenarios as “options,” Bob Galardi quickly pointed out that these scenarios are not intended to be options or proposals. They are ideas that can be mixed and matched. He felt uncomfortable talking about proportions, because that implies a ratio or formula that somehow defines what “sufficient” means.

Alan Jackson said that even though he’s a physicist he didn’t want to formulize this approach. They should make judgments, he said. The key thing is that there’s an opportunity here because these parcels are undeveloped, so they should figure out where a park could be located. They shouldn’t lose sight of this historic opportunity.

Julie Grand noted that regardless of whether the scenarios are options or not, members of PAC still feel there is insufficient green space in all of the scenarios. Tim Doyle ventured that PAC would advocate for more open space, even if there were no population gains in the downtown area. The city doesn’t have a town square, he said, reminding commissioners that Ann Arbor is known as the “city of trees.” His sense is the city needs a park in this area.

Colin Smith asked whether their opinion would change if they factored in the possibility of adding parkland in other parts of town, like 721 N. Main (near Summit) or the DTE/MichCon property off of Broadway, near Argo Dam. Galardi threw the First & William site into the mix – would that change their opinion?

Smith said his point is to ask whether they’re considering this issue in isolation, or in the totality of the downtown area. It’s worth asking the question, he said.

Berla replied that he could imagine people walking between the library and Main Street, but not further west down the hill to First & William. He felt the DTE site could be a great community gathering space.

Grand said she’d like to consider this question in totality, but that time constraints required them to focus on the confines of the Connecting William Street project. Berla wondered why the DDA couldn’t have a scenario D, with a larger park.

Galardi observed that the Connecting William Street committee hadn’t completed its work. He promised to take PAC’s formal resolution – as well as the tenor of this discussion – and report it to the other committee members as they develop final recommendations for council.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Minor Amendments

After additional discussion, the commission reached consensus on some minor amendments to the draft resolution. The first five whereas clauses were unchanged. Changes in the remaining clauses are indicated in strike-through for deletions and italics for additions:

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street may be is insufficient;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that there is more than one potential site for open space within the five City-owned properties under consideration;

Resolved, that PAC recommends additional input from City staff regarding the evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to utilize a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the Parks system.

Resolved, that PAC recommends that City Council refrain adopting plans for three of the five City-owned lots prior to resolving the question of open space within the Connecting William Street area.

[.pdf of final Connecting William Street resolution]

Outcome: On a 7-2 vote, commissioners passed a resolution urging the city council to get more input for a possible downtown park. Voting against the resolution were Ingrid Ault and Bob Galardi.

Dog Parks

At PAC’s Aug. 21 meeting, commissioners had voted to direct its dog park subcommittee to work with city staff and develop recommendations that could lead to additional off-leash dog parks.

John Lawter, PAC’s vice chair, has been leading this initiative, advocating in particular for more options in Ann Arbor’s central area. He gave a formal presentation on the topic at PAC’s Aug. 16, 2011 meeting. Currently there are two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city. Lawter has recommended incorporating this goal into the city’s park planning efforts, adding it as a consideration when looking at land acquisitions, and asking that parks staff actively look for potential sites.

Dog Parks: Public Commentary

Susan Miller told commissioners that years ago, she regularly took her dogs to a field near the former Gelman Sciences plant in Scio Township. She later found the group of dog owners who gathered on Saturdays at Slauson Middle School, but that gathering was shut down recently, she noted. Miller said she doesn’t fault anyone, but there’s still a large, unmet need for a centrally located place for dogs and their owners to congregate in Ann Arbor. The city has failed to fill this need.

Miller described in detail the different dogs and people of all ages that she’d met, noting that she isn’t able to interact with them anymore because there’s no place to gather. Her point is that dog parks are about recreation for dogs and the community. Yes, problems can arise, she acknowledged. Dogs might fight and ”pooping can occasionally go unnoticed.” But these pose no greater liabilities than a skatepark, pool “or even simply sidewalks,” Miller said. She hoped commissioners would consider putting in a more centrally located dog park.

Describing himself as a lifelong Ann Arbor resident, Harold Kirchen also spoke in favor of another dog park. He said he knew Miller because of the Slauson dog party, and that they both knew PAC commissioner John Lawter for that same reason. Lawter is PAC’s “resident scofflaw,” Kirchen joked, referring to the fact that letting dogs run off-leash at Slauson had violated a city ordinance. In the past, the city hasn’t dealt with this need, Kirchen said. One city dog park is “halfway to Whitmore Lake,” he said, referring to Olson Park on the city’s north side, and the other [Swift Run, on the southeast side of town] is almost in Ypsilanti.

Kirchen also addressed possible concerns, saying that when a lot of people are around, someone is bound to call out a “poop alert” when they see a dog defecating. So the possibility of dog poop being left in the area is a false issue, he said. Also, people are better behaved when they’re watched by their peers – “just ask any cop.” He reported that when he went for a walk in the woods this spring, he filled two buckets with dog poop that had been left near the trail. At a dog park, people would self-police, he contended.

Dog Parks: Commission Discussion

Later in the meeting, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – gave a report on the dog park initiative. He noted that staff had met with the dog park subcommittee and reviewed previous work that had been done on this issue. The need for a centrally located dog park is identified as part of the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, which is used to guide capital spending and funding priorities. So the idea is not a new one, he said.

The staff has also reached out to other communities to get feedback about how off-leash parks have worked, Smith reported. They talked a lot about unfenced areas in particular, he said, and didn’t get positive feedback about that approach. Concerns that were raised included dogs leaving the designated areas and going onto private property. One community reported that they wound up fencing in an area that was initially unfenced, and that both dog owners and nearby property owners preferred the fenced-in park. Based on this feedback, Ann Arbor parks staff doesn’t support an unfenced dog park, Smith said. An additional point is that establishing an unfenced dog park would require an ordinance amendment, which Smith characterized as a lengthy and cumbersome process.

From left: Park advisory commissioners John Lawter and Tim Doyle. Lawter is spearheading an effort to create one or more centrally located dog parks in Ann Arbor.

