Recommended new location for new Windemere Park tennis courts. (Image included in Jan. 28, 2014 meeting packet for the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.)

The park advisory commission recommended approval of the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

PAC’s recommendation on the contract followed its approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron.

The action follows PAC’s approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Recommended new location for new Windemere Park tennis courts. (Image included in Jan. 28, 2014 meeting packet for the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.)

Action by park commissioners came at their Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

In 2012, city staff held two public meetings to seek input on options for locating the new courts. The option recommended by staff – to locate the courts to the east of the current location – was one that a majority of residents at a public meeting on Oct. 8, 2012 had favored. That location was ultimately recommended by PAC at its Oct. 16, 2012 meeting.

The cost of the project was estimated at around $100,000. Bids were expected to be solicited, with construction to take place in the summer of 2013.

However, some neighbors subsequently raised concerns about the option that was recommended by PAC – Option 4 of the four options that were considered. It had been a compromise proposal, moving the tennis courts closer to the center of the existing open space at the park, farther away from homes around the perimeter of the park, compared to other options.

Because of those concerns, staff held off on construction of the new tennis courts and have been talking with residents about other alternatives. Residents conducted an online Doodle poll comparing the option that was recommended by PAC to one of the other options – Option 1, located slightly further to the north – that had been rejected. Lobbying for Option 1 at a PAC meeting on Nov. 19, 2013 were several residents – including representatives of the Earhart Knolls and Glacier Highlands homeowners associations. Ward 2 Ann Arbor city councilmember Jane Lumm also attended that meeting and advocated for Option 1, on behalf of residents.

There was not universal agreement, however, so additional input was sought, including a survey on Ann Arbor Open City Hall. The parks staff also held another public meeting on Jan. 15, 2014, which was attended by about two dozen residents, several park advisory commissioners and some city councilmembers. At that meeting, yet another option – labeled Option 1A – was brought forward. It shifted the location in Option 1 slightly to the north and east, and changed the location of the path entering the courts. This was the site that PAC members ultimately voted to recommend.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Diane Massell and Xavier Iniguez spoke to the Ann Arbor park advisory commission on Nov. 19 about the location of tennis courts in Windemere Park. (Photos by the writer.)

As part of an effort to replace the deteriorated courts, commissioners had recommended relocating them to a different spot within the park. That action took place at their meeting on Oct. 16, 2012, with the expectation that parks staff would solicit bids and seek city council approval for a construction contract to rebuild the courts in the spring of 2013.

But pushback from residents – and advocacy from city councilmember Jane Lumm, who represents Ward 2 where Windemere Park is located – led to further discussions, an online poll conducted by residents, and ultimately a return to PAC. On Nov. 19, several residents attended the meeting, including Lumm, and asked PAC to reconsider its recommendation.

Rather than relocating the courts toward the center of the park, they hoped to shift the location to the north so that more open space in the park would be preserved. PAC’s Nov. 19 meeting included a presentation in support of this option by Ed Weiss of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association and Jeff Alson, a resident and member of the Glacier Highlands Homeowners Association. However, one homeowner attended the meeting to disagree – her home would be closer to the courts if the location is changed.

Some commissioners expressed concern about setting precedent for a reversal of their decision, but after discussing the issue they voted unanimously to schedule another public meeting with residents. Options to consider will include the one that was originally recommended by PAC and the one that’s now being proposed by some residents as an alternative. The city might also conduct its own online poll to get additional feedback. It’s possible that the new public process will push back the project until the 2015 construction season.

Also on Nov. 19, commissioners got an update on the first four months of the fiscal year from Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. For all parks and recreation facilities, the current projections of $3.943 million in revenues are about $52,000 over the originally budgeted amounts. In particular, revenues related to the Argo Cascades are $100,000 better than expected. On the expense side, overall costs are projected to be $5.211 million – or $50,000 less than budgeted. The fiscal year runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and Galardi cautioned that these projections represent an early interim report.

The meeting included several updates and reports, including news that long-time PAC member Tim Berla – who served as the representative from Ann Arbor Rec & Ed’s recreation advisory commission – will no longer be serving on PAC. He attended his last meeting in September. PAC chair Ingrid Ault expects a new RAC appointment by early 2014.

In an update from the city council, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – one of two council representatives who serve on PAC – noted that a park fee waiver recommended by PAC had been approved by the council on Nov. 18. The waiver is for groups who want to distribute goods for basic human needs at a city park. He also noted that on Nov. 7, the council had accepted PAC’s report on downtown parks and open space “with speed and a lack of unhappiness.” He did not mention that the other council representative on PAC, Mike Anglin (Ward 5), had dissented on that vote to accept the report.

Windemere Tennis Courts

Over a year ago – at PAC’s Oct. 16, 2012 meeting – commissioners recommended a new location for the tennis courts within Windemere Park. Commissioners had originally supported the project in May of 2012.

Map of the Windemere Park neighborhood, on Ann Arbor’s northeast side.

Windemere Park is a nearly four-acre parcel on the city’s northeast side, north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

In 2012, city staff has held two public meetings to seek input on options for locating the new courts. The option recommended by staff – to locate the courts to the east of the current location – was one that a majority of residents at a public meeting on Oct. 8, 2012 had favored. That location was ultimately recommended by PAC at its Oct. 16, 2012 meeting.

The cost of the project was estimated at around $100,000. Bids were expected to be solicited, with construction to take place in the summer of 2013.

However, some neighbors subsequently raised concerns about the option that was recommended by PAC – Option 4 of the four options that were considered. It had been a compromise proposal, moving the tennis courts more into the center of the existing open space at the park, farther away from homes around the perimeter of the park, compared to other options.

Because of those concerns, staff held off on construction of the new tennis courts and have been talking with residents for the past year. Residents conducted an online Doodle poll comparing the option that was recommended by PAC to one of the other options – Option 1, located slightly further to the north – that had been rejected.

Here are the four options that were considered in 2012:

Map of Windemere tennis court relocation Option 1, which some residents now want the city to adopt.

Map of Windemere tennis court relocation Option 2.

Map of Windemere tennis court relocation Option 3.

Map showing proposed relocation of Windemere Park tennis courts, as recommended by PAC on Oct. 16, 2012.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Public Commentary

Residents on both side of the issue spoke during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Rita Benn said she lives in the Windemere area but hasn’t been involved in what the neighborhood associations are putting together. She said she was notified that the associations were going to oppose the recommendation that had been made last year. On Oct. 8, 2012, three options had been presented to residents at a neighborhood meeting that she attended, she said. Option 1 is closer to her home, so she said she had a vested interest. Options 2 and 3 are closer to some of her neighbors’ homes, and preserve green space, Benn said.

