The issue of how to handle animal control services for the county has been a contentious one, dating back to budget cuts proposed in 2011. The county currently contracts with HSHV through the end of 2012. Early this year, the board formed a policy task force and a separate work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV now provides. For the most recent Chronicle coverage of this effort, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”

Bergman originally brought forward two resolutions. The first one – which she later withdrew – included a list of recommendations from the policy task force. The full board had not been presented with formal recommendations, and board chair Conan Smith – who led the task force meetings – described the resolution as Bergman’s “interpretation” of those recommendations. The board took a recess so that commissioners could read the resolutions, and when they reconvened, Bergman withdrew the one that included the recommendations.

Much of the debate over the second resolution centered on the fact that formal recommendations hadn’t been presented to the board. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel will have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

Ping objected to the process, saying that it could undercut HSHV’s position if the board eventually decides to issue an RFP, because other bidders would know how much HSHV is willing to bid. She also objected to taking action without knowing the task force recommendations. “This whole process is flawed on its face,” she said.

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

Archer Christian is the newest member of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. She is also development director for the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center. (Photos by the writer.)

Bridget Callahan, an intern with the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) and a University of Michigan community-based research fellow, gave the report, describing how a land link program might relate to the city’s farmland preservation efforts. Callahan’s research included surveys of farmers statewide, and a focus group with eight people involved in the Tilian Farm Development Center in Ann Arbor Township.

Also during the Aug. 2 meeting, GAC chair Dan Ezekiel noted that the current contract with The Conservation Fund, which manages the greenbelt program under contract with the city, ends on Dec. 31. Catherine Riseng volunteered to work with city staff in developing a request for proposals (RFP) for a new contract. The Conservation Fund, which has been awarded contracts for this work since the greenbelt program was created, is expected to bid on it again. Ginny Trocchio is the nonprofit’s local staff member.

In updates during the meeting, Trocchio reported that a Sept. 22 greenbelt bus tour will focus on the eastern portion of the greenbelt, and its connection to the Superior Greenway. And Ezekiel told commissioners that he’ll be a guest on the Aug. 22 Issues of the Environment, a talk show broadcast on WEMU.

Commissioners absent from the August meeting included the city council representative to GAC, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). The only meeting he has attended this year was in April. As he did not run for re-election to the city council, there are only three remaining GAC meetings – in September, October and November – before Hohnke leaves the council and the commission.

Contract with The Conservation Fund

Dan Ezekiel told commissioners that the city’s three-year contract with The Conservation Fund ends on Dec. 31. The nonprofit – with headquarters in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. – manages the city’s greenbelt program and parkland acquisition. Those efforts are funded by the 0.5 mill open space and parkland preservation millage that voters approved in 2003.

A volunteer from GAC is needed to help with the request for proposals (RFP) process to select the next contractor. Ezekiel noted that The Conservation Fund is expected to be one of the bidders.

The Ann Arbor city council approved the current contract with The Conservation Fund on Dec. 21, 2009. It authorized $119,565.80 in 2010, with two one-year renewal options for $113,661.81 in 2011 and $106,797.88 in 2012. The Conservation Fund was the only bidder for that RFP.

The responsibilities for the GAC volunteer would include reviewing the draft RFP and any changes to the scope of service, and attending interviews with bidders. Ezekiel said he’d be very happy not to be the person to do it, because the work would be happening in the fall when he’d be returning to school. [Ezekiel is a science teacher at Forsythe Middle School.]

Catherine Riseng volunteered for the task.

Outcome: No vote was required on this item.

Land Link

Bridget Callahan, an intern with the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) and a University of Michigan community-based research fellow, gave a presentation on the concept of land linking, and how a land link program might be integrated into the city’s farmland preservation efforts. Ginny Trocchio, who manages the greenbelt program, is an FSEP board member.

From right: Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who manages the greenbelt program under contract with the city, and Bridget Callahan, a University of Michigan student and intern with the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP).

Callahan has been researching land link programs on behalf of FSEP. She described them as a way to help connect farm owners who want to sell their farms with beginning farmers who are interested in buying. Some programs have found creative ways to partner with land conservancies, she said, or have come up with other arrangements like co-ownership. California FarmLink is considered a model of land link programs, Callahan said, providing resources for farmers and farm seekers.

The purchase of development rights (PDR) and conservation easements are ways to make farmland more affordable, Callahan said, and to encourage farmers to protect their land from development. These are among the tools that land link programs can facilitate.

As part of her research, Callahan interviewed representatives from 16 land link programs nationwide. She also surveyed about 70 farmers and prospective farmers in Michigan. Of those, 45% had a favorable perception of PDRs, but 46% said they wouldn’t consider selling their development rights. She noted that in written responses, it was clear that some people didn’t know what a PDR was. Only 14% indicated that they had worked with a land conservancy or land preservation group. When asked whether they’d consider participating in a land link program, 47% said they would likely participate, and 30% were neutral.

Callahan also conducted a focus group with eight people involved with the Tilian Farm Development Center in Ann Arbor Township. They were knowledgeable about PDRs and the city’s greenbelt program, she said, and supported PDRs as a way to make farmland more accessible to new farmers.

One concern expressed during the focus group was the fact that landowners are holding on to property in the area, hoping to sell it for development. People in the focus group wanted to put more pressure on landowners who have those expectations. She quoted one participant as saying that there was a local landowner who “still thinks he will be able to build eight houses and build a subdivision and make millions of dollars off of his land. That’s not the vision of Ann Arbor Township. He will likely never be able to do it.”

Callahan concluded by saying that land link programs share a common goal with the city’s greenbelt program – preserving farmland. There could be ways to partner, if a local land link program is created.

Land Link: Commission Discussion

Archer Christian wondered who had received the survey. It had been sent out through several organizations, Callahan replied, including the Michigan Young Farmer Coalition, the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP), the Michigan State University student organic farm, and the Michigan Farm Bureau, though she wasn’t sure if the farm bureau had distributed it.

Peter Allen at the Aug. 2 greenbelt advisory commission meeting.

Christian asked whether FSEP is planning to start a land link program. The board is considering it, Callahan said, and her final deliverable to FSEP will be a recommendation about that.

Peter Allen said he’d been approached a couple of times by clients who were interested in buying a farm and building a cluster of 5-10 houses on the edge. [Allen is a real estate broker and developer.] The people living in the houses would farm the land – he described it as a 21st century version of a commune. Most of the people are semi-retired, he said, and would view this as a kind of second life. He wondered if Callahan had encountered this kind of thing elsewhere, and whether there would be a market for it.

Callahan said she hadn’t seen that kind of arrangement. Trocchio noted that the closest thing to what Allen had described is in Ann Arbor Township, where the township owns the property and a conservation easement, but has allowed part of it to be developed. That’s where the Tilian Farm Development Center is located.

Shannon Brines, a greenbelt commissioner who runs Brines Farm in Dexter, said that the scenario described by Allen sounded like a novel idea, but he imagined there would be only a small market for it.

Staff, Commissioner Updates

A greenbelt bus tour has been scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 22, Ginny Trocchio reported. This year, the tour will focus on the eastern portion of the greenbelt, and its connection to the Superior Greenway. The tour will be in partnership with the Legacy Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program, and Ann Arbor Township, which has a land preservation program. It will run from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., starting at the park-and-ride lot at Plymouth and Green roads. Dan Ezekiel noted that Sept. 22 is not a home football game for the University of Michigan.

Trocchio also briefed commissioners on the proposed federal farm bill, noting that there will likely be cuts to the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). That’s in part because more money will be spent on drought relief. [Congress took its August recess without passing the bill. In his Aug. 11 radio address, President Barack Obama urged Congress to take action quickly when lawmakers return.] The city has received more than $6 million in FRPP grants since the greenbelt program was created, to offset costs of local land preservation.

In a later update to the commission, Dan Ezekiel reported that he’ll be a guest on the Aug. 22 Issues of the Environment, a talk show broadcast on WEMU.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

Commissioners spent just over an hour at the end of their Aug. 2 meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions, which is one of the reasons provided by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session. When they emerged from closed session, commissioners voted on two recommendations that will be forwarded to the city council.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of proposed greenbelt acquisitions are not made public, and parcels are identified only by their application number. Commissioners recommended that the city council proceed with the purchase development rights (PDR) on a 124-acre parcel with the application number of 2011-11 and to option an additional 78 acres and apply for grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) in 2013.

A second resolution recommended that the city partner with Salem Township on the purchase of development rights for application number 2012-02, and to contribute 25.5% of the purchase price – not to exceed $57,000. The recommendation also called for the city to hold the conservation easement on the property.

Outcome: Both resolutions passed unanimously without discussion.

Present: Peter Allen, Shannon Brines, Archer Christian, Dan Ezekiel, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Tom Bloomer, Carsten Hohnke, Laura Rubin.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 6, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The deadline for submitting proposals is May 4, 2012 at 10 a.m. A pre-proposal meeting for potential respondents will be held on Thursday, April 26 at 4 p.m. at the proposed skatepark site at Veterans Memorial Park, near the corner of Dexter Avenue and Maple Road. After proposals are submitted on May 4, they will be reviewed by a selection committee, with interviews held during the week of May 29.

The RFP provides this description of the project design: ”The site allows for an approximately 30,000 square foot Skatepark. The design must include, but not necessarily be limited to, both “street” (e.g. flat surfaces, stairs, rails) and “transitional” elements (e.g. bowls, pools, curved surfaces, halfpipes), lighting and seating, and must accommodate skaters at a range of skill levels, from beginners to advanced. The final plan must meet or exceed all storm water management and other environmental requirements, must complement the current park landscape, and must preserve the existing trees. Where practical, solar powered lights, drought resistant species, and low maintenance ground covers shall be incorporated into the design, as applicable.”

The RFP was discussed at the April 17 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that the goal is to select a designer within two months. He explained that the RFP is being handled through the city’s purchasing division using city guidelines, and the skatepark will be a city-owned asset. However, he said the selection committee – which will include members of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, as well as city and county representatives – will be relied on to make a recommendation for the designer. That recommendation will be reviewed by PAC, he said. PAC commissioner David Barrett will serve on the committee. Park planner Amy Kuras is the city’s point person on the project.

Construction is expected to start in the spring of 2013.

And that’s what the committee voted to do – specifically, to recommend to the city council that a letter of intent (LOI) be signed with Valiant, the developer, which could eventually lead to a development agreement. The city council will receive a presentation on the letter of intent at a work session on Monday, March 14 at 7 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board room at 220 N. Main St.

David Di Rita of the Roxbury Group addresses the Library Lot RFP review committee. Left in the frame in the background is local attorney Tom Wieder. Right in the frame is Vivienne Armentrout, a former Washtenaw County commissioner and author of the blog, "Local in Ann Arbor." (Photos by the writer.)

In the draft of the LOI unveiled at Tuesday’s committee meeting, the city and Valiant would try to strike a development agreement no later than four months after the signing of the LOI, with construction to start 15 months after the signing of the development agreement.

Attending the committee meeting on Tuesday was David Di Rita of The Roxbury Group, which has served as a consultant to the committee. In November, Di Rita had delivered a report to the committee recommending Valiant’s proposal over a similar project proposed by another developer – Acquest.

The majority of Tuesday’s meeting time was taken up with Di Rita delivering introductory remarks – a self-described “soliloquy” – and walking the committee through the main points of the draft LOI, or responding to committee member questions.

In his introductory remarks, Di Rita distinguished between the idea of analyzing the financial viability of a specific proposal – which he stressed that The Roxbury Group had not done – and the overall economic validity of a concept.

Key points in the draft LOI are the idea that Valiant would pay for the acquisition of development rights on the property, but could use part of that payment for the design and financing of the conference center. The city of Ann Arbor would own the conference center, and would not be held liable for its maintenance and operation costs, unless Valiant were to cease holding the management agreement. The city’s ownership could, according to the draft LOI, possibly implicate payments by Valiant to the city in lieu of taxes. The draft LOI also calls for reserving no fewer than 350 daytime parking spaces in the underground parking garage, currently under construction, for the hotel/conference center.

