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]

From left: Bernie Lugauer and Bob Buckler of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor talk with Christopher Taylor, an ex officio member of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

After a presentation on Jan. 28, commissioners recommended that the city apply for a state Dept. of Natural Resources grant to help fund the remainder of the work, which is estimated to cost $500,000.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that although there are about 80 playgrounds in Ann Arbor, none are universally accessible. It’s a “huge shortcoming” for the parks system, he said. The exact location within Gallup Park hasn’t been determined, but the playground would be about 5,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The design and equipment is intended to create environments that can be used by all people, with features like ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people using wheelchairs.

Two Rotary representatives attended the Jan. 28 meeting to help describe the club’s role in the project. Bob Buckler, a Rotary director and co-chair of the group’s centennial committee, told commissioners that in general the Rotary’s primary focus is on supporting children, by funding scholarships, Washtenaw Success By Six and other programs. That’s why the universal access playground is so appealing as a way to celebrate Rotary’s centennial, he said. Buckler indicated that fundraising for this project has already begun. The grand opening is expected to be on Labor Day in 2016.

In other action on Jan. 28, commissioners approved the location for new tennis courts at Windemere Park – a project that’s been in the works for about two years. The location has been somewhat controversial among neighbors, and prompted a review of the previously selected site. The current courts have deteriorated and are in a location where it’s unsuitable to rebuild.

Also on Jan. 28, PAC recommended the purchase of two vans to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades.

The meeting marked a transition of members on PAC. It was the first meeting for David Santacroce, who was appointed by the city council last year to replace Julie Grand. And it was the final meeting for Jen Geer, who has resigned after less than a year on the commission. Paige Morrison was appointed by the council on Feb. 3 to fill the remainder of Geer’s term – through May 19, 2016.

Universal Access Playground

At its Jan. 28 meeting, PAC considered a resolution recommending that the city apply for a state Dept. of Natural Resources grant to help fund a “universal access” playground at Gallup Park.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, gave a special presentation on the universal access playground at Gallup Park, funded in part with a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor to celebrate the club’s centennial anniversary in 2016.

Bob Buckler and Bernie Lugauer of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor.

Smith told commissioners that the city has 80 playgrounds, but none of them have universal access. “It’s really a great shortcoming in the parks system,” he said. Such playgrounds aim to exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and strive to be as inclusive as possible. The design is intended to create environments that can be used by all people.

The design and equipment for this type of playground is more expensive. The playground will include ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people with wheelchairs to use, for example.

Smith then introduced Bob Buckler, a Rotary board director and co-chairman of the club’s centennial committee, along with Bernie Lugauer. Buckler described Rotary as the largest service organization in the world, primarily focused on humanitarian projects. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor is one of the largest clubs, he added – it’s the largest club in Michigan, and the 32nd largest Rotary club in the world, with 350 members. [There are several Rotary clubs in this area. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor holds its weekly meetings at the Michigan Union.]

Buckler told commissioners that the club’s focus in this community is the children of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County. Support includes scholarships to Washtenaw Community College, and funding for Washtenaw Success By Six and other programs.

In 2016, the Ann Arbor club will be 100 years old, Buckler said, and they’ve been trying to figure out an appropriate gift back to the community on this occasion. They evaluated many options, he said. Describing their relationship with Colin Smith as a “godsend,” Buckler said they came up with a project that will be great for the community and all children, and something that Rotary members will be incredibly proud of. The club is committing $250,000 and has already started fundraising for it, he said. He hoped commissioners would endorse it and provide input to make it the best playground possible.

Smith continued his presentation, describing the values that Rotary and the city’s parks and recreation system share: community service and the goal of enhancing quality of life.

He noted that an ADA playground complies with minimum accessibility standards as established by the Americans with Disabilities Act – that is, it meets the letter of the law. But universal access playgrounds go further, with the goal of being usable by all people. It’s one of the elements highlighted in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, he noted.

Design elements include a playground surface that’s level with the entire perimeter of the playground, so that people can access the playground easily. The surface is made out of material that’s uniform, and that’s easy for someone with a wheelchair or a walker to use. Ramps are used to provide access to different levels of the play structures. Equipment is designed to be used for multiple purposes, including platforms to help transfer children from wheelchairs, for example. Paths and bridges are wide enough to accommodate a child in a wheelchair and a caregiver. Interactive play elements are at ground level, using high-contrasting colors for people with poor eyesight.