Rita Benn, a resident who lives near Windemere Park.

A compromise was reached on an Option 4, which put the courts in between the other locations and seemed to be the best fit, she said. She described a Doodle poll that had been sent out as “quite biased,” because it didn’t present all of the options. It only presented Option 4 and Option 1, which is the closest to her home. The poll didn’t present the other two options, and was “pretty unscientific in its quality and representation.”

She said she knows it’s a difficult decision, but she urged commissioners to honor the recommendation they made in October 2012, or not to replace the tennis courts at all. Even if they didn’t consider the issues of noise or respect for her property, where she’s lived for 25 years, they should at least ask whether the location is the best in terms of terrain – as she indicated that a recent rain had left large puddles in the spot where the tennis courts are proposed to be located. She also expressed concern for what would happen to the area where the current tennis courts are located, saying that the city installed a prairie area in the park that’s now an eyesore.

Diane Massell introduced herself as a resident of the park area. She thanked commissioners for agreeing to rebuild the tennis courts, calling it a vital part of the community that’s been there for many years. She asked them to reconsider their original decision, and hoped they would shift it to Option 1 in the northeast corner of the park, which maximizes the green space that currently exists. Option 4 is in the middle of the green space, she said, which is also a vital part of the community that’s frequently used by Rec & Ed for soccer games and informally by adults and kids.

She then introduced her neighbor, Xavier Iniguez, a student who she said postponed his concert practice in order to speak to commissioners. He read a statement saying that there aren’t very many large parks in their neighborhood, so reducing the grass area would affect the sports that they play. He and his friends use the area to play baseball pick-up games in the spring and summer. In the fall, they play football and ultimate Frisbee. He hoped commissioners would consider how the location of the tennis courts could affect the amount of fun they could have at the park.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Neighborhood Association Presentation

Later in the meeting, PAC’s agenda included an item for a presentation by Ed Weiss of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association and Jeff Alson, a resident and member of the Glacier Highlands Homeowners Association. Weiss thanked commissioners for recommending that the city rebuild the tennis courts, calling the courts a value to residents on the east side of the city. There are other parts of the park that are also valued, he said, like the “young tot” play area and baseball diamond.

From left: Ed Weiss of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association and Jeff Alson, a resident and member of the Glacier Highlands Homeowners Association.

The key to the multifaceted use of the park is the open field used for organized and impromptu sports and play, Weiss said. Because so many residents have complained that Option 4 took away too much green space, one of the homeowners associations decided to bring the issue forward to PAC and seek a better remedy, Weiss said. He called Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm the “spark that ignited all of the parties to take up this location issue and bring it forward to a remedy that meets the expectations of the majority of residents.” Residents are requesting that the tennis courts be relocated to Option 1, rather than Option 4, he said.

Alson then spoke to PAC about an online Doodle poll that had been conducted among residents. He said that in contrast to what Rita Benn had indicated during public commentary, the poll was designed to be as neutral as possible. They had decided against going around to neighbors with a petition to change the location, and instead developed a neutral poll so that they could get a true sense of the preference among residents, Alson said. He challenged the contention that the poll was biased. [.pdf of Doodle poll text and results]

Alson reported that several residents had met a few weeks ago with parks and recreation manager Colin Smith and Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator who supervises the parks and recreation operations. Smith and Bahl had suggested that a neutrally-worded poll was the best way to indicate what residents thought about the location of the tennis courts, Alson said, so that’s why the Doodle poll was developed. The poll targeted two groups of people, he said, based on suggestions by Smith and Bahl – residents who had attended public meetings in July and October 2012, and to houses that are on the perimeter of the park. The response rate was extremely high, Alson said. He estimated that about 55 households would fall into the two categories that were targeted, and almost two-thirds of that number responded to the poll, which had 34 responses.

The sense of the neighborhood is overwhelmingly clear, he said. Based on votes per house, the final tally was 29 votes for Option 1, and 5 for Option 4. That’s an 85% to 15% margin, he said. These poll results and the unanimous vote by the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association Board in support of Option 1 – as well as many personal conversations over the past year – indicate an obvious preference for Option 1. He strongly urged PAC to reconsider and support Option 1, and move it ahead so that the courts can be reconstructed in 2014. He said he’s a tennis player, and it’s been about four years since there were two functional courts at Windemere Park. “We hope that none of this delays that process,” he concluded.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson began by noting that he was the only PAC member who attended the neighborhood meeting in 2012, and that probably puts him in the hot seat. He hadn’t anticipated that fixing the tennis courts would be controversial at all. Some of the things he was going to say probably weren’t things that the speakers would like, he said, but it’s his role to act in the public interest and he’s also a bit of a skeptic. He said he’s not a politician, so he can get away with that.

Alan Jackson

The thing to decide is whether this new information should change PAC’s original recommendation. In his opinion, Jackson said, this new information “came from a decidedly non-public process.” Because of that, it doesn’t carry the same weight. For example, he didn’t know how the poll was publicized or who had participated. He had attended the public meeting, yet he hadn’t received an email about the poll – although he ventured that it might have been marked as spam by his email program. Also, some people might not have access to email or the Internet. In addition, a poll gives people a binary decision, he said, while a public meeting is a discussion among many people.

At the public meeting Jackson had attended, he said there was near universal support for Option 4, which PAC had subsequently recommended. He indicated that it had been cool to see the neighbors reach consensus, because he hadn’t expected any kind of unanimity. His conclusion is that PAC can’t use the new information, and their only option would be to redo the process to ensure it meets the same standards. If they do that, it sets a precedent for every decision that PAC makes, he noted. “Eventually, you get to paralysis.” Cost and staff time are other factors, Jackson said. The two locations at issue aren’t very different, he added, with the main difference being that the green space isn’t contiguous in Option 4.

Ingrid Ault pointed out that there had been some transitions on PAC since the recommendation had been made in 2012, so not all commissioners were familiar with that decision. [Five of the current PAC voting members were also on the commission in October 2012: Ault, Jackson, Karen Levin, Bob Galardi and Missy Stults. Stults was attending her first meeting when PAC voted to recommend approval of the Windemere tennis court replacement. She abstained from that vote.]