In addition to committee members, more than 20 people attended the meeting, filling the fourth floor conference room of city hall. Attendees in the audience included Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere; Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker; and AADL board member Nancy Kaplan. Several people who attended have expressed objections to the hotel/conference center project, based on either the substance of the proposal itself or the decision-making process.

Related to complaints about the decision process, the meeting began with an adamant request from local attorney Tom Wieder to be allowed to address the committee, which was denied by the committee’s chair, Stephen Rapundalo.

Rapundalo’s refusal to allow Wieder to address the committee was supported by city administrator Roger Fraser, who also attended the meeting, and who raised the specter of asking Wieder to leave. At that point Wieder ended his persistent requests, and was allowed to stay.

Wieder based his request to verbally address the committee on the city of Ann Arbor’s policy of handling all committee meetings under the requirements of the state’s Open Meetings Act – a policy that does appear to afford members of the public at least the reasonable expectation of being able to address committees during meetings like the one on Tuesday.

Background, Review

On Nov. 5, 2009, the city council first appointed a five-member committee to review proposals in response to the city’s RFP for use of the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage – the so-called Library Lot. The city-owned Library Lot is located north of the downtown library, between Division Street and Fifth Avenue. The garage, currently under construction, is a project of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

That committee consists of: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2 city council member), who chairs the committee; Margie Teall (Ward 4 city councilmember); John Splitt (DDA board member); Eric Mahler (planning commissioner); and Sam Offen (member at large). Offen also serves on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

The city received six proposals in response to its RFP. Of those, the committee eventually selected two for final consideration – both were for hotel/conference center-type concepts. [See Chronicle coverage: "Hotel/Conference Ideas Go Forward"] Not included in the final mix were either of the two proposals that envisioned the lot as primarily open space. Alan Haber, who had worked with a group to advance a community commons proposal, also attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Among those attending Tuesday's meeting were attorney Susan Morrison, who wrote a letter to the RFP review committee on behalf of Ann Arbor resident Mary Hathaway, and Alan Haber, who is part of a group that had submitted a proposal for a community commons on the Library Lot.

The Roxbury Group was hired to assist with the evaluation of the finalist proposals – from Valiant and Acquest. On Nov. 23, 2010, The Roxbury Group delivered a report to the committee recommending the proposal from Valiant as the stronger of the two. [.pdf of The Roxbury Group report]

The RFQ (request for qualifications) issued by the city of Ann Arbor, which led to the engagement of The Roxbury Group’s services, stated that the consultant should be able to “determine if the projects submitted to the City are economically viable and make financial sense in the Ann Arbor marketplace.” [.pdf of consulting RFQ].

However, Roxbury’s report indicates that it “does not include and is not intended to serve as a feasibility study for the concepts included in the two proposals … it is generally assumed that the overall concepts included in the uses for the Library Lot contained in each proposal are valid and supportable from a market and demand standpoint.”

Economic Feasibility: Committee Discussion

During his introductory remarks, Di Rita stressed that The Roxbury Group was charged with the responsibility of taking the two proposals, from Acquest and Valiant, and making a recommendation about whether to proceed with one, the other, or neither proposal.

Di Rita stressed that Roxbury had not been charged with the responsibility of evaluating the feasibility of a hotel/conference center. Later, in response to a question from committee member Sam Offen, who said he thought that feasibility was a part of the charge, Stephen Rapundalo read aloud from the RFQ for consultation services what was expected:

• Determine if the projects submitted to the City are economically viable and make financial sense in the Ann Arbor marketplace
• Determine if respondents are financially stable and have the capacity to complete their projects as proposed
• Determine what the likely timing for each proposed project might be following selection by Ann Arbor City Council, including design development, securing financing, and construction
• Help the City determine which project will provide the maximum financial return to the City
• Assist the City in working with each developer to improve their proposals and provide the City with competitive options that optimize desired features
• Help develop criteria for review, implementation and performance of proposals before and after recommendation for award
• Help the City determine which project will provide the greatest community benefits
• Help the City create a public process that encourages community input and involvement
• Provide information on the impact of similarly scaled projects in similarly sized communities
• Assist the City as needed in negotiations with the selected project team
• Attend, in an observatory role, the project interviews scheduled for January 19-20, 2010 and the evening open house scheduled for January 20, 2010

Offen allowed that the list did not specifically call out a “feasibility study,” but said he felt that Roxbury could have done more investigation to assess that the economic assumptions behind the proposals were valid and correct, instead of taking the word of the proposers. Earlier in his presentation, Di Rita had called the conversations with the developers the “beating heart” of Roxbury’s analysis.

Sam Offen enters the fourth floor conference room of city hall for the Library Lot RFP review committee meeting on March 8, 2011.

Responding to Offen, Di Rita said that the first thing to look at was the overall economic viability before asking the feasibility question. He said if the city were interested in the financial feasibility, absent a specific development deal, then there are people far more qualified to assess that than Roxbury. They wouldn’t know what to study, until they knew specifically what the details of the project are.

Roxbury had spent a lot of time on the stakeholder interviews, including meeting with representatives from the Ann Arbor District Library, the University of Michigan and Ann Arbor SPARK, Di Rita said. And there was unanimity of opinion among the stakeholders that yes, that facility would get used. What would make it a “game changing” facility would not be just that it could host a plenary session with 500-600 people, but that it could do so in the center of the city.

Rapundalo noted that the university’s conference needs are decentralized – perhaps even down to the individual faculty member. Di Rita responded to Rapundalo by saying that this potential user of the center – the university – doesn’t know its own demand or supply for conferencing services.

Di Rita concluded that the “ultimate feasibility study” is the ability of the developer to draw financing for the project. If the development agreement results in a financed project from lenders, then “the feasibility comes along for the ride,” he said.

Economic Feasibility: External Views

In the last few weeks, a November 2010 report written by Chuck Skelton, who is president of Hospitality Advisors Consulting Group, has circulated throughout the Ann Arbor community – it was conveyed to the city council at the end of January. Skelton concludes that Valiant’s conference center proposal would not be successful – based on estimated revenues of $42 per square foot against estimated operating expenses of $58 per square foot, which would lead to around a $0.5 million annual shortfall. Skelton calculates an additional $0.5 million shortfall due to debt service.

Skelton’s report has received considerable interest from Public Land-Public Process, a group opposed to the conference center proposal – opposition based partly on the grounds that they contend a conference center is not economically feasible. In a post on her blog “Local in Ann Arbor,” Vivienne Armentrout calls Skelton’s report an authoritative study.

An earlier national study from 2005 by Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at University of Texas at San Antonio, has also made the local rounds. [.pdf of "Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy"] In Sanders’ paper, which is one of several he’s written on the topic of convention centers, he concludes that “if taxing, spending, and building have been successful, the performance and results of that investment have been decidedly less so. Existing convention centers have seen their business evaporate, while new centers and expansions are delivering remarkably little in terms of attendance and activity.”

Letter of Intent: Highlights

David Di Rita walked the committee through the 15 points of the draft letter of intent.

LOI Highlights: Project Description

Highlights included a description of the project:

(i) Core elements:

• 150 hotels units – 87,000 sq. ft.
• Conference center – 26,000 sq. ft.
• Restaurant/Retail – 6,000 sq. ft.
• Public space/Plaza

(ii) Additional elements

• Office space – up to 48,000 sq. ft.
• Residential condos – up to 22,000 sq. ft.

Given the lack of a square-footage number attached to the public plaza space, Sam Offen wondered what would guarantee that the project would have a significantly-sized plaza area. Di Rita responded by saying that the “stake in the ground” is the letter of intent, with the apparent implication that from there the two parties could eventually pin down the plaza size with more precision.

During his presentation, Di Rita had introduced the idea that the letter of intent would establish the “four corners” of the deal – the what, where, when and how. Margie Teall stated that the developer understood that the project “goes nowhere” without a significant plaza area. John Splitt noted that the underground structure design depends on a plaza area, and that if one is not included, then the underground structure would need to be redesigned. [Construction is already well underway, and such a redesign would result in significant expense and delay.]

LOI Highlights: Payments, Liabilities of Ownership

One kind of payment described in the LOI is some equivalent of property taxes to be paid to the city on the conference center, even though property taxes would not apply, given that the city of Ann Arbor would have ownership of the conference center.

In the committee discussion of payments in lieu of taxes, Offen said he thought that the University of Michigan had a payment in lieu of taxes program, to which city administrator Roger Fraser quipped, “To whom?” Fraser followed up by saying that even though UM does not currently have such a program, he thought that perhaps as late as the 1950s there was some kind of program like that in place. He noted that the idea is not to have Valiant duck taxes by having the city own the conference center.

Eric Lipson, former planning commissioner, chats with Margie Teall, who represents Ward 4 on the city council and serves on the Library Lot RFP review committee. Seated is Nancy Kaplan, board member for the Ann Arbor District Library.

In addition to some payment in lieu of taxes program, there would be some kind of payment made by Valiant to the city in consideration of the conveyance of the development rights – either to the city or a 501(c)(3) nonprofit designated by the city. But that payment could be used by Valiant to help create the conference center [emphasis added]: “The Developer will be solely responsible for the design, financing and development of the Conference Center utilizing both the consideration it will provide to the City as set forth in Section 3 and to the extent required its own funds, as set forth in the Development Agreement.”

In light of the ownership by the city of the conference center, the LOI includes language meant to address the city’s potential liability [emphasis added]: “Notwithstanding the ownership of the Conference Center, neither the City nor the 501(c)(3) will be liable in any way for any costs relating to the design, financing, development, operation or maintenance of the Conference Center so long as the Developer holds the Management Agreement.” The LOI does not address eventualities where the developer ceases to hold the management agreement.

Eric Mahler, an attorney by profession, expressed reservations about the idea of city ownership of the conference center, saying that he was leery of it – because you could not write an agreement that would cover all of the city’s liability. He made his support for the recommendation to sign the letter of intent contingent on the possibility of negotiating the ownership piece.

LOI Highlights: Timeframe, Reimbursement of City Costs, Approvals

The letter of intent sets forth a four-month timeframe from the signing of the letter of intent to the completion of a development agreement. City administrator Roger Fraser allowed that this was clearly an aggressive timeline. In order for the city to allocate the necessary time and resources to get to a development agreement within that timeframe, the letter of intent provides for a payment of up to $75,000 to the city for costs related to consultants and legal counsel. However, the letter of intent also states that the developer would not be liable for the $75,000 payment, if it fails to secure construction financing.

The letter of intent includes language to the effect that the various standard approvals required of the project would be those in effect on March 8, 2011, which was coincidentally the date of the committee meeting. That was an artifact of a previous expectation that the city council would have already acted, at its meeting on March 7, to authorize signing the letter of intent. Mahler insisted that the date would need to be changed – he assured his committee colleagues that as chair of the planning commission, he could say that several things in the city’s set of development requirements might change in the future. As a specific example, he cited the introduction of the new design guidelines for new downtown buildings, which the planning commission’s ordinance review committee is now working on.

The letter of intent also mentions a “dedicated representative” of the city to help coordinate the approval process. Mahler got clarification that this essentially followed the usual practice of assigning someone on the planning staff to shepherd the project through the process. Mahler joked that he just wanted to make sure it was not the city administrator who would be the dedicated representative.

LOI Highlights: Parking Space Reservation, Other Legal Issues

The letter of intent calls for 350 daytime spaces and 250 nighttime spaces to be reserved in the new underground parking garage in support of the hotel/conference center project. Offen wanted to know how many total spaces the underground garage would offer. Susan Pollay, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority, told the committee that the new garage would have roughly 650 spaces.

Executive director of the DDA, Susan Pollay, exchanges documents with Stephen Rapundalo, who represents Ward 2 on the city council and chairs the RFP review committee.