Smith said the staff looked at possible areas in existing parks. The field at Slauson is bowl-shaped, with fencing on one side, creating a defined space – even though it wasn’t fenced-in. But in looking at Ann Arbor’s larger “programmable” parks, there aren’t many areas that would work, Smith said. The northwest corner of West Park has some of those characteristics, but it runs up against private property and the stormwater feature.

That said, Smith reported that the parks staff supports adding another off-leash, fenced area for dogs. So the next questions to address are how many of such areas should be created, and in what parts of town? They’d need to establish criteria for ranking locations, then visit different locations and rate each one. He hoped to have a report and recommendations for PAC at their Oct. 16 meeting.

No decisions would be made in October, he stressed – this is all background work. In 2007, when the city was evaluating locations for what eventually became the two existing dog parks, other sites were also evaluated as possible fenced-in dog parks, Smith noted. Rather than reinventing the wheel, it makes sense to revisit those other locations. One of those was Riverside Park, but now that’s become heavily programmed by sports groups. Another option is the parcel in the northeast corner of West Park, where the city recently bought and demolished the house on that site, near the entrance off of Chapin.

If PAC supports the recommendations that staff brings forward, Smith said, the next step would be to hold neighborhood meetings in the areas that have been identified as potential dog parks.

John Lawter told commissioners that although it sounded like there were many hurdles in this process, he wanted to put a more positive spin on it. The staff is looking at possibilities for a fenced-in dog park, but that doesn’t mean the door has closed on an unfenced area. But he agrees with staff that it makes sense to look at a more traditional fenced-in dog park at this point, rather than spending energy pushing for an unfenced option.

Assuming they can make recommendations in October and hold neighborhood meetings after that, Lawter believed it’s possible to get site approval from the city council by December. A fence would then be put up whenever the city can identify funding for the project, he said. Lawter noted that his original concern with a fenced-in dog park is that the cost would be prohibitive, but he’s been assured that the expense wouldn’t be too great and that it might be built within a year. He’s satisfied with the process, and the important thing is that the project is moving forward.

Smith observed that the original dog park project – Swift Run, at Ellsworth and Platt – had been a true capital project, as the 10-acre site had to be reshaped for a different use. The land also posed challenges for the fencing, he said. [Located on a former landfill, it also includes a gravel parking lot.] The next fenced-in dog park would be more like fencing someone’s back yard, at a fairly low cost.

Julie Grand suggested there might be a dog lover in the city who’d be willing to donate the cost – and perhaps the dog park could be named after the donor.

The West Park entrance off Chapin, looking west. A lot on the right side of this image is one potential location for a fenced-in dog park.

Tim Berla recalled that there used to be a group that attended PAC meetings to lobby for a dog park. Perhaps such a group could take responsibility for an unfenced dog park. He said that some of his dog-loving friends feel it’s dangerous to have an unfenced park, but perhaps an organized dog group could help with some of these issues.

Smith reported that this summer, the city’s park supervisors dropped by Swift Run and Olson dog parks to help educate residents about the need for dog licenses. Between May and mid-June, they found 107 unlicensed dogs at those parks. From mid-June until now, only 14 dogs were at the dog parks without tags. That’s a dramatic shift, Smith said.

Lawter noted that maintaining an active volunteer group is difficult. Now that there’s a volunteer coordinator for parks, that would go a long way in helping to keep such a group alive, he said.

Ingrid Ault asked whether they’d be considering just one more dog park. Not necessarily, Smith replied. One of the things that needs to be determined is how many dog parks are desired, and where they might be located. If more than one site is conducive to a dog park, they can consider that. Ault also requested that PAC be provided with a map showing the locations of Swift Run and Olson dog parks.

Outcome: This was not an action item – no vote was taken. Staff recommendations for possible dog park locations are expected at PAC’s Oct. 16 meeting.

Bioretention at Miller Nature Area & Garden Homes Park

Nick Hutchinson, a project manager in the city’s public services unit, briefed commissioners on plans to add bioretention areas – including rain gardens – in the Miller Nature Area and Garden Homes Park. Both city properties are along Miller Avenue, which will be reconstructed next year between Newport Road and North Maple. Coordinating with that road reconstruction, the city is planning this project to help improve stormwater management in the area.

Map showing planned bioretention areas along Miller Avenue.

There are three places where the Miller Nature Area extends to Miller Avenue. The “finger” of land that’s the farthest east – between 1553 and 1575 Miller – is where one of the bioretention areas will be located. The project calls for removing vegetation, regrading the area, and planting seeds for native plants. Some of the flow from the existing stormwater pipe along Miller would be diverted into the bioretention area, and the current path would be rebuilt to go around the bioretention site.

Garden Homes Park is located further west of Miller Nature Area, north of Miller between Franklin and Fulmer. The bioretention there would be located at the northwest corner of Miller and Franklin, which Hutchinson described as an “isolated fragment” of the park. A similar approach would be taken to remove vegetation, regrade, and replant seeds of native plants. Stormwater would be diverted off Miller to flow under the sidewalk and into the bioretention basin.

A new path would be built through the bioretention area to provide better access to the park from that corner.

Hutchinson noted that public meetings have been held with residents, and the sites were selected with input of staff from parks and the natural area preservation program.

Bioretention: Public Commentary

Natalie Fulkerson told commissioners that her family lived on Miller Avenue, next to the section where the bioretention work is proposed. She thanked PAC member Alan Jackson for visiting them to see the situation. She expressed appreciation to the city for these improvements, and said she’s excited about most of the plans. However, one concern is the plan to relocate the path. The new path would abut their back yard. They have a seven-year-old son, she said, and are concerned about strangers and off-leash dogs. The plans also call for removing some of the trees and growth that currently provide screening and privacy for their property. She hoped that the plans could be modified, and she thanked commissioners for their attention.