One aspect of this kind of playground that’s often overlooked, Smith said, is that it doesn’t just provide access to children, but can also be used by parents who are in a wheelchair or have other accessibility needs.

It was the last meeting for Jen Geer, who resigned after less than a year through her three-year term.

The parks staff is recommending that the playground be located at Gallup Park because it’s a popular regional park, attracting people from beyond Ann Arbor. “Having a playground like this there paints Ann Arbor in a very good light,” Smith said. In addition, an existing playground by the children’s pond isn’t in good shape, he noted, and it needs to be replaced. That replacement is already included as a potential project in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). The location of the new playground within the park, which would be about twice the size of the existing one, is yet to be determined.

The total cost of the 5,000-square-foot playground is estimated at $500,000 – including the design, construction, equipment and landscaping. “It’s not an inexpensive project, by any stretch of the imagination,” Smith said.

In addition to the Rotary funding, the city would contribute $100,000 to the project. It’s hoped that some of the remaining $150,000 funding would be provided by a grant from the state’s Dept. of Natural Resources grants management program. The project would be attractive for a grant because it would provide universal access in a heavily used park. Smith noted that PAC would be voting on a recommendation to apply for a grant later in the meeting. Although no amount has yet been specified, Smith said it’s likely that the grant application will be for the balance of the project – $150,000.

Outlining the potential timeline, Smith noted that the deadline for the current grant cycle is April 1, 2014. This year would be spent on public input, design and approval, with city council approval of a construction contract targeted for 2015, and groundbreaking in the spring of 2016. The new playground is anticipated to be open by Labor Day of 2016.

Smith also described several ways that the city could recognize the Rotary club for its contribution, including the possibility of naming the playground, and installing plaques to indicate how the playground was funded.

Universal Access Playground: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson suggested that the playground structure itself could perhaps be designed to incorporate the word “Rotary” into it. He observed that this type of playground might lead to more demand for ADA parking nearby, and he’d be supportive of that. It’s something to be sensitive to as the project moves forward, he said.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson, who also serves on the board of the Leslie Science & Nature Center.

Jackson also wanted to be prepared to maintain the playground for use all year, even during the winter months. Colin Smith reported that the city is hiring a playground safety inspector. He said it’s not unusual to see children using playgrounds in the winter.

Bob Galardi wondered who’d be in control of this project, after all of the funding is in place. Smith replied that this project is analogous to the Ann Arbor skatepark that’s now under construction at Veterans Memorial Park. It’s located in a city park and becomes city property, even though much of the funding comes from various non-city sources. The city will oversee the public engagement, design and construction.

Karen Levin asked about other playgrounds at Gallup Park. There is another playground located at the canoe/kayak livery, Smith said, on the opposite end of the park.

Several commissioners thanked the Rotary for helping the city with this project.

Regarding PAC’s resolution on the grant application, Smith noted that the process works like this: Staff will come to PAC to ask for a recommendation to submit the application, then that recommendation is forwarded to the city council for approval.

Alan Jackson noted that the resolution is specific to the DNR grant. He suggested amending it to recommend support for applying for other funding in general. Galardi wondered if it was important to identify a specific source. Smith indicated that it would be preferable to have separate resolutions for each grant application.

Smith noted that the application for a grant can have implications on public policy – that’s why grants require council approval. As a hypothetical – and he stressed that this was indeed a hypothetical case – if city staff applied for a grant to remove the Argo Dam and the grant were awarded, that would have policy implications that are the purview of the city council.

Galardi agreed, saying the city doesn’t want “grants gone wild.” He moved the resolution recommending that the city apply for the DNR grant.

Outcome: The recommendation to apply for the DNR grant to help fund a universal access playground passed unanimously.

Windemere Park Tennis Courts

Commissioners were asked to approve a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. 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.

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 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.

Windemere Park Tennis Courts: Public Commentary

Rita Benn reminded commissioners that she had spoken to PAC last year, when they made the decision to hold a third public meeting regarding the location of tennis courts at Windemere Park. [The PAC meeting that Benn mentioned took place on Nov. 19, 2013.]

Rita Benn, a resident who lives near Windemere Park, talks with Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager.