The number of spaces allocated to the hotel/conference center is relevant to the financing of the underground parking garage. Why? The nearly $50 million in bonds used to finance the parking garage were federal Build America Bonds. In an April 14, 2010 letter to the city council, Noah Hall, then executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, outlined federal restrictions on how the bond proceeds can be used. Those restrictions could have an impact on the city’s ability to allocate more than a small percentage of spaces to a non-public use.

Other possible legal issues are outlined in a March 8, 2011 letter to the RFP review committee from Susan Morrison, an attorney for Ann Arbor resident Mary Hathaway. Those issues include a possible argument that Valiant’s desired subordination of rent payments to Valiant’s construction mortgage could violate the Michigan Constitution. A second possible argument is the idea that the arrangement with Valiant would constitute a “business enterprise” under Michigan’s Home Rule City Act, which would require voter approval before proceeding.

Next Step: City Council Work Session

Near the conclusion of the meeting, Rapundalo raised the question of whether the committee needed to take any formal action. Fraser told him it would be helpful to have a recommendation from the committee for the city council to consider the draft letter of intent – if the council recommends changes, they can be made as appropriate. Teall concurred with that sentiment.

Offen said he’d like to see somewhere a brief description of the financial benefit to the city, given that the tangible financial benefits were a major criterion for selection of the proposals.

It was Splitt who made the recommendation that the city sign the letter of intent with appropriate amendments. During the brief discussion, Offen said he’d support the motion, but only because the previous request by Valiant that the city issue bonds to support the project had been removed. Mahler wanted to make sure that the ownership of the conference center by the city was something that could be negotiated. Rapundalo expressed his support by saying that the letter of intent resets further dialogue under a framework. He allowed that financial feasibility would become a question.

Outcome: The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the the city council consider the letter of intent.

There will be a city council work session on Monday, March 14, 2011 at the Community Television Network (CTN) studios, 2805 S. Industrial Highway Washtenaw County board room at 220 N. Main St., dedicated to the topic of Valiant’s letter of intent.

Doug Davis of Miles of Golf, left, and Doug Hellman of KemperSports were two of about a dozen people who attended Monday's pre-bid meeting for the Huron Hills Golf Course RFP. (Photo by the writer.)

Anyone who plans to submit a response to the RFP was required to attend the meeting, which lasted 30 minutes and was followed by a field trip to tour the course. Among those attending were Doug Davis and Chris Mile of Miles of Golf, Doug Hellman of KemperSports, Joe Spatafore of Royal Oak Golf Management, and William Arlinghaus of Greenscape.

Also attending were several citizens who have publicly opposed the RFP process, including Ted Annis, Nancy Kaplan, Myra Larson and Paul Bancel. Some are involved in the citizens group Ann Arbor for Parkland Preservation (A2P2).

The meeting, led by city parks manager Colin Smith, was a chance for potential bidders to ask questions or request additional information. The deadline to submit proposals is Oct. 29. [.pdf file of Huron Hills RFP]

Overview of RFP Process

Smith began by apologizing for a mix-up in the meeting time – two websites had posted two different start times, and some people had been waiting an hour. He also explained why the room might have felt stuffy – last Friday, HVAC for the entire city hall building had been turned off as part of an ongoing renovation of the structure, and there won’t be any air-conditioning or heating for at least three weeks.

Smith then reviewed some points in the process, and said that until Oct. 8 he’d accept questions or requests for information by email. His replies would be sent out to everyone who signed in at the pre-bid meeting, Smith said, so that everyone would receive the same information.

After the Oct. 29 deadline, responses will be reviewed by a selection committee, which Smith has previously said will consist of city staff, and representatives from the city’s golf task force, park advisory commission and city council. Interviews would begin in mid-November. If the selection committee makes a recommendation, it will then be reviewed by the golf task force and park advisory commission. Final approval would rest with city council.

Smith also reviewed some of the general information and scope of the RFP. [For an extensive report on the RFP, as well as public commentary about the project, see The Chronicle's report of the park advisory commission's Aug. 17, 2010 meeting: "Public Turns Out to Support Huron Hills Golf"]

The 18-hole, 116-acre golf course is located on the city’s east side and is split by Huron Parkway, with seven holes on the north and 11 holes to the south. Designed in 1922 by the golf architect Thomas Bendelow, Huron Hills is a 5,071-yard, par 67 course with a slope rating of 107, according to the RFP. The city’s ownership dates back to 1949, when the University of Michigan deeded the lower nine holes of Huron Hills Golf Club to the city – plus $10,000 – in exchange for Felch Park. The city bought an adjacent 57.5 acres in 1951.

The city is asking for proposals that “maximize the recreational golf opportunities” at Huron Hills. The RFP states that the city will retain ownership of the property and buildings, as well as any improvements that might be made. Beyond that, they are looking for proposals that follow four general principals:

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

Questions from Potential RFP Responders

This article reports the questions organized thematically.

Questions: Finance

Doug Hellman of KemperSports asked the most questions during the 30-minute meeting, and led off by requesting financial data about the golf course’s performance. Smith clarified that as an enterprise fund, the revenues and expenses are reported separately – that is, they aren’t wrapped into a larger departmental budget. [Enterprise funds are operations that are expected to be self-sustaining.] He agreed to provide financial data for the past five or six years, as well as information about the number of rounds played.

Some of that financial information is available in the RFP:

Huron Hills Golf Course

             FY2007     FY2008     FY2009

Starts       13,913     15,558     21,229
Net loss  ($145,845) ($195,514) ($276,164)

-

Smith had also given an update on the financial performance of Huron Hills at the Sept. 21, 2010 meeting of the park advisory commission, which resulted in some discussion among commissioners. From The Chronicle’s coverage of that meeting:

The golf enterprise fund includes operations at Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses. In total, the fund reported revenues of $1.122 million for the year, with $1.645 million in expenses – for a $523,529 total loss. Huron Hills revenue of $304,541 was 19% higher than expected, while expenses were lower than budgeted by nearly 8%.

At Leslie Park, revenue of $817,638 was 1.5% higher than budgeted. Expenses of $1.067 million were on par with budget.

Commissioner Tim Berla asked how many rounds of golf were played last year, and was told about 30,000 rounds at Leslie and 20,000 rounds at Huron Hills. Berla then calculated, based on the roughly $500,000 loss, that the city is paying about a $10 subsidy for each round of golf. He noted that this was his perspective and that others look at it differently, but he found it troubling. It seems out of balance to subsidize something that only a small percentage of residents use, he said. It might be the case that more people play soccer, Berla said, but the city pays perhaps 10 times as much for its golf courses than it does for its soccer fields. “I just wanted to note that, that’s all.”

Smith pointed out that the subsidy came from the general fund, not out of the parks and recreation budget – though he conceded that if the city council decided to change the accounting for golf, it would significantly impact the parks and recreation budget. But regardless on your perspective about a subsidy to golf, Smith said, both courses as budgeted were doing a fantastic job in an overall market that saw declining revenues and rounds played statewide.

Berla asked Smith to remind them of where the courses stood in terms of the long-range plan that had been laid out by a consultant hired to assess the city’s golf operations. FY 2010 was the second year in a six-year forecast, Smith said. For that year, the forecast had anticipated a $519,000 loss for the courses. So they’re on track with the forecast, he said, adding that the courses were never expected to eliminate their losses completely over that six-year period.

Gwen Nystuen recalled that PAC had recommended Huron Hills not be an enterprise fund. Smith confirmed that of the two courses, Leslie was more likely to be self-sustaining. Nystuen pointed out that the rest of the parks weren’t self-sustaining, and the city is willing to subsidize them. Do they calculate how much it costs someone to walk across a park? she asked. The city shouldn’t put something into an enterprise fund if the operation can’t support itself. Smith replied that the golf courses “will be part of very robust discussions come budget time.”

PAC chair Julie Grand, who serves on the city’s golf advisory task force, noted that the strategy right now for Huron Hills is to make rounds affordable so that they can draw in seniors and youth, by making play more accessible. And David Barrett pointed out that Leslie now has a liquor license – he asked if revenues from alcohol sales were “baked into” the total revenues for Leslie. Smith replied that total revenues did include alcohol sales, which were about $40,000 out of $79,000 in concession sales at Leslie during the year. Barrett asked if the liquor license had been a plus for Leslie, and Smith said that it was, especially for bringing in more leagues, outings and traveling golf groups.

At Monday’s pre-bid meeting, Paul Bancel asked for information on the municipal service charge that the golf course pays, including a breakdown of what the charge entails. Smith clarified for others that the municipal service charge is a charge that all non-general fund entities in the city pay – it covers the cost that the city incurs to provide services for the enterprise funds, he said, including administrative overhead. For Huron Hills, it’s about $87,000 annually.

Ted Annis said it was his understanding that Huron Hills would break even if the municipal service charge weren’t a factor. Smith said that wasn’t true – it would still lose money. Responding to another query, Smith said Leslie Park Golf Course – also owned by the city – wasn’t making money either. Why then was Huron Hills singled out for this RFP? That was based on direction given by the city council, Smith said.

Later in the meeting, Hellman requested financials for Leslie Park Golf Course as well.

Questions: Ownership

Bancel asked a series of questions related to ownership of facilities on the golf course. Smith clarified that the city would own the land and the facilities. [A list of assumptions provided in the RFP includes a statement that the city "remains the owner of the Huron Hills property, its buildings and appurtenances."]

As a hypothetical, Bancel described a scenario in which a contractor spends $2 million to build a facility on the property – how does the city contemplate assuming ownership? How would the city handle a transfer of ownership? Smith said it would depend on the proposal – that’s something that would have to be negotiated.

Hellman confirmed with Smith that the maximum term of the agreement is 20 years.

Questions: Labor

In response to a question about whether the city uses volunteers for the course, Smith said that there are some volunteers and neighborhood activists who do things like maintain flower beds, but the ranger service is done by a seasonal paid worker.

Later in the meeting he clarified that there are living wage requirements, which are outlined in the RFP. [For background on the city's living wage ordinance, see Chronicle coverage: "Living Wage: In-Sourcing City Temps"]

Bancel asked what the union situation was, and Smith said there are two workers at Huron Hills: The course supervisor, Andrew Walton, is a member of the Teamster’s union, while the course superintendent, Mark Wanshon, is a member of AFSCME. Asked whether the city anticipated that those workers would remain unionized, Smith said the RFP speaks to that. From the RFP:

4. Management and Oversight. The proposal must provide a detailed business plan that recognizes the City’s role in oversight of City land, and identifies how the existing two full-time employees may be incorporated.

Hellman asked that they be provided with a staffing chart showing the employees’ hourly rate, as well as resumes or background information for the current staff. [Walton attended Monday's meeting, but did not participate in the discussion.]

Questions: Relationship with Leslie Park Golf Course

Bill Newcomb, a member of the city’s golf task force, asked whether the city could reject a proposal that included Leslie Park Golf Course. Smith replied that as long as it met all the requirements of the RFP, it wouldn’t be rejected just because it incorporated both courses.

Hellman asked whether the two golf courses shared resources, such as equipment or personnel. No, Smith replied, the only thing that’s shared are the golf passes, which can be used at either course.

Questions: Liquor License

Smith clarified that Huron Hills doesn’t have a liquor license. When asked why Leslie Park Golf Course had one but Huron Hills does not, Smith said the consultant had recommended having one at Leslie. He said it would be possible to pursue obtaining a liquor license at Huron Hills as well. Someone asked if there was one available, and Smith said he wasn’t aware of one.