Christopher Taylor, one of the two city councilmembers who serve on PAC as ex-officio non-voting members, said he wanted to both concur and differ with Jackson. The city places a “material value” on public process and public meetings as a way of gathering input. Changing a decision on the basis of “ex parte” information isn’t something he’d support. At the same time, the results of the Doodle poll, however imperfect, indicate some dissatisfaction with the outcome, Taylor noted, as does the vote of the homeowners association board. He said he’d rather slow down the process, hold another public meeting, and then take that input as the guidepost for moving forward.

Graydon Krapohl began by saying he wasn’t part of the original decision-making process. There seems to be some disconnect between what was originally decided and what people want now. It’s important to go back and reengage the residents, he said, but PAC can’t make a decision based on a Doodle poll. He also wondered why this kind of feedback wasn’t received at the beginning of the process back in 2012.

Missy Stults

Missy Stults agreed with Taylor and Krapohl, and said she’d support holding another public meeting, but she wouldn’t be comfortable overturning PAC’s vote at this point. Bob Galardi weighed in: “Ditto.” Karen Levin also supported this approach.

Ault then expressed concern that a year after PAC’s decision, residents are now coming back asking for a reversal. “I’m concerned that this will possibly set precedent for the future and future decisions that PAC makes.” It’s PAC’s responsibility to use staff time and resources well, she added, and that needs to be part of the discussion. The timeframe is troubling for her, too. “I don’t understand why we’re having this conversation a year later.” She didn’t want to revisit every decision that PAC makes.

Galardi asked Jackson if members of the two homeowners associations had been present at the 2012 public meetings. Jackson said he couldn’t recall everyone who attended, but the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association had been better represented. Ed Weiss, who serves on that association’s board, pointed out that the meetings weren’t specifically directed at the homeowners associations.

Jeff Straw, deputy parks and recreation manager, explained how the process had taken place. Residents who lived within a quarter-mile of the park were contacted about the meetings in 2012, he said, adding that the homeowners associations could have chosen to publicize the meetings as well. It’s the same process that the city uses with any similar process, he noted.

Straw pointed out that in order to get the project scheduled for the spring 2014 construction season, a decision will need to be made relatively soon. If a decision isn’t made by sometime in December, the project probably won’t happen in 2014.

Stults wondered why the project has been delayed, given that it was recommended for approval a year ago and had been intended to move forward during the 2013 construction season. She also wondered what it would cost to conduct another public meeting, and what other projects might get bumped. Park planner Amy Kuras replied that the cost would mostly entail staff time. The mailings to publicize a meeting would cost between $500 to $1,000. Straw added that it also depends on how much additional research will be required after the public meeting.

Regarding why the project hasn’t moved forward yet, Kuras replied that objections had been raised by residents after PAC’s decision in 2012. She said her main concern in continuing the public process at this point is that residents will never completely reach consensus. So if another public process takes place, she said, PAC and staff need to figure out ahead of time how a decision will be made – whether it’s a majority vote or some other measure. “We’re never going to make everybody happy, and so we just need to recognize that we’ll make some people more happy and some people less happy.”

Krapohl clarified that if PAC decides to hold another public meeting, it’s unlikely the project will hit the 2014 construction cycle. That’s because after the public meeting, the item would still need to be reviewed by PAC, followed by city council approval. They probably wouldn’t work through that process until January or February.

Straw pointed out that the council hasn’t yet approved the project. The council would need to approve the project’s construction contract, but it hasn’t gone that far yet. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, came to the podium to expand on that explanation. After PAC decides what to do, the city will issue a request for proposals and get construction bids. After that, the council will be asked to award a contract. None of that has happened yet.

Bahl said he wanted to stress the point that Kuras had raised, saying it’s important to make sure everyone is clear about how a decision will be made. Otherwise, “we’ll be in the same position we are now,” he said.

Graydon Krapohl

Galardi wondered when the objections were raised after PAC’s October 2012 vote, and why PAC is only now just hearing about them. “It seems like we’re getting this rather late,” he said.

Straw replied that the staff had heard concerns from the neighborhood after PAC’s vote, and so they held off until they’d had additional discussions with residents. They felt it was now time to bring it back to PAC.

Mike Anglin, another city councilmember who serves on PAC, noted that the city residents have never rejected a parks millage. In part, that’s because the city makes a lot of effort to ensure that residents like what the city does, he said. “It’s a long, hard process.” Anglin pointed to the community input that had been received regarding Argo Dam. He agreed that any decision will disappoint a segment of the community. “Let’s hope that they understand the process,” he said. “Maybe through the process, they’ll come to a better understanding.”

Stults asked for more information from Bahl about the meeting that he and Colin Smith had with residents. Bahl replied that he and Smith had told residents that PAC had made the decision, and that nothing could be changed unless PAC wanted to reconsider its decision. That’s why residents are now asking PAC to reconsider. He said that residents were told to consider how to convey their opinion to PAC, and that evolved into the Doodle poll. The poll was sent to the email addresses of people who attended the public meetings in 2012, he said.

Ault thanked staff for their explanation. She said she’d been baffled about why this issue was coming back to PAC a year later, but now she understood. “I was just unaware that there were issues.” She didn’t think PAC was in a position to make any decision right now, other than to agree to look at what would be involved in setting another public meeting.

Taylor responded, saying that he sensed PAC was a little closer to making a decision, and that they seemed to be inclined to hold another public meeting. Jackson agreed that PAC should decide whether or not to have a public meeting, and he’d support having another public meeting, despite the cost and delay. He asked that other commissioners and homeowners get more involved this time “so that we can put this to rest.”

Stults made a motion to hold another public meeting. It was seconded by Krapohl. Galardi noted that PAC would have to somehow deal with the vote that it has already taken on this last year.

Anglin suggested that PAC make an exception and allow for additional public commentary at this point in the meeting. Ault agreed to re-open public commentary.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Additional Public Commentary & Discussion

Jane Lumm, a Ward 2 city councilmember who has been working with residents on this issue, spoke to commissioners. “I feel like I’ve set these gentlemen up,” she began, referring to Ed Weiss and Jeff Alson.

Jane Lumm, a Ward 2 city councilmember who has been working with residents on the Windemere tennis courts issue, addressed the Nov. 19 meeting of the city’s park advisory commission.

Lumm said she’s talked to more than 100 people about this issue. This fall she’d been knocking on doors as part of her re-election campaign to city council. People would ask her about the status of the tennis courts; they want the city to replace the courts, she said. Lumm told commissioners that she came to appreciate what the park means to the neighborhood. “This is all about, for me, listening to our customers, listening to our residents,” she said.