Bioretention: Commission Discussion

Commissioners asked Hutchinson several clarificational questions about the project, and generally expressed support for the changes. Alan Jackson said he hoped the plans could be modified to respond to concerns raised by Natalie Fulkerson during public commentary. Hutchinson indicated that the project could accommodate those issues, possibly with more plantings to act as a screen – and the staff had already discussed it.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager for Ann Arbor, talks with Natalie Fulkerson, a resident who lives near the Miller Nature Area.

Jackson also wondered how wet the areas would become, especially during spring rains. Would there be standing water? Hutchinson replied that there might be some standing water after a rainfall, but as the rain garden plants take root, those plants help absorb the water.

John Lawter asked about the project’s funding source. Hutchinson said that although staff from the city’s natural area preservation program will perform the work, it will be paid for out of the city’s stormwater fund.

Mike Anglin noted that some of the lawn extensions in that area are quite large, and that residents might be encouraged to install rain gardens there as well. Perhaps the city could work some kind of deal with residents to do that, he said.

Responding to a question from Tim Berla, Hutchinson said the rain gardens are intended to help the flow of water as well as its quality. By detaining some of the stormwater, the rain gardens would slow the flow of water going downstream. The plants would also help filter out pollutants.

Berla wondered if there was any chance that this project might actually make flooding worse. He noted that he had attended a meeting of residents in the West Park area, where many expressed the opinion that flooding had worsened after the city’s stormwater project there. Hutchinson replied that the rain gardens would also have outlet areas so that during heavy rains, there are designated places for water overflow. Overall, the project is located in the upper edge of Allen Creek, he said, so it could only help the situation downstream.

Tim Doyle wondered what happened to rain gardens during drought conditions. Would the plants survive? That question was fielded by David Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program. He noted that conditions like they’ve seen this summer are hard for some plantings. The critical period is the first couple of years – after that, the plants are deeply rooted and can withstand drought conditions.

Colin Smith wrapped up the discussion by noting that this project ties in with the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, which calls for using unused portions of the parks for stormwater management. He also thought the changes at Garden Homes Park would greatly improve the “curb appeal” of that area.

Misc. Communications

There were opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Sept. 18 meeting.

Misc. Communications: Objections to Whitewater Project

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported to commissioners that several letters of objection had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater in the Huron River, near the Argo Cascades. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. Objections were filed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council.

For a full report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”

Misc. Communications: Farewell to Chapman

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, noted that this was the last meeting for Doug Chapman, whose term ended in September. She thanked him for his service on the commission. Chapman described it as a positive experience, and said he was sorry he didn’t have the chance to work with the new commissioners. [Within the last few months, three term-limited PAC members – Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett – have been replaced by Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi and Alan Jackson.]

Chapman’s position has been filled by Melissa (Missy) Stults, for a three-year term running through Sept. 30, 2015. Her appointment was confirmed at the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 1 meeting. According to her application, she is a research scientist and doctoral student at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

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

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

Connie Pulcipher of the city's systems planning staff led the public art commissioners in a discussion to prep for a November working session with the city council. (Photos by the writer.)

But most of their 2.5-hour meeting was spent prepping for a Nov. 14 working session with Ann Arbor city council, focusing on the city’s Percent for Art program.

The council working session was prompted in large part by a resolution proposed by councilmember Sabra Briere, which she brought forward at the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. The resolution would revise the city’s public art ordinance explicitly to exclude sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art. It would also require that any money allocated for public art under the program be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin. The council ultimately postponed action on the resolution until its Nov. 21 meeting, with a working session scheduled in the interim to focus on the Percent for Art ordinance.

The timing of the proposed ordinance change is related to two proposals on the Nov. 8 ballot: (1) renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to fund street repair; and (2) imposing a 0.125 mill tax to fund the repair of sidewalks – which is currently the responsibility of adjacent property owners.

At AAPAC’s Wednesday meeting, Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit led commissioners in a discussion to organize their thoughts before the council work session. She asked them to identify the program’s biggest challenges, from the community’s perspective, as well as the primary causes and possible solutions to those challenges.

Commissioners cited a range of issues, including: (1) a lack of public awareness about the program, its constraints, funding sources, and AAPAC’s role; (2) the perception that not enough art is coming out of the program, and that the process is too slow; (3) the complaint that local artists aren’t given preference; and (4) the sense that in this difficult economy, city funds shouldn’t be spent on public art.

In addition to offering ways to address these challenges, commissioners also discussed their own workload. They noted that AAPAC is still relatively new and is one of the few city commissions that hasn’t enjoyed consistent staff support over the years. Although a new part-time public art administrator was hired this summer, the program had no dedicated staff person for about a year.

Wednesday’s meeting began with two presentations. Larry Baranski of the DIA talked about how Ann Arbor might participate in the museum’s Inside|Out project, which involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks. Also, Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum and Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, floated ideas for possible public art in a rain garden that’s being designed for property at the corner of Kingsley and First, located in a floodplain. Commissioners were generally receptive to both ideas, but plan to discuss them in more depth at their monthly meeting in November.

Detroit Institute of Arts

At AAPAC’s September meeting, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had briefed commissioners on a meeting that he and Tony Derezinski had with representatives from the Detroit Institute of Arts. The DIA is interested in partnering with the city on the Inside|Out project.

On Wednesday, Larry Baranski, DIA director of public programs, attended AAPAC’s meeting to provide more details about the proposed partnership. He noted that this kind of project was first done in 2007 by the National Gallery in London, and that the DIA was the first U.S. museum to do something similar. It’s a way to engage people with art who might never go to a museum, he said – they can encounter art in a neutral environment, in their community.

In 2010 the DIA installed 40 works within 60 miles of Detroit, including two pieces in Ann Arbor: One on the exterior of Zingerman’s Deli on Detroit Street, and another reproduction on the Borders building on East Liberty. They learned a lot from that initial effort, he said, and were inundated with positive press coverage. It was so popular that some people were actually angry when the installations were removed, he said.

The DIA is planning an expanded program in 2012, funded by the Knight Foundation. Each community will have between five to eight installations grouped within a one-mile radius. Communities will participate during one of two periods: from April through June, or July through September. DIA would provide the framed reproductions, printed materials to distribute, and informational labels for the artwork – including a QR code that links to a website with an animated feature on the program. [The distinctive DIA ad campaign, including the Inside|Out animation, was developed by Perich Advertising + Design of Ann Arbor.]