Hellman later asked about a reference to alcohol in the section outlining uses of the premises and property. From the RFP:

No alcohol will be served on the Premises at Contractor-sponsored events or private rental events, or otherwise consumed on the Premises, without the written approval of the Community Services Area Administrator. Section 3.2 of Chapter 39 of the City Code authorizes the City Administrator to issue permits to allow the consumption of wine and beer in areas which consumption would otherwise be prohibited. The City Administrator hereby delegates to the Community Services Area Administrator the authority to issue such permits for the moderate consumption of wine and/or beer on the Premises. When so approved in writing, moderate consumption of alcohol (wine and beer only) may be permitted. All other use of alcoholic beverages on the Premises is prohibited.

Who was the community services area administrator, he asked, and does this refer to a liquor license? Smith clarified that the community services area administrator is his boss, Sumedh Bahl. The section was referring to a permit that could be obtained for special events, not a regular liquor license. He again stated that it would be possible to pursue getting a liquor license for Huron Hills, if one were to become available.

Questions: Misc.

Hellman asked what prompted this RFP – what are the city’s goals? “That is a long answer, over many years, perhaps,” Smith replied. He summarized by saying that entities in an enterprise fund are supposed to be self-supporting, and that’s not been the case for a long time with the golf courses. The city brought in a consultant in 2007 – James Keegan, managing principal of Golf Convergence – to analyze the courses and make recommendations. [More detailed background is provided in The Chronicle's report of the Aug. 17, 2010 meeting of the park advisory commission. See also coverage of PAC's Nov. 19, 2009 meeting, which included an update on golf operations by Doug Kelly, the city's director of golf.]

Huron Hills has improved since then, Smith said, but it’s still operating at a loss. During the most recent budget cycle, everything was on the table, and the city council gave direction to the staff to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for a possible public/private partnership at Huron Hills. As for the city’s goals, Smith said they wanted it to remain a course that’s accessible to the public, while providing financial relief to the city.

Hellman asked whether the city was committed to moving forward with outsourcing or a public/private partnership. When Smith hesitated, Hellman quipped, “Well, it is the city council!” Smith said that the city was “certainly interested enough to issue the RFP.” Acceptance would depend on the nature of the proposal, and the outcome of review by the selection committee, golf task force, park advisory commission and city council, he said.

Ted Annis confirmed that the city attorney has signed off on the RFP. Annis also submitted a list of nine questions that he asked Smith to answer. Smith requested that the questions be emailed to him, so that he could send the questions and his responses to everyone who attended the pre-bid meeting. The questions are:

1. Tasks I and II call for a study and recommendations but the bids are being evaluated on a financial basis. [Task I requires a "thorough assessment of current operations" at the golf course. Task II is a proposal of services and financial plan.] How can the bids be evaluated before the completions of Tasks I and II?
2. City staff recommended to Council on 25 January 2010 that a driving range was the City’s best choice. Why isn’t a driving range mentioned in the RFP? If the Respondent proposes a driving range, is that the City’s preference and will it receive a higher score than say, miniature golf or a conference center?
3. The RFP says that the City will own the new facilities. How does this work with bank financing if the buildings are mortgaged to the Contractor?
4. Will the City indemnify and defend the Respondent (Contractor) in the event of a lawsuit alleging an illegal transaction between the City and the Respondent?
5. Will the City indemnify and defend the Respondent (Contractor) in the event of a lawsuit alleging damages in the form of decreased property values as a result of the transaction between the City and the Respondent?
6. There are government organizations (other than Ann Arbor’s PAC with its access to Greenbelt millage funds) that acquire natural lands for long-term preservation. An example is Natural Washtenaw and its Natural Area Preservation Program (NAPP). Is there a problem, legal or otherwise, if NAPP were to bid on these development rights for Huron Hills?
7. What is the zoning?
8. What are the development issues surrounding natural features protection, wetland preservation, and 100-year flood plain?
9. Prior to 25 January 2010, the City received proposals with plans and financial data from one and likely two private businesses regarding the privatization of the current City-operated golf operation on the Huron Hills parkland. Who at the City, City Council, and PAC have seen these plans and data? Who at the City, City Council, and PAC are in possession of these plans and data? What notes were taken from these plans and data?

The meeting concluded and Smith gave directions to the course, for a mandatory tour. He offered to schedule other tours until Oct. 8, for people who couldn’t go that day. As the meeting was breaking up, some people noted that anyone trying to enter into a partnership with the city would likely face opposition. If that hadn’t been apparent previously, it would have been clear on the trip to the golf course, where signs protesting the development of Huron Hills are in several front yards along East Huron River Drive, near the course.

These signs for the Ann Arbor for Parkland Preservation group are in front of several houses along Huron River Drive. (Photo by Judy McGovern.)

Christine Stead and Deb Mexicotte discuss a draft of the RFP from search firms to help with the hiring of a new superintendent. (Photos by the writer.)

Board treasurer Christine Stead had offered to draft an RFP for board review at the last regular board meeting. Monday’s meeting was an opportunity for the rest of the board to review her work, and suggest changes. Most of the recommended changes were accepted without objection, but others led to some reflective discussion that revealed priorities for the board.

One of the changes made to the RFP was to add a pre-bid meeting for the purpose of answering clarifying questions about the RFP. The pre-bid meeting will be held on Friday, Sept. 3 at 10 a.m., at the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State Street. Any interested bidders are invited to participate in person or via teleconference. The deadline for submitting responses to the RFP is Friday, Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.

The only other official business conducted at Monday’s meeting was the passing of a motion to entertain Roberts’ suggestions for interim staff, which he will bring to the next board meeting.

A Review of the Draft RFP

Board president Deb Mexicotte opened the meeting by simply stating that its purpose was to review the RFP drafted by Christine Stead for the purpose of selecting an executive search firm to help the board choose the next AAPS superintendent. Mexicotte also pointed out that the board does not usually issue RFPs directly, and she thanked Dave Comsa, the district’s assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services, for attending the meeting in case the board had any human resource or legal questions.

Stead began by reviewing the RFP she had written for the board’s review, stressing its status as a draft: “Every part of this can change – the content, the order, the timeline.” She then presented an RFP with the following seven sections:

1. RFP Milestones
2. Firm Background Information Required
3. Scope of Work
4. Search Process – Anticipated Milestones
5. The Context of Our Search
6. District Goals Relevant for the Search
7. Submission Requirements

The RFP milestones suggested by Stead reflected the timeline discussed at the last board meeting, which would result in a search firm being selected at the Sept. 29 board meeting.

The firm background section is essentially the list of questions to which the firms will be expected to respond in their proposals. Stead explained that this section asks the firms to highlight their capabilities and demonstrate that they have been successful in similar searches. “Here,” she said, “is where we’ve asked for price estimates, duration, and proposed search timeline.”

The scope of work, Stead described, are the exact specifications of this project. “We are asking for assistance in a particular way,” Stead said, “We want to understand how they develop search criteria, how they identify candidates, and how they identify community priorities.” Stead pointed out that while the scope of work indicates that community engagement is a requirement for the selection of a permanent superintendent, AAPS does not specify how to involve the community. “That would be up to the search firm to propose.”

The search process/anticipated milestones section includes the following key dates:

• Sept. 29, 2010: search firm selected
• Oct. 27, 2010: interim superintendent selected
• Nov. 15, 2010: interim superintendent start date
• May 4, 2011: permanent superintendent selected
• July 1, 2011: permanent superintendent start date

The milestones section also states that modifications to the timeline can be recommended by the search firm. Stead noted that she reviewed the board meeting calendar to come up with the dates, and that the two months between the hiring and start date of the permanent superintendent were built-in time for transition activities. For instance, Stead suggested, they could allow the new superintendent to “get to know our folks while getting things wrapped up in his or her own district.”

The next two sections – the context of the search and the district goals – are “somewhat subjective,” according to Stead. She explained that she had intended the context section as a past-oriented section used to express that the board “has had a lot going on,” as well as to present the culture of leadership the district has experienced under Roberts. The district goals section is future-oriented, and describes the main focal points of the district’s work this year. It includes sections on: updating the strategic plan, continuing resource challenges facing the district, the district’s challenge to close its achievement gaps among students, and maintaining community engagement.

Stead then closed by pointing out that the submission requirements call for eight hard copies, one for each trustee, plus one for the board office. She also suggested that each firm submit a copy of its proposal electronically, in case the board wants to more widely distribute it for some reason. With that, Stead opened the floor for suggested changes.

Suggested Changes to the Draft RFP

Mexicotte thanked Stead for putting together the RFP for the board’s review. Over the next two and a half hours, trustees made suggestions, and Stead amended the RFP in real time, so that by the time they were finished, the document was complete, pending technical proofreading and review by legal counsel. Most suggested changes drew no objections from other board members, but in a few cases, there was some discussion.

RFP Changes: Diversity

The first of the items requiring any discussion was brought by trustee Simone Lightfoot, who said she was looking for the word “diverse” throughout the document. Mexicotte asked where would be a good place in the RFP to speak to the board’s diversity concerns. Lightfoot suggested amending both the firm background and scope of work sections in order to reflect the board’s concerns that the firm has experience identifying a diverse and competent pool of superintendent candidates, as well as successfully placing them. Mexicotte supported Lightfoot’s suggestions.

RFP Changes: Unanticipated Events

There was some discussion of how to handle questions about unanticipated events during the search. Lightfoot suggested that the firms be required to describe conditions under which the search time frame could be modified. Board secretary Glenn Nelson asked why Stead had included a requirement for the firm to describe what they would do if a candidate leaves the search.

Stead explained that what AAPS would like to hear is that the firm has had some experience with a lead candidate withdrawing from the search. Mexicotte agreed: “We could ask for an example. Everybody’s had a search fall apart.” Roberts asked if the firm will think they fulfilled their contract if the search does not yield a viable candidate. Stead asked Comsa under what conditions the contract must be paid, and Comsa confirmed that AAPS must pay the search firm for its work, even if the outcome is initially unsuccessful. Wording was added to the RFP to make it clear that AAPS would not consider the search successful until a candidate accepts the position of permanent superintendent.

RFP Changes: Setting and Negotiating a Contract Price

The board had some discussion about how to set and negotiate the contract price. Because the RFP mentions that the firm might help with both the interim and permanent superintendent searches, trustee Susan Baskett said she’d like to ask firms to itemize their proposed costs for the two searches. Mexicotte confirmed that she would like to structure the RFP as requiring the permanent superintendent search, with the interim superintendent search priced as an optional piece of the proposal. This is sometimes called an “alternate bid.” Roberts suggested stressing that the main task is the permanent superintendent search.

Nelson asked if the board would be locked into a price as a result of the RFP, and requested that room be added to negotiate the price. Stead explained that setting the price would be a process. The firms will submit an estimate in their proposal, she said, but that could change once the board meets with them. “We might decide to be more articulate, and that we want 70 community meetings, not one,” she quipped, “so that could change their estimate.” Comsa asked that the board email their final draft to him so that he could add required legal wording. As an example, Comsa said he would add phrasing such as, “The board can accept any bid (not necessarily the lowest), reject any or all bids for any reason, … and that AAPS will select one firm and one alternative, in case we cannot work out pricing.”

Lightfoot asked if the board could speak openly yet about whether or not there was a price they did not want to go over. “Do we have a firm price?” she asked. “I’ve heard it could cost up to $80,000.” Mexicotte asked what it cost to hire a firm last time they did a superintendent search, and when no one on the board answered, David Jesse, an education reporter from AnnArbor.com, chimed in to say that the last search cost the district roughly $13,500.

Mexicotte said that the market would help to determine a price, but that the search may cost in the range of $20,000 to $35,000. Roberts added that it depends on the firm, and Mexicotte pointed out that the board may choose a higher bid if that firm will deliver a better service. Baskett argued that it may sound like a lot, “but the cost of not doing it right is just enormous.”

RFP Changes: Timeline Modifications

The board discussed the anticipated search process milestones. Mexicotte asked if the wording could be softened to make it easier for search firms to modify the timeline, and suggested that it would currently be difficult for a firm to shorten it. The front end of the timeline is the most ambitious, Mexicotte said, and then there is a long break until May. Baskett commented that she did not want to see the timeline extended past June 30. In response to Mexicotte, Roberts confirmed that his start date at AAPS had been July 1, but that he had gone back and forth between AAPS and his former district [Birmingham] a few times during a transition period. Comsa suggested adding some wording to require that if the firm wants to modify the timeline, any extensions need to be made in writing 60 days ahead of time.