Placing the courts in the middle of the park “does gobble up a big chunk of the park,” Lumm said. It’s not just the tennis courts – it’s the proposed landscaping around the courts as well. The park is a beautiful area and the open space is well-used, she said.

One of the people who’d spoken during public commentary earlier in the meeting, Diane Massell, is married to Scott Campbell, Lumm said, who teaches urban planning at the University of Michigan. He had attended one of the many meetings that she’d also been to with residents and city staff, she said, asking for a quick revisit of this decision. “I’m here to tell you that there is consensus out there, and what people want is what you heard here today.” They want the courts replaced, but not in the center of the park. They are recommending Option 1.

Weiss and Alson had come to the city to see what they could do to make a change in the original decision, Lumm reported. She again stressed that it’s about listening to the city’s customers, saying that she has received countless emails on this subject. Her information is anecdotal, but Weiss and Alson had gotten feedback in as scientific way as they could, she said, following instructions from Smith and Bahl. This has been percolating for a year, Lumm noted – it didn’t just suddenly emerge. She urged PAC to go with the recommendation of Option 1. She then read aloud from an email she had sent to Bahl in late September 2013, which covered many of the points she’d made previously during her commentary. She strongly urged PAC to give Weiss and Alson the regard they deserve for trying to “clear the air on this.”

Ingrid Ault said she needed to confess that it had been her idea to do the Doodle poll. But she had also stipulated that the only way she’d vote for another public meeting that night is if there had been 100% consensus on that poll, she said. If even one or two people who are directly affected by this project don’t feel that they’re heard, then that’s not a good outcome, Ault said.

Christopher Taylor didn’t think Ault should perceive any censure coming from PAC about the Doodle poll. He continued to believe that it’s not enough to base a decision on, but it’s enough to identify a concern. “I think that we’re honoring that concern and we’re honoring the decision made at the initial meeting,” he said.

Alan Jackson asked park planner Amy Kuras whether she had received enough direction from PAC. Kuras said she’d reiterate her previous comments – that she’s fine with having another public meeting, as long as PAC is really clear about how the final decision will be made.

Rita Benn asked if she could address the commission again. She said her main issue with the Doodle poll is that it only presented a choice between Option 1 and Option 4. If the city holds another public meeting, she felt that all four options need to be presented. She noted that although the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association has been very active, the other homeowners association isn’t as organized or as vocal. She said it would help to know the costs associated with each of the four options.

Jeff Alson

Finally, Benn highlighted one of the comments made anonymously on the Doodle poll, from a resident who favored Option 4. She read the comment aloud: “In the current location, the noise from the courts already wakes us up on Sunday morning. The noise includes cursing at the top of the lungs, ‘Whoops – long!’ and loud conversation. Option 4 has the courts somewhat farther away from our bedroom windows, so we prefer it. If you really don’t care about the location but do care about your neighbors’ sleep, please vote for Option 4.”

Jeff Alson also spoke again, saying he appreciated the public meetings and all the work that went into that initial decision. He pointed out that Option 4 was introduced midway through the final public meeting, and he estimated that people only talked about it for an hour. It was a not-in-my-back-yard proposal, because nobody wanted the courts next to their house. “I guess a tennis court is kind of like a toxic waste dump,” he said. Alson noted that Benn’s house will be no closer to the courts under Option 1 than she’s been for the past 25 years, compared to the current location of the courts.

Addressing the issue of why it took a year for this to come back to PAC, Alson said it took a while for people to think about Option 4 in the privacy of their homes, talking with their families and neighbors. He noted that when the city holds public meetings, they typically won’t be attended by people who have younger kids because those people don’t have the time to spend debating this issue. He said he liked the concept of public meetings, “but don’t think it’s some kind of ideal thing that makes it fair and equitable for everybody. You get a very self-selected group of folks there.” He noted that there were almost no families represented at the October 2012 neighborhood public meeting. He asked PAC to weigh the decision to choose Option 4 after only an hour at one public meeting, compared to Option 1 after a poll and nearly a year of discussion. He hoped they looked at all of the information, not just one public meeting, in determining the pulse of the neighborhood.

Kuras suggested that the city could also conduct a Survey Monkey poll as another way to get input.

Straw told commissioners that in terms of affecting the project’s timeline, it wouldn’t matter whether they voted that night or at PAC’s December meeting. If they wanted staff to gather more information, that was an option too.

Missy Stults thanked residents for their work on this issue. Public process is “hard and it’s messy,” she said, “and it’s not fun for us either.” She was leaning toward having another public meeting, but she noted that PAC wouldn’t even be considering that if the Doodle poll hadn’t happened. “So there’s success in what took place,” she said.

Karen Levin also said she appreciated the work of residents, but felt having a public meeting was necessary. Taylor also voiced support for a public meeting, saying that he originally thought it should focus on just the two choices – Options 1 or 4. Now, however, he’s persuaded that there’s “a miserable benefit in doing the whole silly thing again, and going with all the set options.” Noting that he didn’t get to vote [as a council representative to PAC], Taylor suggested that PAC move forward with this process.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to hold another public meeting about the location of the Windemere Park tennis courts.

Jeff Straw told commissioners that the staff would now set up the process for another public meeting.

Parks and Recreation Budget Update

Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee, began by joking that he thought his budget presentation would be less controversial than the Windemere tennis courts. It’s an interim report on the budget, which runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. [.pdf of budget update through Oct. 31, 2013] [.pdf of supporting budget document]

Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

Galardi reminded commissioners that a budget is a spending plan, based on the staff’s best research. The revenue and expense forecast, which was included in his presentation, is like a weather forecast, he said. Many items in parks and recreation are seasonal, so the numbers at this point in the fiscal year are incomplete.

He highlighted variances for some of the revenue line items. Revenues at Buhr Pool, for example, are projected to be $2,500 below budget. But at Mack Pool, where the city started a swim team, revenues are projected to be $25,000 above budgeted amounts.

Revenues at Argo Livery are projected to be $100,000 above budget – $413,500 compared to the budgeted $313,500. One of the reasons for that is that the city staff is still gaining experience there after the opening of Argo Cascades in 2012. Revenues at the Gallup Livery are projected to be $25,000 under budget, so between the two liveries, the forecast is now for $75,000 more in revenues than originally anticipated.