The DIA pays for everything, including the cost of installation and liability insurance, Baranski said. The frames are mounted to the building walls by customized brackets. The DIA will also replace any work that’s stolen or damaged by vandalism, or will remove it if requested.

In the past, the DIA has primarily worked with downtown development authorities (DDAs), which in turn identify local business owners who are willing to have the reproductions installed on their buildings – not many communities have a public art commission, Baranski noted. The Ann Arbor DDA facilitated the DIA’s 2010 Inside|Out installations, and Baranski has already talked with DDA executive director Susan Pollay about the 2012 project. But because Ann Arbor also has a public art commission, the DIA wanted them to be involved too.

Each community will get reproductions in an assortment of sizes, he said – the largest is eight feet wide. The works are chosen with the public’s sensibility in mind – there’s very little nudity or religious references, Baranski said. The DIA also offers programming related to the installations, including bike tours, geocaching scavenger hunts, a speakers bureau, and participation in community festivals and other events.

Baranski outlined the steps that are required, if the city is interested in participating. The city would need to designate a “community curator” to act as a point person with the DIA, helping secure necessary permits and installation agreements. A participation agreement would be drawn up, and the city would select which three-month period it wants for the installations and how many pieces would be hung. The main job for the DDA and public art commission would be to select locations for the installations, Baranski said. Installation agreements would be needed for each site.

For any freestanding locations – like installations along bike paths – the DIA would contact MISS DIG to ensure that no utilities are in the way. A contractor would be hired by DIA to install and remove the reproductions, and a DIA staff member would be on site for that work. Baranski concluded by saying that the DIA has a great track record with this program, and that everyone seems to like it.

DIA: Commissioner Discussion

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, asked whether the DIA had a working agreement with the DDA for this project. Not yet, Baranski said, but executive director Susan Pollay had indicated interest in it. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, asked whether there could be two agreements – one with the city, the other with the DDA. That’s workable, Baranski said. Perhaps Ann Arbor’s allotment of reproductions could be divided into public installations, which would be handled by the city, and installations at private businesses, which would be handled by the DDA.

Margaret Parker asked if they could see the reproductions before choosing the sites. Yes, Baranski said, that’s possible.

In response to a query from Elaine Sims, Baranski said the installations hold up pretty well, despite being outdoors. They are totally immersible, he said – printed on alumacore with UV coating, like standard outdoor signs. And the frames “have enough varnish to float a Chris-Craft,” he joked.

Sims wondered what happens to the reproductions when they’re removed. Baranski said the DIA needs to be careful that these installations didn’t become ubiquitous – that’s why they are taken down after a limited period. They need to retain an element of surprise, he said.

Chamberlin clarified with Baranski that the main thing the DIA needs from commissioners is to select public buildings or spaces where the reproductions could be installed. There would also be a reception at the DIA in early 2012 for representatives from all participating communities.

Chamberlin wrapped up the discussion by saying that AAPAC would consider it at their November meeting and get back to Baranski. She indicated that it seemed like something they’d want to do, calling it a terrific idea to democratize art.

Rain Garden Art at Kingsley

Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum and Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, attended Wednesday’s meeting to talk about possible public art in a rain garden that’s being designed for property at the corner of Kingsley and First.

The city is negotiating to buy 215 and 219 W. Kingsley – land that’s located in a floodplain. A boarded-up house is located on the corner lot; the adjacent lot is vacant. The city received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish the house and stabilize the site.

The city has awarded Conservation Design Forum (CDF) the contract for the project, which will include building a rain garden on the site. CDF was also involved in the new municipal center project and the Dreiseitl sculpture.

Jerry Hancock, and Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

The FEMA grant can’t be used to build the rain garden, Hancock said, so that part will be funded by the city. The project cost is about $280,000 – the city will pay for 25% of that, or about $70,000. The city’s portion will come from the city’s stormwater fund, and the Percent for Art will be captured from that amount.

Aaron Seagraves noted that additional funding could be used from the existing Percent for Art funds that have accrued from other stormwater projects. [As of Sept. 1, there was a balance of $27,235 in the Percent for Art program's stormwater funds. A percent of the budget for each city capital project – up to $250,000 per project – goes toward public art. Money earmarked for the Percent for Art program must be used for public art that somehow relates to the original funding source.]

Judd explained that Kingsley – a one-way street heading west off of Main, then curving south as it turns into First – is a busy one, used by motorists as an alternative to avoid Main Street. The site could be very visual, serving as a secondary gateway into the city. He was throwing out the possibility of incorporating public art, he said. Otherwise, he’d just build a decent-looking rain garden.

The basement won’t be completely filled in after the house is demolished – the hole will be incorporated into the site design. When Elaine Sims expressed concern about the safety of that, Judd assured her that there would be safety precautions taken. Hancock added that it’s a fairly shallow Michigan basement – the house was built in the 1920s, and the basement is only about five feet deep. Some of the soil from the site will be used to partially fill it, so it would be two feet deep at the most, he said.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether the site would be big enough to be a gathering place, or whether it was conceived of more as a pocket park. There will likely be benches and a path, Judd replied, so it’s more of a pocket park – a place that people can come and enjoy.

Chamberlin asked if there’s general agreement that a pocket park there is a good idea. That depends on who you ask, Hancock said. The city’s parks staff isn’t interested in adding another park, because of the additional maintenance it would require. Hancock said he’s building other rain gardens in the city now, and that the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) staff have agreed to take on maintenance of those. But funding for maintenance would come from the stormwater fund, he said, to pay for NAP staff time.

[Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Hancock said the rain gardens are part of an impervious area disconnection and infiltration project that involves several groups, including the city, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the consultant InSight Design. The sites are located at: (1) 2000 S. Industrial Hwy.; (2) Burns Park (around the tennis courts, next to the Senior Center); (3) Fire Station #3 (next to Veterans Memorial Park); and (4) Vets Park Arena (the rain garden is on the east side of the arena, with underground infiltration on the west side).]