Benn said that several city councilmembers, PAC members and community members attended the public meeting on Jan. 15, 2014 at the Gallup Park meeting room. She praised Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, for maintaining calm and presenting the information.

After hearing all the information, Benn still supported Option 4, which was the compromise made at the previous public meeting – on Oct. 8, 2012. A major contention had been that children would be playing in a different direction, she said – north/south, instead of east/west. There were no safety issues, however, she noted, and she hoped that the commission would recommend Option 4.

Benn also referred to Option 1A, which was introduced at the Jan. 15, 2014 public forum. It would move the location of the tennis courts further away from her property, but it wouldn’t be as aesthetically pleasing as Option 4, she said.

Regardless of the option that PAC recommends, Benn said, she hoped they would include a recommendation for landscaping around the tennis courts. It would also be good to have landscaping for the site of the current tennis courts, she added, so that the area won’t be an eyesore after those courts are removed.

Ed Weiss of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association and Jeff Alson, a member of the Glacier Highlands Homeowners Association, had previously addressed PAC during the Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, in support of Option 1. They also attended the Jan. 28 meeting but did not address the commission during public commentary. City councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who also had advocated for Option 1 on Nov. 19, attended the Jan. 28 meeting but did not speak formally to commissioners.

Windemere Park Tennis Courts: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, gave a report about the Jan. 15 public forum that was held on this issue. At that forum, Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, had reviewed the four options that had been considered, as well as an overview of the project’s history. About 25 community members attended, Krapohl said, as well as himself, Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson from PAC. Attending from city council were Christopher Taylor, who serves as one of two ex officio members of PAC, and both Ward 2 council representatives – Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm. The park is located in Ward 2.

From left: Jeff Alson of the Glacier Highlands Homeowners Association and Ed Weiss of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association. Sitting behind them is city councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Krapohl said the group had a good discussion about the pros and cons of all four options. [.pdf of options] Options 2 and 3 weren’t seen as desirable, he said. Option 1 was modified during the forum to shift the location slightly to the northeast, and move the entrance into the courts from the west to the east side. [That new location was labeled Option 1A.] The project would include “enhanced landscaping,” he said, to provide more cover between the courts and nearby houses.

Alan Jackson noted that Option 1A had been introduced at the Jan. 15 forum for the first time – and that kind of last-minute option had been a problem at the previous public meetings. He hoped there had been enough time for Option 1A to be reviewed by the community.

The resolution considered by PAC included a statement that this project should be no more than 10-20% above normal reconstruction costs. Responding to a query from Bob Galardi, Smith noted that the commission’s meeting packet included a lot of information about soil borings and other tests related to the different site options. All of the potential sites are suitable for tennis courts, he said, so it’s expected that the construction bids would be within normal reconstruction costs. However, until the city actually receives the bids, he added, it’s not possible to say for sure. Parks planner Amy Kuras noted that the cost will be somewhat higher than normal, because of plans to include storm drains.

Ingrid Ault said the Jan. 15 public forum included discussion of the orientation of the tennis courts. The orientation needs to be north/south, so that the players aren’t looking into the sun. There was also discussion of how the soccer fields in Windemere Park are oriented from east to west, she said. Jackson added that the discussion also touched on how to keep the largest possible contiguous piece of property available for other uses, like baseball, soccer and Frisbee.

Ault reported that the owner of the home located closest to the tennis courts in Option 1A did not attend the Jan. 15 public forum.

Ingrid Ault and Graydon Krapohl, chair and vice chair of PAC.

Regarding the site where the current tennis courts will be removed, Krapohl noted that it’s in a location that was previously a pond, so it will take a few years to seed. Kuras added that she’s looking at doing some soil stabilization at the old site, as well as regrading the site and putting in drain tile.

Smith summarized results from a survey that the city conducted about this project, using Ann Arbor Open City Hall. [.pdf of survey responses] Of the 95 respondents, 68 (about 70%) preferred Option 1. Ault noted that Option 1A wasn’t included in the survey, because the survey occurred prior to the Jan. 15 forum when that option was presented as an alternative.

Jackson said the main difference between Option 1 and Option 1A is the entrance. He also thought that 1A offered better screening for the neighbors, and mitigates some of the problems for nearby homes. It also has the merit of preserving a large portion of the park for other uses, he said.