Turning to the golf funds, Galardi noted that Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses are no longer enterprise funds. [By way of background, at its Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to moved the accounting for the city golf courses back into the general fund, starting on July 1, 2013. Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC, had voted against that action. The rationale for changing the accounting was that a deficit elimination plan approved by the council in 2008 had not erased the unrestricted deficit in the golf enterprise fund. The condition of the separate golf enterprise fund had caught the attention of the state treasurer’s office in 2008, which had led the council to adopt the deficit reduction plan. The council’s support of moving the golf fund back into the general fund was based in part on the idea that the golf courses should be evaluated on the same basis as other recreational facilities.]

At this point in the fiscal year, revenues are projected to be the same as budgeted at Huron Hills ($367,000) but $35,000 less than budgeted at Leslie Park ($901,000 compared to budgeted amount to $936,000).

For all the parks and recreation facilities, the projections of $3.943 million in revenues are about $52,000 higher than the budgeted amounts. On the expense side, costs are projected to be $5.211 million – or $50,000 less than budgeted. Galardi reminded commissioners that the council votes to subsidize the operations of parks and recreation. The parks and recreation staff tries to generate as much revenue as possible in order to reduce that subsidy, he said.

Galardi again stressed that this is an interim report after four months of the fiscal year has elapsed. “So where you see negative numbers … that’s yet to be determined. We have another two-thirds of the year to come.”

Jeff Straw, deputy parks and recreation manager, noted that the revenues and expenses of some facilities – like pools, liveries and golf courses – are affected by weather. Only four months of the fiscal year have passed, but right now the parks and recreation budget is tracking a little better than expected, he said.

Alan Jackson asked if there was anything that PAC should be worried about at this point. Galardi replied that it’s way too early in the year to be worried. Right now, the overall forecasted variance is $102,000 to the good, he noted. That’s not much, “but it’s still real money, and it’s real money on the right side.” Galardi said he didn’t know if the city has reached the full potential of the Argo Livery and Argo Cascades, calling it a “blessing and a curse” in that parking and other things have emerged as challenges. The staff comes up with a lot of great ideas, he added, “and some of these great ideas generate revenue.”

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Nov. 19 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

In the absence of parks & recreation manager Colin Smith, deputy manager Jeff Straw gave a brief report. The first “Dive In Movie” will be hosted at Mack Pool on Nov. 30 at 6:30 p.m. The featured film is “Monsters University,” which will be shown on the wall while kids and their families use the pool. If that goes well, the staff might plan more events like this in the future, Straw said.

Leslie Park golf course was expected to close on the weekend of Nov. 23, Straw said, because it looked like “snow may fly.” Huron Hills will stay open, however, to catch those “die-hard golfers” who still want to play.

Buhr Park ice arena opened on Nov. 9. The staff also has started to shut off the water at restrooms throughout the parks to avoid frozen pipes. Some restrooms will remain open – at Allmendinger Park, for example – through the final University of Michigan home football game on Nov. 30. After that game, those restrooms will also be closed for the season. The restrooms at the Gallup and Argo liveries will remain open for the year, as will restrooms at Southeast Area Park.

The renovation at Gallup Park is nearing completion, Straw reported.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Karen Levin gave an update on the work of the dog park subcommittee. She said that with encouragement from park planner Amy Kuras, the subcommittee will formalize its process with a mission statement and master plan – rather than just starting to make recommendations for specific dog park locations. Levin said it sounds like a lot of work, but they’ve done some of it already. Also, there are master plans from other cities that can be used as templates, she noted.

Missy Stults, who also serves on the subcommittee, clarified that the subcommittee is just starting this process. Levin indicated that it won’t take a long time to develop. Ingrid Ault, another subcommittee member, called it an example of doing the process right. PAC learned from the public meetings on the dog park that they hadn’t done their homework as well as they could have, she said, so the subcommittee is taking a step back “to make sure that we don’t have a tennis court fiasco” – an allusion to the Windemere Park tennis courts issue that had been addressed earlier in the meeting. Choosing a new dog park is an issue that everyone has an opinion about “and they want to share it,” she said.

Communications & Commentary: Transitions in Membership

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, noted that Tim Berla usually gives a report as the PAC member who represents the Ann Arbor Rec & Ed recreation advisory commission (RAC). However, she said, he is no longer serving on PAC, and she wanted to thank him for his service. He was on PAC for a very long time, she said, and was “truly our historian.” She noted that RAC meets quarterly and will be appointing a new liaison to PAC in early 2014. Berla had most recently attended a PAC meeting on Sept. 17, 2013 and there had been no indication that he would be stepping down.

Ingrid Ault.

After the meeting, Ault indicated to The Chronicle that Berla had been term limited. However, in 2012, Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager Colin Smith had responded to a Chronicle query about term limits by noting that Berla, as a RAC liaison, was not appointed directly to PAC by city council, and not subject to the term limits of those appointments. At that time, the RAC bylaws stated that members of RAC elect a representative to PAC every two years, at RAC’s June meeting. There was no indication in the RAC bylaws at that time that there are term limits of any kind. [.pdf of RAC bylaws] [.pdf of PAC bylaws] On Nov. 19, Ault was unclear about what had changed since then. Berla did not respond to an emailed query from The Chronicle.

The newest member of PAC – David Santacroce, who replaced Julie Grand – had been appointed by the city council on Nov. 7 but did not attend the Nov. 19 PAC meeting. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand, who had served as PAC’s representative on that task force, attended her last meeting of PAC on Oct. 15, after completing the maximum two consecutive terms of service.

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported that the council on Nov. 18 had approved the fee waiver for groups that want to distribute goods for basic human needs at a city park. He felt that PAC’s discussion had informed the council’s decision. [PAC had recommended approval of the waiver at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting.]

Taylor also reported that PAC’s recommendation on downtown parks and open space was accepted by council on Nov. 7, 2013 “without controversy.” It’s a subject that people care about and tend to differ on, he added, and it’s a testament to the breadth and depth of PAC’s work that it went through “with speed and a lack of unhappiness.” [.pdf of 21-page full downtown parks report]

Christopher Taylor.

Taylor did not mention that the other council representative on PAC, Mike Anglin (Ward 5), had dissented on that vote to accept the report. During the council meeting Anglin had not indicated why he cast a dissenting vote, and other than Taylor’s introduction of the item, there was no discussion of the report during that Nov. 7 meeting.

The eight recommendations in that report were developed by a subcommittee and approved with only minor changes by the full commission. The recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process.