RFP Changes: Student Achievement

Lightfoot suggested adding a student achievement bullet point to the context section, in addition to the discussion of student achievement in the district goals section. “I’m interested in whoever they bring us having had experience in working with student achievement,” she said. Baskett suggested saying that the district was committed to the “relentless pursuit of achievement for all students,” but Lightfoot wanted the statement to be more specific. “I’m talking about the gap,” she said. Mexicotte and Nelson stepped in to craft a statement that spoke to the “yin and yang” of community expectations regarding student achievement. On one hand, they said, excellence is achieved in many respects, while the achievement of students of color and students from lower-income households continues to require extra focus and resources.

RFP Changes: Roberts, Superintendent, or District?

The lengthiest discussion on possible changes to the RFP centered on whether the context section should be focused on the work of the superintendent specifically or the district more generally. Within that conversation, there was some debate among trustees about the degree to which Roberts should be named rather than referred to as “the superintendent.”

Lightfoot began by questioning the multiple specific references to Roberts throughout the context section. Nelson agreed, suggesting that perhaps it would be better to “change the tone from ‘Todd Roberts did these things,’ to ‘The district did these things.’” Baskett concurred as well, saying, “This has truly been a collaboration.”

Mexicotte partially disagreed. “Speaking to the strength of our superintendency is important. I like the tone of it because of what it says about us. It’s fine to take Roberts’ name out, but it should reference the superintendency.” Stead suggested that leaving in such specific references would help the firms self-select.”These are big shoes to fill,” she asserted.

Lightfoot asked what the purpose of the context section was, and Stead answered that it was to give national context to the current work of AAPS, in case an out-of-town firm wants to bid. Part of that context, she argued, is that AAPS has benefited from having a strong leadership team led by Roberts. Lightfoot continued, “It reads as though we’re hero-worshipping Dr. Roberts, and that the district was in dire straights before he came.” Baskett asked what would matter to a new superintendent in terms of the context: “Does it matter to a new person that it was [Roberts] who built the leadership team,” or just that AAPS has strong leadership? Baskett suggested that the proposed wording would be more appropriate if they were writing a farewell speech to Roberts, but was unnecessary in the RFP.

After staying quiet up until then, Roberts spoke up at this point in the discussion in favor of de-personalizing the context section. Instead of bullet points, he suggested turning the section into a narrative with the focus, “This is what you’re coming into.” When the trustees balked at the work involved in condensing and re-writing the section, Roberts advised, “I’d suggest just taking my name out, and using ‘superintendent’ where needed.”

The board decided to go through the context section bullet by bullet and examine each reference to Roberts individually in order to fine-tune its intended meaning. Most of the references were generalized to “the district” or “superintendent” but a few were kept specific to Roberts. In the end, on the last two bullet points of the section, the board was split 50-50, with vice-president Irene Patalan abstaining [she had missed the early part of the discussion, and did not feel like she could form an informed opinion], so it fell to Mexicotte to choose the final wording.

RFP Changes: Pre-Bid Meeting

Baskett asked whether the board wanted to hold a pre-bid meeting, at which potential bidders could ask questions of a committee made up of trustees and AAPS staff. There was general agreement that holding such a meeting would be a good idea, and Comsa advised the board that three or fewer board members should attend, so that they do not have quorum.

Mexicotte asked Nelson and Baskett if they would be willing to attend. They agreed to represent the board, and Baskett suggested that Comsa and Robert Allen, deputy superintendent of operations, attend from the administration in order to be able to answer any legal or financial questions that may be raised.

Board members reviewed the timeline, and selected Friday, Sept. 3 as an appropriate date for the pre-bid meeting. Comsa suggested it begin at 10 am. Baskett suggested firms could tele-conference or Skype if necessary.

Outcome: Patalan made a motion to hold a pre-bid meeting on Friday, Sept. 3, at 10 a.m., place TBD [later set as the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State St.] The motion was seconded by Nelson. Baskett offered a friendly amendment to add the pre-bid meeting to the RFP milestones chart in the RFP. The pre-bid meeting was approved by all present in a roll call vote.

RFP Changes: Friendly Amendments

In addition to the suggested changes that led to discussion, several amendments were offered by trustees, as indicated in parentheses, and accepted in straightforward fashion:

• Added flexibility to the wording of RFP milestones dates, allowing steps to be completed early (Baskett);
• Streamlined wording to be more concise (Nelson);
• Re-worded request for references to say that they should emphasize districts similar to AAPS (Lightfoot);
• Reduced required board attendance from “all” to “required” meetings (Nelson);
• Added a request that the firm help the board set an appropriate compensation package (Nelson);
• Added a description of the launching of the district preschool in the context section (Nelson);
• Clarified that the work of the special education millage renewal will fall largely within the scope of work of the interim superintendent (Nelson);
• Included community partnership in the context’s community engagement section (Baskett);
• Deleted the demographic description of Ann Arbor (Mexicotte);
• Clarified the expectation that the search would be national in scope (Roberts);
• Changed Amy Osinski’s title to be accurate (Nelson); and
• Defined “successful candidates” as “effective educational leaders” (Lightfoot, Nelson).

RFP Changes: Rejected Amendments

The vast majority of suggestions from trustees, as well as from Roberts and Comsa, were incorporated in the final RFP. A few, however, were not.

Lightfoot asked whether the board should specify that the firm should seek candidates from districts similar to AAPS. Baskett answered that during a prior search, one of the best candidates came from a small town with a total of only 3,000 students. Stead and Mexicotte suggested that such a suggestion would be appropriate to discuss when setting search criteria for the permanent superintendent with the chosen firm, but did not need to be included in the RFP.

Mexicotte suggested adding two sections to the context section, one on the climate work being done by the district, and one on the district’s marketing and enrollment efforts. Nelson said that those pieces were not needed for the firm to be able to bid, and suggested that that board should really think about how long it would take a firm to answer this RFP. Roberts responded that the firms will mostly be responding to the background and timeline sections, and that typically firms have a standard response. He suggested that the sections Mexicotte had proposed might be more appropriate to discuss with the selected firm when it is going out in search of candidates.

Baskett asked whether the board wanted to include a rubric in the RFP to give firms a sense of how they would make their final selection. It could help the firms focus their responses, she said, “and at some point, we need to decide on our rubric.” Mexicotte said she liked the idea of having a set of criteria for selection, but that they could be decided later, and that she would want to leave the weighting of those elements to individual trustees.

RFP Approved

Comsa said that there is some standard, legal wording he needed to add to the document. Nelson asked if the board could delegate to the president, in consultation with legal counsel, getting the document in final form. Mexicotte asked informally if it was the “board’s pleasure that Dave does what he needs to do, and then I OK the final copy, making only the most technical of changes?”

Everyone expressed agreement that Mexicotte pull together the final copy.

However, Comsa interjected, saying that the board needed to make a motion in open session to accept this document barring technical and formatting changes. So, Mexicotte asked for a formal motion.

Outcome: Stead made a motion, which Lightfoot seconded, to approve the RFP as written and amended, pending review by legal counsel, to be distributed by Aug. 27, 2010. It was approved unanimously by roll call vote of Patalan, Baskett, Nelson, Stead, Mexicotte, and Lightfoot.

Distribution of the RFP

In a follow-up discussion with Mexicotte, The Chronicle asked how the board would distribute the RFP. Mexicotte said the board will be sending the RFP to search firms recommended by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), and might also seek firm recommendations from other school districts that have recently engaged in a superintendent search. She said that the finalized RFP will also be posted on the AAPS website by Friday.

Mexicotte said her hope was that the RFP would result in the receipt of at least five to seven quality bids.

Roberts to Suggest Interim Appointments

Near the end of the meeting, Mexicotte asked the trustees if they would be “willing to entertain Superintendent Roberts’ suggestions for both interim superintendent candidates as well as other academic appointments that might then need to be backfilled.”

Noting that Roberts is “thoughtful and mindful,” Patalan said she would absolutely like to hear his suggestions. Lightfoot and Baskett agreed. Baskett added that she would also like Roberts to recommend compensation for such positions.

Outcome: Stead moved, and Patalan seconded, hearing Roberts’ recommendations regarding an interim superintendent and other academic offices at the next regular board meeting. The measure was approved unanimously by Lightfoot, Patalan, Baskett, Nelson, Stead, and Mexicotte.

Agenda Planning

Mexicotte told the board she would still like to meet with the executive committee to look at longer-range calendar issues. She would like to look for a date for the committee to meet just after Labor Day.

Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold, former AAPS board member, addressed the board regarding transportation concerns, a topic she has addressed previously at several prior meetings.

First, Griswold said Roberts should send a letter to the city in support of the new crosswalk proposed in the King Elementary School neighborhood for which Griswold has been advocating. Secondly, she responded to board members’ comments at the last regular board meeting regarding the delay in the Thurston driveway project.

Griswold said she had been called out at the last meeting for delaying the project by filing a complaint with the state, but that, if anything, she had speeded up the process by letting AAPS staff know that the state was lacking in necessary paperwork.

Finally, Griswold read a statement from a University of Michigan professor stating three concerns with the Thurston driveway project: 1) separating cars and buses should not be a top priority since it’s not the main source of risk; 2) the proposed design resembles airline drop-offs, which might not work for K-5 students; and 3) adding more pavement is expensive, and might not solve the congestion problem.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Irene Patalan (arriving at 7:45 p.m.), secretary Glenn Nelson, treasurer Christine Stead, and trustees Susan Baskett and Simone Lightfoot. Also present as a non-voting member was Todd Roberts, AAPS superintendent.

Absent: Trustee Andy Thomas.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010, 7 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

Huron Hills Golf Course RFP

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

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

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

Huron Hills RFP: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huron Hills RFP: Background

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

From The Chronicle’s report of that retreat:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huron Hills RFP: Staff Report

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

Smith reviewed a timeline for the RFP process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huron Hills: Commissioner Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huron Hills RFP: Public Commentary, Round 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuller Road Station

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

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

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Two people spoke about Fuller Road Station during public commentary.

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

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

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

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

West Park, PROS Plan Updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updates from the Parks & Rec Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Smith, left, the city's parks and recreation manager, talks with Tim Doyle, who was attending his first meeting as a new park advisory commissioner. Doyle replaced the position formerly occupied by Scott Rosencrans, who did not seek reappointment. (Photos by the writer.)

The main agenda item was consideration of two resolutions regarding Fuller Road Station, and many people who attended the meeting were there to address commissioners on that topic – most of them protesting the use of city parkland for what will, at least initially, be a large parking structure and bus depot, built in partnership with the University of Michigan.

Park commissioners have expressed concerns about the project, and resolutions were crafted to address those issues, including a possible financial loss to the parks system and a lack of transparency in the process.

At several points during deliberations, Christopher Taylor – a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC – defended the process, indicating that while it was a misstep that PAC wasn’t formally asked for input, there had been many opportunities for public participation.

PAC ultimately approved a resolution that asks city council to make available a complete plan of Fuller Road Station – including any significant proposed agreements, such as what the university will pay the city for use of the structure – allowing sufficient time for a presentation at a televised PAC meeting before council votes on the project. The resolution also asks that staff and council ensure the project results in a net revenue gain for the parks system.

Several other speakers during public commentary addressed the issue of Huron Hills Golf Course, and expressed concerns that the city would seek to privatize it. During his manager’s report, Colin Smith told commissioners that a draft request for proposals (RFP) regarding Huron Hills won’t be finished until August at the earliest, and will be brought to PAC for review before being issued by the city.

The meeting also included a presentation by Molly Notarianni, the city’s market manager, with an update on the farmers market and public market activities.