Ault noted that the Jan. 15 public forum discussion included talk about windscreens. Smith replied that there are different views about such screens. The only tennis courts in the city’s parks system that use windscreens are at Veterans Memorial Park. Players tend to like them, he said, but screens are “less preferable” for people who live nearby, because of the aesthetics.

Ault told commissioners that part of this discussion should include how the park is used overall, because the objection they’d heard about Option 4 was that it put the courts in the middle of a large field, which would disrupt soccer, baseball, pick-up football and other play. Krapohl described it as a community park, where kids have a safe place to play.

Galardi noted that Option 1A seemed to be the best solution. “We know that there’s a demand for tennis – otherwise, people wouldn’t be clamoring to have this fixed,” he said. There aren’t a lot of tennis courts in that part of town, he added.

Galardi then formally proposed selecting Option 1A for the new tennis courts.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve Option 1A for new tennis courts at Windemere Park. David Santacroce abstained.

Jackson asked staff to inform PAC if there’s any delay in implementing this project.

Van Purchase

Commissioners were asked to recommend purchasing two 15-seat GMC Savana passenger vans from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County for a total of $50,212.

Bob Galardi of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. Between 2012 and 2013, the city saw a 22% increase in rentals. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. “There were some very long waits last year,” Smith said, and it’s something that the parks and recreation staff hope to improve.

They don’t plan to increase the number of canoes or kayaks, he added. Rather, it’s to increase the service for the current capacity, and to improve day-to-day operations.

One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. “It served the city well, but it is now unwell,” Smith quipped. The other van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

The new vans will be purchased out of the FY 2014 parks and recreation services general fund budget, following operational savings that have freed up funds for this purchase. According to parks staff, the purchase follows guidelines of the city’s “green fleet policy” to reduce the amount of fuel used and to pay a premium for “greener” vehicles.

Alan Jackson noted that there have been complaints about parking in the Argo Park area, and he hoped that the additional van would help with that. Smith reported that there will be another public meeting regarding the shortage of parking in that area. He noted that the increased number of vans isn’t intended to address that issue, although it might have a slight beneficial impact. “It’s not a cure, by any means,” Smith said.

Outcome: PAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the purchase. The item will require approval by the city council.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Jan. 28 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that the season’s extreme cold weather had resulted in the temporary closing of the Buhr Park outdoor ice arena. [It was subsequently re-opened.] He’d been concerned about the well-being of staff and users when temperatures are so low. Some indoor swimming lessons had also been canceled, in line with cancellations by the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

He highlighted upcoming events in February, including the start of registration for summer day camps on Feb. 1, and “Dive-in Movie” at Mack indoor pool on Feb. 1 – a showing of “Despicable Me 2.”

Smith also noted that the effort to select public art for Argo Cascades has been “restarted.” Julie Grand had served as the PAC representative on that selection committee, but her term ended last year.

Regarding the city’s grant application last year to the state Dept. of Natural Resources for 721 N. Main, Smith reported that the city was not awarded that grant. He wasn’t sure what next steps would be taken regarding funding for that site.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Karen Levin reported on the work of the dog park subcommittee, saying that the group is developing a formal document that will include a mission statement, goals, and history, as well as procedures for setting up new dog parks and maintaining existing ones. Subcommittee members are contacting other cities and gathering as much information as possible, she said. The next subcommittee meeting was set for Feb. 6.

Communications & Commentary: Transitions

Ingrid Ault, the chair of PAC, noted that there are some transition of membership on the commission. A new commissioner, David Santacroce, was attending his first meeting on Jan. 28 after being appointed by the city council on Nov. 7, 2013 to replace Julie Grand. He had not attended PAC’s Nov. 19 meeting, and the commission’s December meeting was canceled.

David Santacroce, the newest member of PAC. In the background is commissioner Karen Levin.

Santacroce is a law professor at the University of Michigan, and he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year on a report with recommendations for the corridor.

Ault also noted that it would be the last meeting for Jen Geer, who was resigning from PAC. Ault thanked Geer for her service. Geer had been appointed to the commission on May 20, 2013. At the council’s Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, Paige Morrison was appointed to fill the remainder of Geer’s term – through May 19, 2016.