City council representatives on PAC are ex-officio non-voting members. However, during PAC’s discussion about the report at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, Anglin said he was encouraged that the subcommittee recommended the Library Lot for a new park or open space. He did not indicate dissatisfaction with the report during that PAC discussion.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Missy Stults, Jen Geer, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Jeff Straw, deputy city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: David Santacroce.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

Signs for Ann Arbor parks millage renewal. PAC member Ingrid Ault has formed a campaign committee – called Friends of the Parks – to support the renewal. (Photos by the writer.)

A committee that has focused on identifying possible locations for a new dog park recommended the West Park site – specifically, a parcel in the park’s northeast corner, where the city recently bought and demolished a house near the entrance off of Chapin Street. No formal vote was taken, but PAC’s support means that staff will bring back a proposal for PAC’s consideration, and hold a public meeting for community input.

PAC members did formally vote on a recommendation to relocate tennis courts within Windemere Park, to the east of the current location. Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding Windemere Park attended the meeting and advocated for a postponement on the decision. They noted that the option being recommended by staff had not been presented at an Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, later explained that the fourth option had emerged from a consensus of ideas at the meeting.

Berla, who voted against the PAC resolution, felt there was nothing to lose in giving residents another month to review the proposal. But other commissioners believed that moving ahead was the best approach, and that no option would satisfy all residents – especially people with property facing the park. The resolution also recommended incorporating input from residents regarding landscaping around the courts, which was a concern raised by some of the homeowners.

In an unusual move, PAC member Ingrid Ault spoke to her fellow commissioners during public commentary. Telling them that she was speaking as a citizen, not a commissioner, Ault said she had formed a campaign committee – called Friends of the Parks – to support the park maintenance & capital improvements millage renewal, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot. The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. Ault brought yard signs to distribute, and encouraged commissioners and the public to support the renewal. PAC had passed a resolution in support of the millage at their June 2012 meeting.

As part of his manager’s report, Colin Smith noted that city staff will be meeting with representatives from the state on Nov. 2 to get a better understanding of concerns that have been raised regarding a planned whitewater section of the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. He said he’d have an update on that situation at PAC’s November meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

Commissioners held their annual officer elections, re-electing Julie Grand as chair. Ingrid Ault was elected vice chair and Tim Doyle was tapped as chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. All nominations were uncontested, and the votes were unanimous. PAC also welcomed Missy Stults to her first meeting as commissioner. Her nomination had been confirmed by the city council earlier this month.

Dog Parks

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave PAC an update on the effort to create another dog park. John Lawter, the commissioner who’s been leading this project, was not at the meeting. Commissioners had most recently discussed this issue during their meeting on Sept. 18, 2012. The city currently has two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city.

Kuras provided some background on the effort, and reviewed a scoring sheet that had been included in the meeting packet. Five potential locations had been evaluated: West Park (the new lot on Chapin Street), two sites at Bandemer Park (south of Huron River, and north of Huron River at Barton Drive), South Maple Park, and Ward Park. Criteria included location relative to other dog parks, size, parking, access to water, shade, and neighborhood buffer. [.pdf of scoring sheet and map of existing and potential dog parks]

The site at West Park emerged as the preferred location. Commissioners involved in the evaluation included Kuras, Lawter, Karen Levin and Ingrid Ault.

Dog Parks: Commission Discussion

A couple of commissioners asked about the scoring. Karen Levin, who devised the system, explained that each aspect of the location had been rated on a scale of 1 to 5, from best to worst. Then the scores from each of the four raters were added to come up with a total – the lower the score, the better the location.

Alan Jackson asked if any consideration had been given to Riverside Park. Amy Kuras replied that Riverside had been considered a possible location when the original effort to identify dog parks took place several years ago, but since then it has become more heavily used by Ann Arbor Rec & Ed programs. Much of the park is also on the floodplain, she noted, so about a third of it is under water after a heavy rain.

From left: Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, and Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation.

Ault observed that the West Park site is a piece of land that would be difficult to use for any other purpose. It’s a long, narrow strip, with a church parking lot on one side and the driveway entrance into West Park on the other. It was previously the site of a single-family home, which the city demolished after purchasing the property. Using it for a dog park makes sense, she said.

Kuras added that the parks staff has also been looking for ways to draw more people to West Park. A dog park would be one way to do that.

Julie Grand, who serves on the technical committee for the city’s North Main Huron River task force, reported that there’s a large portion of the city-owned site at 721 N. Main that can’t be developed because it’s located in a floodway. One idea that’s been suggested for that part of the site is a dog park, she said. Grand wondered whether that information changed anyone’s perspective on putting a dog park at West Park.

Not necessarily, Kuras replied. For one thing, it’s unclear whether a dog park could be located in the floodway.

Tim Doyle wondered about congestion at the West Park site – would it be too small? Putting more than five dogs in the space of a single-family lot might not work. He liked the location, but was concerned about the size.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described the West Park lot as about half the size of the Olson dog park. The Swift Run dog park is much larger. Even so, he said, Olson can accommodate about as many dogs as Swift Run – but the dogs do different things there. At Olson, there’s more socializing, while dogs have more room to run at Swift Run. The West Park site might be crowded, he said, but it could still work well as a dog park.

Levin said the dog park committee had visited the Chapin site at West Park, and it’s larger than she’d originally thought – it’s narrow, but long. She also noted that there’s the possibility of adding another dog park at a different location.

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC, asked whether the city council needs an update on the situation at Slauson Middle School. He indicated that the choice of West Park as a dog park grew out of the unofficial use of Slauson property as a dog park, because people didn’t feel they had any other place to go.

Kuras replied that the Slauson situation might have brought things to a head, but the West Park location isn’t recommended in response to it. Smith added that the idea for a centrally-located dog park has been in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and was a goal long before dog owners started using Slauson. PAC has been working on this issue for some time, he said. West Park had also been discussed as a possible location during that park’s recent renovations, but at that time the city hadn’t yet acquired the Chapin Street property.

Tim Berla said he’d like to stay away from the implication that people used Slauson as an unofficial dog park because they had no alternatives. There are alternatives in the form of the two dog parks in the city, he noted. He didn’t feel PAC should accept the idea that if there’s no place within walking distance for a dog to run free, than people should just use whatever park or school property is convenient. Even if the city keeps adding dog parks, it would take a long time to satisfy a goal of having dog parks within walking distance of all residents. Berla felt that playgrounds should take a higher priority, but he agreed that the city should look for more opportunities to add dog parks.

Grand concluded the discussion by saying it seemed they’d reached consensus on West Park as a possible location. Kuras said she’d be coming back to PAC with a formal proposal for their consideration, and would hold a public meeting for community input.