Tuesday’s meeting was also the first for PAC’s newest commissioner, Tim Doyle. Doyle was recently appointed by city council to replace Scott Rosencrans, who did not seek reappointment. In welcoming him, PAC chair Julie Grand joked: “You picked a good one to start.”

Fuller Road Station: PAC Weighs In

For several months, the commission has discussed concerns about the Fuller Road Station, proposed for the south side of Fuller Road, just east of East Medical Center Drive. The project is proposed for a site that’s currently a surface parking lot on land designated as parkland, but PAC was not asked to make a formal recommendation on it. Among other issues, many commissioners expressed dismay that the parks system – which currently receives revenues from surface parking lots on parkland along Fuller Road that’s leased to the university – could see a decrease in revenues after Fuller Road Station is built.

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

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

On Tuesday, PAC considered two resolutions, and heard from several members of the public.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Glenn Thompson described how he used to travel frequently along Fuller Road between the university’s north campus and its main campus, noting that much of the land along that route was city parkland. Taxpayers should control the sale and long-term use of parkland, he said. That’s what they are promised in the city charter, and that’s what they expect. He encouraged PAC, as stewards of the parks, to keep that promise and to vote against anything that encourages the transfer of land without a voter referendum.

James D’Amour said that despite Eli Cooper’s spin to the contrary, Fuller Road Station primary role is to have 900-plus parking spaces dedicated to automotive commuters. [Cooper is the city's transportation program manager.] D’Amour described the greatest reach of Jim Kosteva’s career as thinking people were stupid enough to accept the spin that the project is a step toward sustainability. D’Amour said he supports public transportation and the east/west rail. But it doesn’t matter if a cause is noble or ignoble – if there’s a change in the status of parkland, it requires a public vote.

Whether it’s Fuller Road Station or Huron Hills Golf Course, disposing of parkland by any means should be decided by a public vote, D’Amour said. If the parking structure and the deal are good for the city, it shouldn’t be a problem getting voter approval, he said. Speak to the voters and state the case. To not do so and to pass the parkland into other hands sets a terrible precedent. The resolution that PAC should pass, he said, should call for no more action on Fuller Road Station or Huron Hills Golf Course without a public vote.

Ethel Potts noted that there hasn’t yet been a public hearing on Fuller Road Station. She’s attended at least five meetings about it, but these were presentations of information and the chance to ask questions, not to give opinions. At the most recent meeting, she reported, there had been a “little rebellion,” as several people wanted to give statements. Potts told commissioners that “for many of us, your concerns are our concerns.”

The revenues from the project won’t end up benefiting parks, Potts said – there will be some way that it will end up being used for other purposes. It’s a very inconvenient location for an intermodal station, Potts said, and it doesn’t serve the parks. It does serve the university, which is building a new hospital without sufficient parking, she noted. But it’s not good for the city to put up a parking structure to make up for UM’s planning flaws.

Saying he agreed with the previous speakers, John Satarino pointed out that the land along Fuller Road had initially been acquired from Detroit Edison in 1963. The deed indicates that the land should be used as a wildlife preserve, he said. There are a lot of complexities that haven’t been addressed and that the public doesn’t know. The land in that area formed the foundation of the parks system, and now it’s being picked apart. He urged commissioners to dig deeper into the situation. Fuller Road Station sets a bad precedent, he said. There are no restrictions now on the use of parkland, he contended. “This is a very dire situation that parks are in now,” he said, “and I’d like to see something done to make them more secure for the future.”

Members of the public at the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission meeting, held this month at the CTN studios on South Industrial.

Sue Perry said she felt like she’s been fooled over the past few years, and is disappointed in city management, council and some of the commissioners. Residents voted in favor of a parks millage because they thought it would protect the parks. But parks aren’t being maintained – she’s embarrassed that Veterans Memorial Park looks like a ghetto. Residents also voted to protect parkland by requiring a vote on the sale of parkland, but now that’s being challenged. It’s wrong morally, politically and financially, Perry said. She’s gotten to the point where she can’t believe what she’s voting for, or what’s been promised. Perry said she’s disappointed in PAC for not protecting the parks system and for allowing it to be used and abused. She hoped they would do the right thing and vote no to the taking of parkland.

Noting that she was a former park advisory commissioner, Leslie Morris said she appreciated PAC’s efforts to protect and improve the city’s park system. She especially appreciated their efforts to hold the line on leasing parkland for the proposed Fuller Road Station. “You have been put into an impossible position,” she said. No one wants to be against mass transit. They’ve been told that there’s no other location that’s suitable, and that since the land can’t be sold, it must be leased.

Morris acknowledged that PAC was trying to work within those limitations. Morris also spoke about the possible privatization of Huron Hills Golf Course (see below), and urged commissioners to hold the line against these “raids” on parkland.

Noting that he hadn’t actually read the proposed resolution, Brad Mikus said he thought they should pass it and that it should incorporate some of the ideas that the mayor had suggested. Phase 1 (a parking structure) and Phase 2 (a train station) should be combined, he said. Net income from all contracts should be sent directly to the parks system, and the parking lots on the north side of Fuller Road should be returned to parkland.

Mikus said he didn’t like the process – while he didn’t want to say it was underhanded, it did seem kind of shady. He also said that if the project were taken to voters, it would be approved. Finally, Mikus addressed the concern about setting a precedent, saying that Fuller Road Station was just a one-time deal. He did think that future developments should include a more public process.

Rita Mitchell reminded commissioners that 81% of voters had approved the charter amendment that requires a voter referendum on the sale of parkland. What the city is contemplating with Fuller Road Station and Huron Hills Golf Course possibly violates that, she said – a long-term lease is essentially a sale. Mitchell also argued that not every park needs to generate revenue.

Fuller Road Station: A Discussion of Process

Julie Grand began the discussion by saying that her intent had been to include as many opinions as possible in the resolution, while finding common ground.

The resolution authored by Grand, Gwen Nystuen and Sam Offen had been distributed in PAC’s meeting packet. Tim Berla proposed an alternative resolution, which he distributed to commissioners at the meeting. [At a June 1 PAC working session on Fuller Road Station, Berla had indicated his intent to float an alternative resolution. See Chronicle coverage: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"]

Colin Smith, the city’s parks manager, described the procedure for dealing with the two resolutions. They would start with the first resolution, then Berla’s could be considered as an amendment – an amendment to replace the original in its entirety. After voting on that, they could return to consideration of the original resolution.

David Barrett asked Smith to review the process to date, which Barrett described as “bass-ackwards,” from PAC’s perspective. He wanted to make clear that PAC didn’t simply wake up one day and come up with these “haymakers.” Many commissioners have expressed the same concerns raised during public commentary, he said. Barrett also wanted to clarify that PAC had been told by Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office that the city didn’t have to follow its own zoning regulations – that fact should also inform the discussion, he said.

Smith reviewed the fact that while city staff had made presentations to PAC about Fuller Road Station, the commission had not been asked to make an official recommendation about it. Since the project has generated some discussion in the community, PAC has chosen to make a recommendation in the form of a resolution, which they were considering now.

Barrett then mentioned the issue of recent changes in the list of designated uses for public land, and asked Smith to review that as well. At their May 4 meeting, the city planning commission approved a change to language in Chapter 55 of the city code, which lists permitted principal uses for public land (PL). The change was to delete the use of “municipal airports” and replace it with “transportation facilities.” City council has also approved the change at first reading, and will likely take a final vote at its June 21 meeting.

Berla asked if Smith had an updated timeline for the project. The one distributed most recently had the dates crossed out. Smith said he didn’t have a new one yet, but that the site plan would first be submitted to the city planning commission, where there would be a public hearing. It would then go to city council, and there would be another public hearing. He also clarified for Berla that the project’s design hadn’t yet been completed.

Grand noted that for the planning commission, the public hearing would be conducted two weeks before the commission voted. For council, however, the last timeline she saw indicated that councilmembers would vote on the project on the same night as the public hearing.

Barrett came back to the broader question of process. He wondered who was responsible for sheparding projects like this through the city’s approval process. He presumed that council would want PAC’s feedback on this, since it directly affected parks – so he found it vexing that PAC hadn’t been asked for input. Why hadn’t that happened? Grand said they were all equally perplexed.

Taylor – one of the two councilmembers who serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of PAC – said it was clearly and universally acknowledged that the project intersected with parks. That was reflected in the fact that Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, had made a presentation to PAC several months ago to show commissioners plans for Fuller Road Station.

[See Chronicle coverage of that September 2009 meeting: "City Seeks Feedback on Transit Center" The first public presentation of the Fuller Road Station concept came at a presentation from Cooper to a group of residents at Northside Grill in early 2009: "City Staffers Brief Wall Street Neighbors"]

Under ordinary circumstances, Taylor said, PAC wouldn’t have anything to do with a site plan. So the fact that Cooper came to PAC and described the plans was a sign of respect for the commission, he said. Cooper returned as the project developed, he noted, making another presentation at PAC’s March 2010 meeting. It’s appropriate that PAC weighs in, Taylor added. It’s an unusual project, given that there are so many moving parts, including the AATA, the university, and various potential funding sources.

Barrett pointed out that the project as initially presented – with a focus on the train station – was very different from later versions, which included two phases, including a large parking structure as the first phase. He also noted concerns over the semantics being used to distinguish between a lease and a sale of the land. [A charter amendment requires that voters approve the sale of parkland. For the Fuller Road Station, the city will continue to own the land.] He asked Taylor whether council was aware that so many moving parts would create a “petri dish for misunderstanding.”

Taylor replied that with a novel project like this, there were bound to be confusions and uncertainties and fears. It’s necessary to have a mutual belief in everyone’s good faith efforts, he said, in order to find a process that will lead to a wise, long-term solution.

Sam Offen wondered, if the parks system was such an integral part of this project, why hadn’t PAC been involved in the initial discussions? Yes, there was a presentation, but PAC wasn’t asked for comment – that was disappointing, he said. It’s a precedent-setting project on a significant piece of parkland. PAC should have been asked, he said – then city council could have gone ahead and done whatever they want.

Taylor said he didn’t really know why PAC wasn’t asked – that was a misstep. But he added that he could see a counter-narrative. Cooper had made multiple presentations to PAC, where there were opportunities for commissioners to comment.

Saying she didn’t want PAC to sound like a bunch of whiners, Grand noted that the presentations were ever-shifting. That was one of the problems. Doug Chapman also commented that Cooper’s presentations seemed designed to tell PAC what was happening, not to ask their opinion.

Mike Anglin, the other councilmember on PAC, said that they needed to get documents from the city, perhaps through a Freedom of Information Act request, that showed a timeline of events dating back several years. He said he didn’t know which people in the city negotiated with UM on the project, but that it was presented as a done deal when it first came to council. Anglin noted that some people have speculated that the issue relates to the situation on Maiden Lane. [He was likely referring to UM's previous plans to build parking structures on Wall Street. See Chronicle coverage from January 2009: "City Staffers Brief Wall Street Neighbors"]

The town isn’t against an intermodal transportation center that will work, Anglin said.

Fuller Road Station: Two Resolutions

Commissioners then focused on the two resolutions. Grand began by reading the first resolution, which PAC members had discussed at their June 1 working session. [.pdf of resolution and cover memo]

Whereas, the Park Advisory Commission (PAC) has been briefed on numerous occasions about plans for the Fuller Road Station (FRS) by project managers and City staff.

Whereas, in spite of such briefings, the overall scope of the proposed project, including the timeline and decision-making process by City staff and their partners continues to change and remains unclear.

Whereas, the opportunity for direct input from the public regarding the direction and overall desirability of the FRS has not been commensurate with the scale of the proposed project.

Whereas, one of PAC’s roles is to make recommendation concerning the use of parkland.

Whereas, the City of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan have jointly proposed building an approximately 1,020 car parking structure, which represents an increase of 770 parking spaces.