Cheryl Zuellig asked whether this rain garden on Kingsley would be temporary – that is, does the city eventually envision using the site for something else? Hancock said that in order to accept the FEMA grant, certain deed restrictions must be placed on the property. The motivation on FEMA’s part is to restore land in floodplains to its natural function, thereby reducing FEMA’s insurance obligations in the event of a flood. The deed restrictions require that the land be “vegetated” and that no building is constructed on the site.

Is there any issue with a piece of art causing an obstruction? Zuellig asked. Things like open-walled structures or benches are permitted, Hancock said. But it couldn’t be something that blocked the flow of water. Zuellig joked that they should build a boat anchored to the site, which would float if the area flooded.

Responding to a question about the project’s timeline, Hancock said the property owner is reviewing the purchase agreement now. The purchase process will likely take a few more months, he said. Demolition, surveying and design work will be necessary, so the installation of the rain garden and accompanying art wouldn’t likely take place until the spring of 2012.

Judd suggested that the artist selection could follow a parallel track. Margaret Parker proposed soliciting an artist with landscaping experience, who could be involved in the rain garden’s design from its early stages.

Zuellig asked whether Judd had any ideas for public art at the rain garden. He hadn’t given it serious thought, Judd replied. It might be interesting to incorporate some artifact that represents why there shouldn’t be buildings in a floodplain, he said, or something that could be used to measure water levels.

Parker said that if AAPAC selected an artist based on qualifications – not on a specifically proposed project – then that person could work with CDF from the beginning, and meet with the community to get input on the project. That might “mitigate storms of some kind,” she joked – likely an allusion to the controversy surrounding the Dreiseitl sculpture at city hall.

Parker also noted that this would be the first public art installation in the Allen Creek greenway. Hancock observed that the greenway doesn’t really exist at this point, and it’s not clear where it would run. There might be property across the street from the rain garden site, next to the railroad tracks, that could be part of the greenway, he said.

Elaine Sims asked whether any other building had been located on the property, prior to the current house. Hancock indicated that city records didn’t show any other structure had been on that site. Even so, Sims said, the construction crew should look for artifacts during demolition – that might inform the project, she said. Chamberlin noted that a property on Felch Street used to be the city dump, so it wouldn’t be surprising to find that something had previously been located on the Kingsley site too. [Chamberlin is president of the Ann Arbor Art Center, which previously owned the site at 220 Felch.]

AAPAC plans to discuss this project in more depth at its Nov. 23 meeting.

Prep for City Council

A city council working session on Nov. 14 will include a presentation and discussion of the city’s Percent for Art program. Public art commissioners spent much of their Oct. 26 meeting preparing for that session. The discussion was facilitated by Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit, who has worked with AAPAC in the past on strategy sessions and retreats.

The council working session was prompted in large part by a resolution proposed by councilmember Sabra Briere, which she brought forward at the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. The resolution would revise the city’s public art ordinance to explicitly exclude sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art. It would also require that any money allocated for public art under the program be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin. The council ultimately postponed action on the resolution until its Nov. 21 meeting, with a working session scheduled in the interim to focus on the Percent for Art ordinance.

The timing of the proposed ordinance change is related to two proposals on the Nov. 8 ballot: (1) renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to fund street repair; and (2) imposing a 0.125 mill tax to fund the repair of sidewalks – which is currently the responsibility of adjacent property owners.

From left: Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims and Cheryl Zuellig in a priority-setting exercise at the Oct. 26 public art commission meeting.

Marsha Chamberlin told her fellow commissioners that the discussion they’d have now would inform the presentation given to city council on Nov. 14.

Cheryl Zuellig asked Tony Derezinski – AAPAC’s newest member, who also serves on city council – what the council was expecting from the working session. Derezinski responded by talking about some of the broader expectations among councilmembers: They expect the Percent for Art program to result in more public art. Councilmembers need to understand the constraints that AAPAC is operating under, he said, and what’s in the works. The working session “gives us an opportunity to really show our stuff,” he said.

Pulcipher told commissioners that she was there to help organize their thoughts so that they could go into the working session in a proactive way. They could tell councilmembers the program’s history and current projects, but also communicate that they understand the concerns of the community, and can provide alternatives to some of the primary challenges they face. By the end of the meeting, she hoped they’d have a cohesive list of ideas to bring to council.

Before the council working session, a smaller group – including Pulcipher, Derezinski, Chamberlin, and public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – will meet with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, who oversees the Percent for Art program. Before the Nov. 14 working session they might need to consult with the city attorney’s office too, Pulicpher said, and gather additional information, depending on the outcome of this initial discussion.

Pulcipher organized the discussion by asking commissioners first to identify challenges as seen from the community’s perspective. They then looked at primary causes for those challenges, as well as possible solutions.

For purposes of this report, a summary of AAPAC’s discussion is organized thematically.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Why Isn’t There More Art?

The amount of time that it takes to do public art projects was cited as a challenge by several commissioners, in that the public perceives it as taking too long. People have commented that there should be more public art by now generated from the Percent for Art program, commissioners noted, and that the process moves too slowly.

Streamlining the number of steps it takes to do a project would help, Wiltrud Simbuerger said. Elaine Sims cautioned against simplifying the process – because they’re working with public funds, certain steps have to occur. She noted that it simply takes a long time to complete a project, and likened it to the length of time it takes for a development to be built, from the time it’s proposed to the time when it’s approved by the city and the work can begin.

Margaret Parker suggested that as AAPAC establishes programs – like the current mural program that’s being developed – they’re putting systems in place that initially take longer, but that will move more quickly after they’ve been established. Sims agreed:  ”There’s a start-up process to all this.”

Simbuerger said it would help if the city could revise the Percent for Art ordinance to make it possible to fund temporary projects, which could generally be done more quickly. Marsha Chamberlin suggested making the community aware that the city accepted extant works – people don’t think of the city as a place to donate artwork. Purchasing existing artwork is another way to increase the city’s public art holdings more quickly, she said.