Outcome: This was not a voting item, and no action was taken.

Windemere Tennis Courts

At their Oct. 16 meeting, PAC members were asked to recommend a new location for the tennis courts within the park. Commissioners had already supported the project in May of 2012. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, briefed commissioners on the project.

Windemere Park is a nearly four-acre parcel on the city’s northeast side, north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Map showing proposed relocation of Windemere Park tennis courts.

Over the past few months, city staff has held two public meetings to seek input on options for locating the new courts. The option recommended by staff – which locates the courts to the east of the current location – was one that a majority of participants at the most recent public meeting had favored, according to staff and commissioners who attended. That meeting took place on Oct. 8.

The plan also calls for adding a rain garden to help handle stormwater runoff. There are low-interest loans available for that, Kuras said, with the possibility of loan forgiveness – it’s another possible funding source for the project.

The cost of the project is estimated at around $100,000. Kuras said she planned to solicit bids this winter, with construction to take place in the summer of 2013.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Public Commentary

Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding Windemere Park attended PAC’s Oct. 16 meeting and advocated for a postponement on the decision.

Mary Catherine Spires said she lives on Windemere Drive and her front window faces the park. Her understanding was that the neighbors had originally reached a consensus that they preferred a different option – Option 1. [.pdf of Option 1] Then in early October, suddenly this new proposal came up. She said she hadn’t seen it until a few days ago. Calling it a last-minute proposal, she requested that PAC delay action for a month so that she and others would have time to understand the impact on their homes and traffic in the area. That’s especially important for neighbors with homes on the perimeter of the park, she’s said, who need time to reflect on this significant change.

From left: Ann McCarren and Catherine Spires, residents who live near Windemere Park, spoke during public commentary and urged commissioners to postpone action on the tennis court project.

Ann McCarren, who also lives on the park’s perimeter, described the process that the neighbors had gone through with Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner. She pointed out that Option 1 had been the preferred proposal, but that a new proposal had emerged at the Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting. Some people at the meeting had supported that new option, she said, but others didn’t say anything. She also urged commissioners to postpone a decision until their November meeting.

Sven Hahr, another Windemere Drive resident whose home is near the park’s southeast corner, also advocated for a postponement. He felt the tennis courts shouldn’t be located in the area where soccer is played. Perhaps the courts could be swapped with the location where the children’s playground is, he suggested. He didn’t think it would take much to do that.

Joseph Dorenbaum told commissioners that his living room, office and a bedroom look onto the park, and it’s very nice now. He and his wife are quite distressed, because they spend a lot of time at home and don’t want to look at a fence. It would feel like they’re living in a prison, he said. Dorenbaum asked that the city provide landscaping to mask the fence. He noted that when his home was built there 30 years ago, the park was for the subdivision. But now, as a city park, it’s used by lots of other people. He requested that the city put up signs indicating that people should park only in certain areas while using Windemere Park.

Ruth Huff said she also lived in the neighborhood and agreed with Dorenbaum about the traffic in the area. Kids run across the street and it’s an accident waiting to happen. The park is important, but she’d like to see the land cleaned up. In a perfect world, the tennis courts would be dug up, the land would be cleaned up, and the courts would be rebuilt at the same location. She acknowledged that it’s not a perfect world, but she hoped at least there could be landscaping around the courts to help with noise and to make it look better.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson wanted to know if a rain garden could be included in the plan, regardless of where the tennis courts are relocated. It’s possible, Kuras said, though a rain garden in the courts’ current location would involve cutting through an existing berm.

Tim Berla asked whether delaying a decision by a month would impact the project. Is there anything that would prevent having additional public meetings? He saw a benefit in having more time, if it meant getting the best possible plan. More public process might be a good thing, he said.

Kuras replied that one more month wouldn’t set the project back, but she wasn’t sure the extra time would help the neighbors reach more of a consensus.

From left: Park commissioners Tim Doyle, Alan Jackson and Bob Galardi.

Berla noted that in her presentation, Kuras had cited a lack of other tennis courts in that part of the city. However, she hadn’t included the courts at Huron High School, which are located in that area.

Kuras indicated that she didn’t feel comfortable telling people to go to a school site. The reason that the staff recommended this option is because they didn’t feel there were any suitable alternatives, she said.

Julie Grand weighed in, saying that PAC had already discussed this issue and had voted at their May 15, 2012 meeting to support the rebuilding of tennis courts at Windemere, based on feedback from neighbors. To her, now it was just a question of where to locate the courts within the park.

In response to a query from Ingrid Ault, Kuras said the proposed location would not interfere with other activities, like the use of the park for soccer. Jackson noted that there’s an unused baseball area that would be affected. That’s right, Kuras said – that former baseball diamond would be removed.

Missy Stults cited the concerns that had been raised during public commentary, and asked whether all the options would include landscaping. Kuras replied that landscaping would be part of any plan. She later explained that the fence would be on three sides, about 10 feet high.

Tim Doyle asked what would happen to the area where the courts are currently located. Kuras said it would likely be “naturalized,” since it’s frequently soggy and would be difficult to mow. An area to the north of the courts is currently naturalized for that reason, she said.

Both Jackson and Grand reported that they had attended the Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting, and both felt that there had been general agreement among the neighbors in support of Option 4 – the one that was being recommended by staff. Jackson said there would likely be some opposition to any plan. Grand noted that this option is the one that seemed to be the furthest away from the sight lines for most residences.

Berla again advocated for postponement until PAC’s November meeting. Grand wondered what the process would be, if they postponed the vote. Smith didn’t think there was the need for another public meeting, but staff could continue to gather and share feedback they receive from the neighbors. The Oct. 8 meeting had been well-attended with about 30 people, he said, and there had been a spirited and productive discussion.

Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio non-voting PAC member who serves on city council, said that if it doesn’t cause a problem for staff, then allowing another month for the neighbors to mull over the proposal “strikes me as a good thing.”

From left: Missy Stults, the newest park advisory commissioner, and PAC chair Julie Grand.

There was some discussion about whether a delay would allow for the two neighborhood associations in the area to take a formal vote of their membership. Kuras pointed out that since it’s a public park, it didn’t seem fair to rely on that kind of vote.

Grand reported that there had been an informal vote of neighbors who attended the Oct. 8 public forum. When asked if the vote had been unanimous, she laughed – it had not. However, she felt there had been a “fair amount of consensus” supporting Option 4. Given the spirited nature of the meeting, she had been surprised by that consensus. The option seemed like something that most people could live with.