Whereas, building the proposed FRS will create a permanent structure on parkland.

Whereas, the Parks and Recreation Department currently receives $31, 057 (FY 2010) annually from the University of Michigan for 250 parking spots in the South Lot, and according to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University is slated to receive only $24,846 with a 3% yearly increase for almost 800 spots following completion of the proposed parking structure in 2012.

Whereas, it is unlikely that the University of Michigan will continue to lease the North Lots on Fuller Road following the completion of the proposed parking garage, resulting in an additional annual loss to the Parks budget of approximately $38,495 (FY 2010).

Whereas, the potential loss of revenue (totaling $44,706 in FY 2010 dollars) from the University of Michigan will result in the Parks and Recreation Department having to make additional cuts to an already stretched and shrinking budget.

Whereas, according to its terms, and pursuant to information presented to PAC, the November 2009 MOU is not a final agreement with the University of Michigan, including its terms with respect to compensation to the Parks and Recreation Department.

Resolved, that while PAC is generally in favor of the goals of an intermodal transit station, concerns remain about the overall benefit to park users of the proposed Fuller Road Station as a stand-alone Phase One project.

Resolved, that if such plans are approved, PAC urges Council to negotiate the final agreement with the University of Michigan to include a significant increase in revenue to the Parks and Recreation Department above and beyond that currently agreed upon in the C-1a MOU. Further, PAC recommends that the final agreement should indemnify the Parks and Recreation Department for any shortfall in revenue caused by the University’s decision to discontinue leasing the North lots on Fuller Road.

Resolved, PAC recommends that the final Parking Services Agreement will be published at least two weeks prior to Council approval of the proposed FRS.

Resolved, PAC recommends that all revenue generated from lessees of the proposed transit center should be dedicated exclusively to the Parks and Recreation Department.

Resolved, PAC requests that project staff will present PAC with a clear project schedule for the proposed FRS, with future updates as necessary.

Resolved, that an effort be made by project staff to provide opportunities for PAC and the public to give meaningful input into all future significant decisions regarding the proposed FRS.

When Grand finished reading the resolution, John Lawter said he would be abstaining from discussion and voting because of his position with the university. [Lawter is UM associate director of building services and grounds.]

Berla began the discussion, saying that he’s in general agreement with the content of the resolution. However, he felt it went into too much detail regarding some of the information that hasn’t been formally presented to them. He also wanted it to be clear that zoning ordinances don’t prevent this project from going through, and that the charter amendment specifically states that voters must approve the sale of land. That wasn’t the case with Fuller Road Station – the land wasn’t being sold.

He directed some of his comments to the people who were attending the meeting and who spoke during public commentary. They voted for mayor and city council, and they’d be voting again – that’s the democratic process, he said. If they felt that the use of land, as it’s being handled with Fuller Road Station, should be taken to the voters for approval, they should make that clear.

His own resolution aimed to simplify the recommendation to council, and focused on asking council to provide all the information related to Fuller Road Station before taking action on it, so that PAC and the public could weigh in after they were fully informed. The resolution also made clear that they wanted the council to protect the financial interests of the parks. Berla’s resolution reads as follows:

Whereas the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) supports the establishment of an intermodal transportation station in Ann Arbor to promote the development of alternative transportation, and,

Whereas PAC’s duties include providing a forum for advice and public input to the city council on matters relating to the park system, and,

Whereas the construction of any building for non-park use on park land is a large and potentially precedent setting development, and,

Whereas the parks department currently receives revenue from the University of Michigan for parking in lots located within Fuller park, and any change to that revenue may impact the already stretched parks budget,

Be it therefore resolved that PAC urges the city council and staff to promote maximum transparency in the development of any such project. Specifically, PAC urges the staff and council to make public a complete plan for the development of the project, including which features will be part of each phase and the details of any significant agreements such as the Parking Services Agreement. Further, PAC urges that such publication include a full presentation at a regular televised PAC meeting, in such a way that PAC commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions, and that this PAC meeting be at least one month prior to any city council vote which could commit the city to building on park land.

Be it further resolved that PAC urges the city council and staff to ensure that any use of the land in Fuller Park for non-park uses such as a transit station or parking structure results in a net increase in park system revenue.

Nystuen said she didn’t find the two resolutions in conflict. She wanted to see most of Berla’s resolution incorporated into the original one. Acknowledging that the city didn’t have to follow its own ordinances, she said she was very concerned that it was breaking its own code. The city has spent years developing valuable parkland along the river. Even though the site is now a surface parking lot, it’s still serving the interests of parks, she said. Fuller Road Station will be an outside use, taking it out of the hands of the parks system. The city is breaking its own code, but is also breaking a pact with the residents, she said. It’s important to lay out the details, as the first resolution does, she said.

Barrett noted that Berla’s resolution focused on process, while the original resolution was more nuanced and detailed. He asked Taylor and Anglin whether the details would be useful to councilmembers. Taylor said he didn’t view the resolutions as deeply different. Smith pointed out that the resolution will include a cover memo, which outlines many of the issues, in somewhat clearer language.

Barrett asked Taylor whether the council’s rationale for the project was based on the fact that the arrangement was a lease rather than a sale of land. Taylor said that it wasn’t a lease – it was a “use agreement” between the city and the university, or other entities like AATA. It’s proposed to be a city-owned and operated asset, he said. Barrett called the lease/use agreement issue a distinction without a difference.

Taylor described the project as both tangible and aspirational. The university has the money and the certainty, while the rail portion of Fuller Road Station is more aspirational – it’s not in their control. So are they being foolish and rainbow-chasing, or prescient? That’s what complicates the public discussion, Taylor said.

Offen said he was impressed by the positive tone of Berla’s resolution – it was good to say what they wanted rather than what they didn’t want. The big issue for parks is that they don’t want to lose money on the deal. So there’s the financial aspect, as well as the issue of whether they want to use parkland for this purpose. Offen said he thought it would be wise for them to use Berla’s resolution.

Tim Doyle asked what timeline they were working under. He knew that when federal grants are involved, there are deadlines to meet. [There was general consensus among commissioners that it's unclear what the timelines are.] Then Doyle asked whether there was any urgency for PAC to make a decision. Given what he described as confusion around the table, perhaps it would be better to wait, Doyle said.

Grand said that it was absolutely time to make a decision, if they wanted to affect the process. Smith pointed to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the university and the city, which states that “the City and the University shall cooperate and use their best efforts to complete construction of Phase One, and to have Phase One ready for use, by June 15, 2012.” Working backwards from that date, he said, they’d need to begin construction by next spring, which means that designs would need to be ready fairly soon. “It’s closer than you might think,” he said.

Grand noted that the project is “ever-changing,” and if they waited until they had all the information or final answers to their questions, the opportunity for input will have passed.

Nystuen asked whether they could simply pass both resolutions. Offen suggested putting the language of the first resolution into the cover memo, then passing Berla’s version. Grand stressed that there’s no guarantee that people will read the cover memo, and that it’s the resolution that is the official record. She also suggested that it was more powerful to have just one resolution.

Taylor suggested that they pass Berla’s resolution, but amend it to include some of the whereas clauses from the original one. “I’d go for that,” Nystuen said.

A vote was taken on amending the first resolution by substituting in Berla’s version in its entirety. It was approved by a 5 to 3 vote, with Lawter abstaining. Voting yes were Berla, Barrett, Doyle, Nystuen, and Offen.

Nystuen then moved to amend Berla’s version by deleting the fourth whereas clause and adding the final five whereas clauses from the original version. That motion carried, with dissent from Berla.

Chapman pointed out that if PAC’s intent was to weigh in before any agreements between the city and university were finalized, then they should slightly alter a sentence in Berla’s second resolved clause. Berla accepted as a friendly amendment the insertion of the word “proposed”:

Specifically, PAC urges the staff and council to make public a complete plan for the development of the project, including which features will be part of each phase and the details of any significant proposed agreements such as the Parking Services Agreement.

Grand asked whether they wanted to include the sentence from the original resolution asking that the parks system be indemnified: “Further, PAC recommends that the final agreement should indemnify the Parks and Recreation Department for any shortfall in revenue caused by the University’s decision to discontinue leasing the North lots on Fuller Road.” Berla said he found that troubling, because it could be interpreted very broadly.

Taylor said he wanted to circle back to talk about the process. He noted that while there hasn’t yet been a formal public hearing, there have been 11 public conversations, or meetings, about the project. Further, the manner in which the public can express themselves to council is multi-varied, he said. Public hearings are important, but equally powerful are phone calls, emails or the “gestalt at a meeting.” So he took issue with the sentiment that there’s been no public input. It’s not been perfect, he said, but it’s been done in good faith. Except for not asking formally for PAC’s input, the process has been done pretty well, he said.

As for financing, he said, when requests are made for federal funding, matching local funds are required. The proposed university contribution is cash, he said, which would serve as the matching local funds. The city doesn’t have millions of dollars lying around to put into the project. By comparison, the university is cash wealthy, he said. That’s an element that hasn’t been completely appreciated, Taylor added, and it gives them the hope of actually getting a rail station.

Nystuen pointed out that nothing in the memorandum of understanding gives them a rail station. Taylor replied that the federal grants are predicated on there being local cash in the project – and the university is providing that cash.

Berla’s resolution, as amended, was passed unanimously, with Lawter abstaining. [.pdf of final approved resolution]

Fuller Road Station: Additional Commissioner Commentary

Later in the meeting, Nystuen said she wanted to acknowledge that they had received communication from the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, asking that planning for the Border-to-Border Trail be incorporated into the site design for Fuller Road Station. She also wondered about the environmental impact study that was to be done on the site – what’s the scope of that? Finally, Nystuen said she thought they should look at Peter Pollack’s plan for the site – at PAC’s March 2010 meeting, he had described an alternative approach to the design of the Fuller Road Station.

Berla said that he’d love to see a resolution at PAC’s next meeting to support the WBWC plan.

Smith noted that there were several gaps in the Border-to-Border trail that were already identified in the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan – he thought the map submitted by WBWC was the same as the one in the PROS plan. There are other parks in the system that require trails, he said, and he cautioned against acting on that one area alone, saying they needed to look at the entire park system to assess their needs.

Doyle pointed out that if the city was seeking federal funds, it might be to their advantage to include plans for a bike path in that area.

Later in the meeting, Anglin wondered who would be bringing the resolution forward to council – he thought it was important to have some PAC members there when that happened. Taylor and others clarified that the resolution wouldn’t require action at council. Like all other PAC resolutions, it was a recommendation to council, and would be transmitted as a communication from PAC to council.

Fuller Road Station: Final Public Commentary

Three people spoke at the end of the meeting, all of them addressing the topic of Fuller Road Station.

LuAnne Bullington said the mayor had used the “carrot” of a train to get a parking garage. She said a representative from SEMCOG has indicated that the east/west rail project between Ann Arbor and Detroit is on permanent hold. There are also issues with the proposed WALLY rail line between Howell and Ann Arbor, including how it will be financed. There’s a long way to go before these rail projects become reality, and these are serious economic times.

It’s not smart to build a parking garage in hopes that a train station will be added in the next decade or two, Bullington said. Bullington also noted that the university is building a large children’s and women’s hospital, but hasn’t included additional parking for it – even though they have more money than the city does. Why is the city building a garage when its bridges are falling down? she asked, referring to the East Stadium bridges. The city’s priorities are screwed up, she said.

Glenn Thompson said that a similar situation had occurred in the village of Dexter, with elected officials moving ahead on a project that residents opposed. The result was at the next election, he said, three of the incumbents were defeated – by write-in candidates.

Ethel Potts thanked the commission, and said she felt she’d been well-represented.

Huron Hills Golf Course

During public commentary at the start of Tuesday’s meeting, several people spoke about plans for the city to issue a request for proposals (RFP) possibly to privatize the Huron Hills Golf Course, one of two golf courses owned and operated by the city. Colin Smith, the city’s parks manager, also addressed the topic during his report to commissioners, saying that the RFP hasn’t yet been developed and would likely be coming to PAC for input this fall.