Cheryl Zuellig said AAPAC’s planning committee, which she chairs, is developing a strategy for procurement.

Part of the reason there hasn’t been more public art from the Percent for Art program is that AAPAC has spent much of the past three years putting a new system in place, Chamberlin said – developing policies, procedures and guidelines, for example. Sims added that another time-consuming element is working with the city’s legal staff. That’s part of the untold story, she said.

Parker added that the city staff has also struggled with knowing how to handle the Percent for Art program. When seeking information, commissioners have often been bounced around to different city staffers, who aren’t sure of the answers, she said.

Sims said a typical public art project takes about three years – that’s true for any program, not just Ann Arbor’s, she said. Parker noted that getting public input adds even more time to the process.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Funding

Several issues were cited related to funding. One challenge that commissioners hear frequently in the community is the argument that given current economic conditions, now isn’t the right time to fund public art. An argument against that, Tony Derezinski said, is that these are the times when you show what the community really values – it’s an artistic community, but those values are being tested, he said.

Wiltrud Simbuerger said she always assumed that people in Ann Arbor supported public art, but that’s not necessarily the case, she noted. People might like art in general, and Ann Arbor has an active private sector arts community, she said, but a case needs to be made for spending money on public art.

There’s also confusion about where the Percent for Art funding comes from, Margaret Parker said. There’s a complexity to the system and to how the percent for art is calculated. That’s reflected in comments that people make about money for art that could be used to pay firefighters, she said, adding that it doesn’t work like that.

Malverne Winborne, who participated in Wednesday’s meeting on speaker phone, felt they shouldn’t be arguing over whether to have a public art program. AAPAC needs to take the position that it’s a no brainer – the city will support public art. It’s part of the city’s culture and shouldn’t be debatable, he said. Arguing about it is a distraction and not worth it, in his view. They shouldn’t allow the public to define AAPAC’s role in that way, he said.

Marsha Chamberlin raised the issue of councilmember Sabra Briere’s proposed resolution, saying AAPAC should approach the resolution positively. To respond to the proposed elimination of street millage funds, she said, one idea is to show the council some imaginative ways that street millage money could be used for public art.

Regarding the requirement that any money allocated for public art be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin, Chamberlin suggested requesting the option of a two-year extension to the three-year limit. That would give them more flexibility, she said.

Parker opposed the three-year spending limit, saying it would “incredibly complicate things.” It’s too soon to propose that limit, she said, since AAPAC is relatively new and they haven’t had adequate staff support so far.

It wasn’t clear to commissioners when the clock would start on that three-year period proposed in Briere’s resolution. Connie Pulcipher suggested that they get more details on that.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Artist Selection

One criticism levied against the Percent for Art program is that local artists aren’t given preference. The first major project funded by the program was awarded to the German Herbert Dreiseitl, for a large water sculpture in front of city hall.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that someone recently drew a parallel between the city’s public art program and the University Musical Society. Should UMS only bring Michigan artists to perform? Of course not – they bring the highest quality, most imaginative performers to the city, and the Percent for Art program should do the same for public art.  “We don’t want to be xenophobic about art,” Chamberlin said.

Part of the solution, Margaret Parker suggested, would be to provide the public with a list of local artists whose work is already owned by the city. “It’s a long list,” she said.

Elaine Sims pointed out that it’s not even clear what an “Ann Arbor artist” means – people come from all over to live here, she said. It’s a polyglot, global world.

Malverne Winborne recalled that he had previously suggested that being a local artist should be a factor as part of the artist selection process. He’d been overruled, he said, but he still felt local artists should be given some consideration. All other things being equal, being a local artist should be a tiebreaker.

Parker commented that local artists are considered for all projects, even if they aren’t ultimately selected.

Cheryl Zuellig said the Percent for Art ordinance allows non-local artists to be selected. She also noted that during his speech at the Dreiseitl dedication, mayor John Hieftje had indicated that it’s illegal to give preference to local artists. AAPAC needs clarification from legal staff about what he meant by that, she said.

By way of background, The Chronicle had previously queried Hieftje about the source of his remarks on the illegality of giving preference to local artists. He subsequently emailed this response, which he said was modified from communications with the city attorney’s staff:

The concern is a possible violation of the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Attorneys have no doubt that the ability to travel to another state to do business (to create a work of art and be compensated for it) would be considered by a court as a privilege subject to constitutional protection against discrimination, i.e., a prohibition against out of state artists. (Earning a living is uniformly held to be a privilege.)

An in-state (or local) preference might be justified if there is an identified evil that the restriction is narrowly tailored to address. Not referring to the devil or such, but using language from one of the leading US Supreme Court decisions on the issue) that a local preference is intended to remedy. We can’t just have a preference for Michigan (or local) artists because we feel like it.

To respond to the question about proof, any kind of preference will require proper proof – and can lead to fraudulent claims by someone that they qualify. There may need to be investigations to confirm that an artist or team of artists qualifies, which will require additional staff time, etc.

There might also be an Equal Protection challenge, based on residence as opposed to a “suspect” class (e.g., race, gender, national origin). The test to uphold discrimination or discriminatory impact against a non-suspect class is less stringent than for discrimination against a suspect class, but it still would have to be justified in the same manner as for the Privileges & Immunities Clause.

Although the City would not violate the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution if it limited art projects funded solely with City money – or with City and other money in which use of only Michigan artists was explicitly authorized – to only Michigan artists. But that is a different analysis than, and does not trump, the Privileges & Immunities Clause or Equal Protection Clause analysis.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Permanent vs. Temporary

Marsha Chamberlin noted that AAPAC is challenged because the Percent for Art ordinance restricts the kinds of projects that can be done. It’s limited to projects that are permanent – which means the visual arts. That eliminates the ability to support performance arts, for example. Tony Derezinski said that people often refer to ArtPrize, an annual artist competition in Grand Rapids that draws hundreds of thousands of people to that community. Some wonder why Ann Arbor can’t do something like that event, he said: “There’s some Grand Rapids envy there, I think.”