Jackson didn’t want to put more staff resources into the decision-making process, and felt there would be some complaints no matter what was decided.

In response to a question from Bob Galardi, Kuras reported that there had been two previous neighborhood meetings – so this was the third PAC meeting that had addressed the situation.

Commissioners then voted on a resolution, put forward by Grand, that recommended moving forward with Option 4.

Outcome: The proposed relocation of Windemere Park tennis courts was recommended for approval by a 6-1 vote, with Tim Berla dissenting. John Lawter was absent and Missy Stults abstained.

Parks Millage Renewal

Ingrid Ault, who was appointed to PAC earlier this year, moved from her seat at the council table to the podium during the first opportunity for public commentary, telling her fellow commissioners that she was speaking to them as a citizen, not as a member of PAC.

Ingrid Ault

Ault said she wanted to update the community about actions related to renewal of the park maintenance & capital improvements millage, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot. She’d been concerned that the renewal would get lost on the “burgeoning” ballot, so she decided to form a campaign – called Friends of the Parks – to support the millage and educate the public about it. [According to records on Washtenaw County’s campaign finance database, the committee was formed on Oct. 1, with Ault listed as treasurer.]

She brought yards signs to the meeting, and encouraged people to take one. She said more information is on the campaign website. Ault asked everyone to vote yes on the renewal and to volunteer with the campaign.

After the meeting adjourned, Ault told commissioners that she’d like them each to either donate at least $50 to the campaign, or raise that amount. She again encouraged them to take yard signs and to volunteer, especially on election day.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo distributed to PAC in June. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities. [More projects are listed on the city's website.]

Commissioners have received updates on the millage renewal at previous meetings, and in June 2012 passed a resolution of support for it. City employees are not allowed to advocate for it, but can provide information. Colin Smith, manager for parks and recreation, told The Chronicle that he’d checked with the city attorney’s office regarding Ault’s presentation to PAC – and they’d advised that she could address the issue as a citizen during public commentary, he said.

Commission Elections

PAC chair Julie Grand apologized to commissioners, noting that elections should have been held in September but she had forgotten to put it on the agenda. Three officers needed to be elected: chair, vice chair, and chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission, was re-elected for another one-year term.

Grand has served as chair since April 2010. Before the vote – which the PAC bylaws require to be conducted by a secret ballot – Tim Doyle asked when her term ends. Grand said she will serve on PAC through 2013. Tim Berla asked if she would be willing to serve another one-year term as chair. She indicated that she would.

The term on PAC for the current vice chair – John Lawter, who was absent from the Oct. 16 meeting – ends on Dec. 31, 2012. He would not be running for re-election as vice chair. Grand encouraged any of the new commissioners who might be interested in eventually chairing PAC to consider first serving as vice chair. Duties aren’t excessive, and many relate to planning and leading meetings if the chair is absent, she said.

Ingrid Ault nominated herself. There were no other nominations for chair and vice chair. Commissioners indicated their votes on pieces of paper, which were passed to parks and recreation manager Colin Smith who tallied them. Both Grand and Ault were elected unanimously.

Grand then nominated Tim Doyle to continue serving as chair of the budget and finance committee. He reported that he might not seek a second term on PAC, but he’d be willing to chair the committee for now. [His current term on PAC runs through May of 2013.] There were no other nominations, and Doyle was elected unanimously on a voice vote.

Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, highlighted several items during his brief report to the commission.

He noted that a public forum was set for the following day to get feedback on possible designs for a new Ann Arbor skatepark. State grant funding for the skatepark had been formally accepted by city council the previous evening, he said, along with grants for other city park projects.

Work on South University Park is almost done. Smith reminded PAC members that the project had been funded with a $50,000 donation from Leslie and Michael Morris. “It’s been well-spent,” he said.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager.

Smith also reported that construction is underway on trails around the raptor enclosures at the Leslie Science & Nature Center. A grand opening of a new raptor enclosure – for the center’s second bald eagle – is planned for Nov. 11.

Tim Doyle asked for an update on the status of the whitewater project in the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. By way of background, at PAC’s September meeting, Smith had reported to commissioners that several letters of objection from different organizations had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. Objections were filed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council. [See Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

On Oct. 16, Smith told commissioners that city staff will be meeting with representatives from the state on Nov. 2 to get a better understanding of the situation, and of potential solutions to concerns that have been raised. He said he’d have more to report at PAC’s November meeting.

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

Absent: John Lawter.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

Windemere Park is a nearly four-acre parcel on the city’s northeast side, north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Over the past few months, city staff has held two public meetings to seek input on options for locating the new courts. The option recommended by PAC – which locates the courts to the east of the current location – was one that a majority of participants at the most recent public meeting had favored, according to staff and commissioners who attended. That meeting took place on Oct. 8. [.jpg of drawing showing proposed location for the new courts]

Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding Windemere Park attended PAC’s Oct. 16 meeting and advocated for a postponement on the decision. They noted that the fourth option – the one being recommended by staff – had not been presented at the Oct. 8 meeting. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, later explained that the fourth option had emerged from a consensus of ideas at the meeting.

Berla, who voted against the PAC resolution, felt there was nothing to lose in giving residents another month to review the proposal. But other commissioners believed that moving ahead was the best approach, and that no option would satisfy all residents – especially people with property facing the park. The resolution also recommended incorporating input from residents regarding landscaping around the courts, which was a concern raised by some of the homeowners.

The cost of the project is estimated at around $100,000. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, expects to solicit bids this winter, with construction to take place in the summer of 2013.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

A letter from representatives of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association, as well as several speakers at the meeting, argued that the park is a focal point for the neighborhood, and that the tennis courts play an important role for the community. They urged commissioners to recommend replacement of the courts, in the same location. [.pdf of Earhart Knolls letter]

The issue of the location of the new tennis courts will be the topic of a summer meeting between parks planning staff and neighbors. The initial inclination of city staff had been to move the location of the courts within the park  to an area with soil better suited for a tennis court base. Chair of PAC, Julie Grand, described the contacts they’d received from neighbors who wanted to see the location remain the same, “some of the most civil and well-researched communication we’ve ever received.”

Cost was a consideration. The resolution approved by PAC stipulates that the additional measures – drainage, installation of a honeycomb geogrid – to stabilize the base for the tennis courts could cost as much as 10-20% more than a standard tennis court.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers of city hall at 301 E. Huron, where PAC meetings are held. A more detailed report will follow: [link]