Huron Hills: Public Commentary

In addition to her comments about Fuller Road Station, Leslie Morris spoke about privatizing Huron Hills, saying that she sees this proposal as a second attempt to set a precedent – “that parkland may be considered ‘surplus,’ and may be leased for some other purpose or for someone’s profit.” If the RFP is approved, she said, it’s likely to lead to others, until the precedent will be difficult to reverse. Morris said she emphatically disagrees with some in the current city administration who believe the city has too many parks. Since the council has refused to sell parkland, the administration is proposing leases as a substitute.

Morris said that when she spoke during public commentary at the city council, she called this “probing for weakness.” Supporters of the parks count on PAC to “hold the line against raids on parkland,” she said, adding “that includes private leases.”

William Cassebaum said it was just three years ago when there were talks at PAC about whether to keep Huron Hills as a golf course. The decision was made to invest in the golf course and the effort has paid off, he said, with the course never looking better. Cassebaum said he and his wife have season passes, and think of it as the “people’s course,” bringing together golfers of all ages, abilities and backgrounds. But now, he said, it seems that the city wants to eliminate Huron Hills from the parks system.

To date, the city’s RFP hasn’t been made public, Cassebaum said, but it’s reasonable to conclude that the plan is to eliminate the existing course – otherwise, why request proposals from outside businesses? He noted that in January, Jayne Miller – at that time, the city’s community services administrator – reported that two businesses had approached the city with interest in turning the front seven holes of Huron Hills into a commercial driving range.

Cassebaum reminded commissioners of the charter amendment requiring voter approval of the sale of parkland, and of a council resolution passed in 2007 that prohibited the sale of the city’s golf courses, and stating that the courses would remain in the parks system even if the golf operations stopped. [.pdf file of 2007 council resolution] Cassebaum concluded by asking: “If Huron Hills goes, what might be the next city park on the chopping block?” He asked PAC to consider recommending that council rescind the RFP.

Saying that Ann Arbor has long had a vision for its parks, Larry Argetsigner cited three examples from the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan that relate directly to Huron Hills. He read a section from the PROS plan, which calls for “preservation of Ann Arbor’s open and green image. Development adjacent to both the freeway ring and the city’s major arteries (especially along Huron Parkway) must be accomplished consistent with the care and concerns epxressed by Ann Arbor citizens.”

Argetsigner noted that Huron Hills provides a dramatic but tranquil vista along Huron Parkway. The community has been committed to parks for many years, and leasing Huron Hills would fly in the face of that commitment. The PROS plan also calls for “developing appropriately existing lands along the river to relieve crowding of areas such as Gallup Park.” Huron Hills is adjacent to Gallup Park and the river’s South Pond, Argetsinger noted.

Finally, the PROS plan includes the greenbelt program, and Huron Hills actually stacks up well when evaluated according to the greenbelt criteria for selecting properties. Why is the city considering the transfer of Huron Hills development rights to the private sector, while actively pursuing development rights for property to include in the greenbelt? He concluded by stating, “the citizenry of Ann Arbor deserves better.”

Jane Lumm focused her comments on the financial performance of Huron Hills Golf Course, saying she wanted to clear up some misperceptions. Thanks to the city’s director of golf, Doug Kelly, she said, revenues are up over 30% at both Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses – and golf revenues for FY09 and FY10 exceeded the targets set by a golf consultant hired by the city by over $100,000. On an operating basis, she noted, before administrative and allocated costs, Huron Hills is about break-even, showing a small $10,000 loss. These numbers are contrary to the popular perception that Huron Hills is a significant financial drain, Lumm said. In fact, compared to other recreation activities that showed just a 2% revenue increase, the golf courses were doing quite well, she said.

Looking at all city support for rec activities, Lumm noted that Huron Hills accounted for just 6-8% of the total rec support – not the huge drain as it’s often portrayed. She quoted the report from the golf consultant hired by the city to evaluate the courses – he referred to Huron Hills as a “delightful golf course … that provides an unparalleled opportunity to enjoy a walk and is an ideal facility for juniors, seniors, and new entrants to the game,” while Leslie Park is characterized as a championship course. The courses are complementary, Lumm said, but Huron Hills “better fits the public recreation mission.” She concluded by stating that “the plan is really working and I’m hopeful PAC will be an ally in advocating to build on the success – to work the plan – rather than divert attention to RFPs and potential development on the site.” [Lumm and Morris also addressed the city council on the subject of Huron Hills Golf Course at its June 7, 2010 meeting]

Huron Hills: Manager’s Report

During his report to the commission, Colin Smith said there’d been a golf courses advisory task force meeting on June 9, but there isn’t yet an RFP developed. Staff has had other priorities, including the budget that was passed by council last month. Before an RFP is issued, he said, the staff will bring a draft to the task force for input, and will seek input from PAC as well before issuing it. A draft likely won’t be brought to the task force until August or September.

Smith said that at the task force’s March meeting, soon after city council had given the administration a directive to develop an RFP for Huron Hills, they discussed keeping the form very open, to allow for creative responses. It won’t be written in order to solicit a specific type of proposal, like a driving range, he said. Proposals might include keeping the course the same but turning over management to a private company, or it’s possible that the course would change form. It’s also possible that they won’t receive any responses to the RFP, he noted.

More information about the golf courses advisory task force is on the city’s website.

Ann Arbor Farmers Market Report

Molly Notarianni, the city’s market manager, gave commissioners an update on the farmers market and public market activities. Peter Pollack, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Market Advisory Commission, also spoke briefly.

Farmers Market: Report from Manager

Notarianni said the Ann Arbor Farmers Market is special in several ways: It’s historic, dating back 91 years; it’s open all year, not just during the traditional growing season; and it’s a producer-only market, with the requirement that vendors must make the items they sell. There are currently 143 vendors authorized to sell at the market, including 65 annual vendors – who have reserved stalls year-round – and 78 “dailies.” Not all of these vendors show up each week, Notarianni explained, and some have multiple stalls.

The winter market has been growing, she reported. When Notarianni took the manager job in 2008, there were only about eight to 10 vendors in the winter market, which runs on Saturdays only from January through March. This year, there were between 20-40 vendors on any given Saturday – an increase she attributed to more marketing and outreach.

There’s been an increased participation in food assistance programs too. Since last year, the market has accepted Electronic Benefit Transfers, or EBTs. The program uses Bridge Cards, which act like debit cards and have replaced food stamps. Customers can use their Bridge Cards to buy wooden tokens at the market office, which vendors accept as cash. [The Chronicle first wrote about the market's use of Bridge Cards in October 2008.] Notarianni described the program as “wildly successful,” with over $7,000 spent in Bridge Card payments in the past year. That’s money that likely wouldn’t have otherwise been spent at the market, she said.

There are several special events and activities aimed at drawing more customers to the market, she said, including chef demonstrations, canning lessons, and plastic planter recycling. The market is promoted via an email newsletter, and they’re raising revenue by selling totes, pins, postcards and other items with the market’s logo.

They do rapid market assessments regularly, Notarianni said, aimed at identifying shopping trends. [The market advisory commission discussed this type of assessment at their October 2009 meeting.] On a Saturday last September, for example, the assessment counted about 9,700 people, mostly coming from the 48103 and 48104 zip codes.

Notarianni described several site improvements to the public market area, including repainting, new signs, a PA system and electrical upgrades. Aside from the farmers market, other activities take place there as well, including the weekly Sunday Artisan Market, the Trunk-a-Palooza on Thursdays starting in July, annual happenings like the Homegrown Festival, and private events like weddings. There’s still a lot of untapped potential for using the public market space, she said.

The Ann Arbor Public Market Advisory Commission works on issues related to the market – recent projects include updating the vendor application and inspection forms, Notarianni said.

Pollack noted that the market is part of the parks system. In addition to PAC and the market advisory commission, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority also has a stake in the market, he said. The three groups should be talking collectively about how to improve it, he suggested, giving examples of street trees along Fourth Avenue that could be replaced, or the gravel parking lot that would be repaved. As the market grows, he said, they should look for other possible locations to complement the existing space – at Community High across the street, for example, or the nearby McKinley parking lot. He said that PAC should expect to have more conversations about this “downtown urban open space.”

Farmer’s Market: PAC Comments and Questions

Sam Offen asked several questions regarding the vendors. In response, Notarianni explained that inspections were done both at the location where goods are produced, as well as at the point of sale. The city contracts with an inspector to do that work. Vendors come mostly from a radius within two hours of driving time, she said, but there are some from Ohio and northern Michigan that are farther away.

Offen asked whether they’d considered partnering with groups like Project Grow or the Leslie Science & Nature Center. They did, Notarianni said – last Saturday, for example, Leslie Science & Nature Center brought their birds to the market, and they’ll do the same this coming Saturday. Project Grow holds its annual tomato testing at the market, she said. But there is a lot of untapped potential for partnerships, she added.

In response to a question from John Lawter, Notarianni said that you can sign up to receive the market’s email newsletter on the city’s website. [Past newsletters are available to download here.]

Christopher Taylor asked why Notarianni believed there was still room for growth at the market. She said they receive more applications each month than they can include in the market, so they’re turning vendors away. Pollack added that there’s also a social aspect to the market – it’s not just for shoppers and vendors. People come to socialize, to people-watch. But it’s really crowded, he said, so providing more room for people to sit and socialize would improve the experience.

Julie Grand wrapped up the discussion by saying they were open to collaboration, and that they welcomed the opportunity to talk more about the market.

Misc. Updates: Mowing, PROS, Argo Dam

Colin Smith gave several updates during his manager’s report.

Starting July 1, with the new fiscal year, the budget includes funds to do hand trimming in the parks. The 19-day mowing cycle will remain in place, he said, but the hand trimming should make things look noticeably better.

A survey for the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan, which staff is updating this year, has yielded 525 responses, he said. Their goal is to get between 500-600 responses by June 25. [Here's a link to the online survey.] There will be two more public meetings on the PROS plan: On Thursday, June 17 at 7 p.m. at the Leslie Science & Nature Center, and on Tuesday, June 29 at Cobblestone Farm, also at 7 p.m.

Staff is preparing an RFP for work to be done on Argo Dam, as required by a consent agreement signed by the city and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. The work includes repair of the toe drains and reconfiguration or reconstruction of the millrace. It’s a complicated RFP to write, he said, and they are under a deadline to complete the work. He said that staff plans to share the RFP with all relevant commissions, including PAC, before issuing it. [.pdf of the consent agreement]

The FY 2011 budget also includes funding for a volunteer outreach coordinator – Smith said they plan to post that job opening soon.

Parks & Rec: Commissioner Comments and Questions

David Barrett reported that he planned to visit every ballfield in the city and take an inventory of conditions. He would present that information to PAC when he finished. He said he wasn’t trying to create a fuss, but it was part of PAC’s charge. Much of the community interacts with the parks system at the ballfields, and it was relevant to know what condition they were in.

Christopher Taylor returned to the topic of mowing. He said that if he planned to be out of town for 19 days, he would make sure to cut his lawn really short. It didn’t appear that this was the strategy of the parks staff, and he wondered why. Smith noted that Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, would be able to speak “eloquently and eagerly” on the topic, but Warba did not attend Tuesday’s meeting, and Smith said he wasn’t sure of the answer.

Commissioner John Lawter, who serves as associate director of building services and grounds for the University of Michigan, said that in general, you could damage the lawn if you cut it too short. It was a fine line, he said, because you could also cause damage if it grows too long. Barrett noted that rain was a factor too – recent rains have caused the grass to grow more quickly, making the lack of mowing more noticeable.

Present: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Doug Chapman, Tim Doyle, Julie Grand, John Lawter, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen, Mike Anglin (ex-officio), Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Next meeting: Tuesday, July 20 at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]