Chamberlin noted that the meaning of permanent relates to its ability to be capitalized – it needs to last a minimum of five years, she said. [At AAPAC's July 2010 meeting, McCormick told commissioners that the city runs a depreciation schedule on each piece of art.]

By way of background, the word “permanent” is not used specifically to refer to public art in the Percent for Art ordinance, which defines public art in this way:

Public art means works of art created, purchased, produced or otherwise acquired for display in public spaces or facilities. Public art may include artistic design features incorporated into the architecture, layout, design or structural elements of the space or facility. Public art may be any creation, production, conception or design with an aesthetic purpose, including freestanding objets d’art, sculptures, murals, mosaics, ornamentation, paint or decoration schemes, use of particular structural materials for aesthetic effect, or spatial arrangement of structures. [.pdf of Percent for Art ordinance]

Margaret Parker said that part of AAPAC’s mission is to educate the public. AAPAC needs to find a way of funding the promotion of what they do. Within that framework, perhaps they could then fund temporary work, she said. [Parker had elaborated on this proposal in more detail at AAPAC's September 2011 meeting.]

Cheryl Zuellig expressed concern about making changes to allow for more temporary art, without having the staff resources to handle it. Without some change in the role of staff, she said, then AAPAC was just making more work for itself.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Size of Commission, Staff Support

The topic of AAPAC’s workload emerged at several points during the discussion. Elaine Sims pointed to the size of the nine-member commission as a challenge, as well as the lack of staff support they’ve had. Although Aaron Seagraves was hired this summer as a part-time administrator, that position had been vacant since the previous administrator, Katherine Talcott, stepped down in mid-2010. Talcott had been hired in early 2009 as the city’s first public art administrator. The Percent for Art program was formed in 2007.

Tony Derezinski observed that most other city commissions – like the planning commission or housing commission – are truly advisory, and that the work is staff-driven. That hasn’t been the case with AAPAC, he said. Sims noted that commissioners are busy volunteers, and it’s like having another job.

Marsha Chamberlin said they couldn’t really ask for more staff, but it should be noted that they’ve only had some staff support for about half of AAPAC’s existence. Connie Pulcipher said that Seagraves has a 20-hour appointment, but she wondered if there was an understanding that beyond that, he could be paid for doing specific project management.

That’s tricky, Margaret Parker said. When does the extra time kick in, and what work counts as part of his base of 20 hours? For example, AAPAC is starting to talk about the rain garden project at Kingsley, which will be paid for with stormwater funds. At what point would Seagraves be paid out of the stormwater funds to handle that project? “It gets incredibly complex,” she said.

Pulcipher observed that AAPAC needs a better understanding of how staff time can be allotted. Cheryl Zuellig added that a simplification of how staff time is allotted would also be very helpful. AAPAC has spent a lot of time talking about this issue, she said.

Zuellig said an alternative to adding more staff time is to adjust the community’s expectations, to better align with the city’s actual public art resources. The reality is that they might not be able to add more staff time, and that’s OK, she said.

Malverne Winborne said he struggles with the role of the commission, and said he feels like a worker bee. He doesn’t object to working, but he said he does have another job. AAPAC has a lot of responsibility, he said, but very little authority. Their decisions can be quickly overturned, he noted. “To me, that is a problem.” If nothing else, the public needs to know that AAPAC is simply making recommendations, he said.

Derezinski described AAPAC’s role as one of governance – or at least it should be. Staff should be the people doing the actual work, with AAPAC acting as advisors, he said. Zuellig noted that if they had taken that view, nothing would have gotten done.

Sims said the public thinks AAPAC is responsible for putting public art in the community, but commissioners don’t have that power. The public perceives AAPAC as staff, not advisors, she said. Winborne noted that at some point, reality and perception need to align. There are some issues that are out of AAPAC’s control, he said.

Zuellig said she’d like to get to the point where AAPAC was like the planning commission, with sufficient staff support. Derezinski, who also serves on the planning commission, said planning commissioners don’t champion projects, and that there’s a general deference to staff. That’s because staff has much more knowledge and expertise, he added. For the most part, he said, the planning commission follows staff recommendations.

AAPAC needs to provide the vision for the “what,” Sims suggested, while staff needs to be responsible for the “how.” Right now, AAPAC is doing both the “what” and the “how,” she said.

Chamberlin agreed, and noted that AAPAC commissioners had to handle the logistics for the recent Dreiseitl dedication, down to the details of buying cookies for the reception. Zuellig observed that city staff hasn’t taken ownership of the Percent for Art program. But it’s really the city’s program, she noted, and AAPAC is helping govern it. The roles need to be better defined.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Community Awareness

One challenge facing the Percent for Art program is that the community isn’t aware of what public art projects are underway, Tony Derezinski said. Although the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl was a high-profile project, other things in the pipeline aren’t well known, he said. People also aren’t aware of the various partnerships and collaborations that AAPAC is pursuing – Derezinski pointed to the Inside|Out program with the Detroit Institute of Arts as an example.

It’s important to get the public involved as much as possible, Cheryl Zuellig said – not lecturing them, but getting people involved in task forces and in other ways. The more that happens, the more people will understand the value of the Percent for Art program, she said.

Margaret Parker pushed for more regular public input. After AAPAC develops its annual plan, for example, commissioners or staff should make presentations about it in every one of the city’s wards, as well as to civic groups like Rotary or Kiwanis. AAPAC hasn’t gone directly to the people to communicate what they’re doing, she said. Elaine Sims noted that Parker’s suggestion creates more work for commissioners – something they had already identified as another challenge.

Malverne Winborne thought that making those presentations would just bog them down. The public has entrusted AAPAC with responsibility for public art, he said. And the mechanism for getting the word out is already in place, he added – people can attend AAPAC’s monthly meetings.

Zuellig noted that AAPAC has a calendar of events, and observed that the commission has had difficulty in getting people to attend meetings. Public forums regarding potential murals weren’t well attended, for example.

At the least, Parker said, AAPAC’s chair or someone else from the commission needs to attend the city council meeting when AAPAC’s annual public art plan is submitted, to give a presentation and highlight their work. Zuellig said that’s a good point – they need to improve communication with the city council in general.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Next Steps

Connie Pulcipher wrapped up the meeting by asking each commissioner to prioritize their top three challenges from among those they’d discussed. Pulcipher, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski and Aaron Seagraves plan to meet with Sue McCormick to further develop the presentation, which Seagraves will likely make. If more input is needed from the rest of the commission, they could schedule another meeting between now and Nov. 14, Pulcipher said. Chamberlin said she plans to attend the council working session, and encouraged other commissioners to come as well.

Commissioners will be telling the council their story, Pulcipher said, but it’s also important to let councilmembers know that AAPAC understands the challenges facing the Percent for Art program and is proactive in dealing with them.

Commissioners present: Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Margaret Parker, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Elaine Sims, Malverne Winborne (via phone), Cheryl Zuellig. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Cathy Gendron.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

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

Marianne Rzepka

Cecilia Sauter’s rain garden solved the problem of a wet and mushy side yard at her Ann Arbor home and may have helped her neighbor with water in her house’s foundation. Greg Marker, of Ypsilanti, uses a rain garden to hold runoff from three sump pumps and his house’s gutters, which resolves some water problems with his neighbors who live down the hill from him.

I just wanted to get rid of some lawn.

The thread that ties the three of us together is that we got help from Washtenaw County’s Office of Water Resources Commissioner (formerly the Drain Commissioner), which provided us with rain garden designs and helped us buy the native plants called for by the plans. The county’s program started in 2005, and so far it’s helped set up about 50 rain gardens. 

No, a rain garden doesn’t grow precipitation. It takes care of water running off roofs and driveways, or pooling where no one wants water to pool. Basically, you dig a shallow bed  – 3 inches deep with a flat bottom – and direct the rain into the bed where it can soak into the soil instead of running into the storm drains or making a mess in your basement.

With a rain garden, the water soaks slowly into the soil and ultimately into the ground water, instead of cascading down the storm drains and into local streams and rivers, taking things like fertilizers with it. There’s a bit of extra incentive for Ann Arbor residents: For homes with a rain garden, the city utilities department will cut your water and sewer bill by $2.80 every quarter.

Sauter’s rain garden accommodates the precipitation that falls on her roof and about half her next-door neighbor’s roof. The downspouts were routed underground and now empty into the rain garden that sprawls across the length of her back yard.

Cecelia Sauter and her dog Snowy in the the back yard of her northeast Ann Arbor home, where she has put in a rain garden.

The rain garden is constructed so that water fills up one end of the bed, then spills into the other half. That happened the first year, Sauter said, but this year, even with all the rain that fell this spring, the first half of the garden has pretty much taken care of all the water.

Now her side yard is dry, said Sauter, and another neighbor, who used to have a wet foundation in the rainy seasons, now seems to have no problems. As an added plus, there are plants blooming in her yard all season, from wild geraniums to the Joe Pye weed. ”It is awesome,” said Sauter.

Marker, a civil engineer, knows something about water, and he had an idea of how to channel the rain that would run off his property and onto his downhill neighbors. The pear-shaped rain garden he installed several years ago handles runoff from his entire roof, as well as the water from three sump pumps that carry water from the footing drains under his basement.

Before the rain garden, all that water “left me with a soggy yard,” said Marker. In the winter, “the sump water would come out (of the ground) two or three houses down and ice up.” Now the water goes into the rain garden and soaks more slowly into the soil.

There was a slight problem with the rain garden in the winter, when the ground froze. Though the outside temperature was below freezing, the water pumped up from underground was a steady 58 degrees, Marker said, and it just ran out over the frozen garden.

But Marker set up a system of valves, and each winter he redirects the sump water from the rain garden to a pipe that takes it to the storm drain that runs under the nearby street. Each spring, he directs the sump water back in the garden, where it warms the soil and gives an early boost to the plants there.

The county rain garden project is run by Harry Sheehan, an environmental manager at Water Resources, who came to my house last summer to start the process of building my rain garden. His office provided a landscape designer, Janis Das of InSite Design, who came up with the shape of the garden and a selection of native plants. (This year, the county will use Master Gardeners to design the gardens.)

Sheehan also helped me lay out the design on my lawn and had an intern with a Rototiller available to help rip up the grass. I also got a discount on the plants, which were purchased through the county. The design was meant to capture the water coming off half my roof and from one of my neighbor’s downspouts. The water normally runs along one side of the driveway, and now that water should run through a rock-filled trench into the rain garden.

I was responsible for digging the bed, which had to be at least 3 inches deep and flat. Flat. That’s what had me standing in the yard, raking the bed like one of those little Zen gardens. I would rake, then measure, then rake, then move the stakes used to measure the depth and rake again.

It gave me a chance to get caught up with my neighbors, who all wanted to know if I was installing a pond  – ”A koi pond?” asked one neighbor. It’s planted now, and if Sauter and Marker are to be believed, the sweetspire, anemones and geraniums will be handling quite a bit of water that would normally run into the street’s storm drain.

The plants in the rain garden have to be able to take the hot, sunny conditions of high summer in my front yard, which faces southwest. But they also have to handle a rush of rain water that can come anytime from April to October.

I’ve mulched it all, but I expect there will be some small touches – such as adding a pile of rocks for contast and making the garden look a little less like a volcano (a neighbor’s description – I didn’t see it until he said it). I’ve also got to get out there and pull up the many maple seedlings that have recently sprung up.

After the last few heavy rains, I think the only change I’ll make is to enlarge the trench that leads into the rain garden bed. 

The county has posted more information online, including a video tour of several local rain gardens installed under the program, with a list of plants and the garden designs. This year, Sheehan plans on helping another 10 rain gardens become reality. If you’re interested, email him at sheehanh@ewashtenaw.org to see if you can get on his list. 

About the writer: Marianne Rzepka, former reporter for the Ann Arbor News and Detroit Free Press, is a Master Gardener who lives in Ann Arbor and thinks it’s fun to turn the compost pile.