Finally, Ault reported that a new representative from the Ann Arbor Rec & Ed’s recreation advisory commission still hasn’t been appointed. The previous long-time RAC representative, Tim Berla, was not reappointed last fall. That appointment is made by RAC.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, David Santacroce, Jen Geer, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Missy Stults.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2014 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.

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]

Argo Cascades on Memorial Day, May 28, 2012. (Photos by the writer.)

For Windemere Park, located in the Glacier neighborhood on the city’s east side, the commission passed a resolution supporting the reconstruction of two tennis courts there, allowing for costs as much as 15-20% greater than a site with better soil conditions. The exact location where the courts will be reconstructed within the park will be based on the outcome of a public meeting with neighbors.

The commission also recommended approval of a contract to undertake $39,575 of improvements to South University Park, using part of a $50,000 gift from Leslie and Michael Morris – donated to the city for the express purpose of renovations to that park.

Commissioners heard a number of updates, including a report on the city’s canoe liveries – the largest in Michigan, with nearly 500 boats. A highlight of the livery report was a status update on the Argo Cascades, a bypass that’s been constructed around the Argo Dam. The nine pools and drops have proven to be somewhat sportier than is suitable for complete novice paddlers, but city staff are working on a range of strategies to ensure safety and enjoyment.

The commission heard a briefing on the public art commission’s annual plan, which includes artwork in some local parks. They also got an update from the Cobblestone Farm Association, and were introduced to the new market manager, Sarah Benoit.

Among the highlights of parks and recreation manager Colin Smith’s report to the commission was the announcement that the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP) would change city departments. In the next month or so, NAP will begin reporting to the community services area instead of the public services area, as part of the city’s move to consolidate volunteer efforts.

The commission also said farewell to Sam Offen, who was term-limited for his service on PAC.

Windemere Tennis Courts

Commissioners considered a resolution recommending that the city pursue reconstruction of two tennis courts at Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel on the city’s northeast side, north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. PAC had received a staff update on deteriorating conditions there at the commission’s April 17, 2012 meeting.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Public Commentary

Edward Weise, co-president of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association, led off public commentary by thanking parks and recreation manager Colin Smith and park planner Amy Kuras for their courteous and prompt response to the association’s concerns. He also thanked Ward 2 city council representatives. Rounding out those whom Weise thanked were Rod Sorge of the Earhart Village Homes Association, and Milt Baker of the Friends of Narrow Gauge Woods.

On Memorial Day, May 28, 2012, the tennis court in Windemere Park that still has a net was in use.

Weise told commissioners that the board of Earhart Knolls had sent a packet of information, which he hoped had been included in their information for the meeting. Weise identified two issues he wanted to address. First, he noted that the parks staff had determined the tennis courts should be replaced, and he hoped that PAC would agree with the staff recommendation for replacement. The current courts have served for 25 years, so the new courts should last at least that long, he said.

The second issue identified by Weise was the parks staff’s recommendation to move the courts to the east side of the park. He felt that before a recommendation on location is made, a neighborhood meeting should be held. The neighbors have already discussed the issue amongst themselves, he said. He hoped that PAC will look favorably on reconstruction of the courts, and let the neighbors have a meeting to hash out the location. He stressed that the neighbors are not unconscious of cost. [One of the issues identified by the parks staff is that reconstruction in the same location might require a more expensive approach to stabilizing the base, due to poor soil conditions there.]

Chuck Blackmer, also co-president of Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association, lives next to the park on the east side, he told commissioners. He said he’d heard there were soil borings taken, but he hadn’t seen the soil boring logs or reports. It had been verbally conveyed, he said, that there’s perched water. In his experience, that means water above the surface. [It appears that perched water can also refer to a layer of water beneath the surface, but above the groundwater level.] He had watched soil borings from his window being made on the east side of the park.

So Blackmer questioned the soil borings and encouraged PAC to look deeper into the recommendations. It was his understanding, he said, that staff wants to relocate the tennis courts somewhere east of where they are now. Residents have noted that the playground equipment and the tennis courts are used by different people in the same group [which would be difficult if the courts were relocated away from the equipment.] In their current location, he said, there are no residential lots next to the courts. That’s something that also could be taken into consideration, he said.

Jeff Alson reminded the commission that he spoken a month ago on the topic. He noted that there’s high demand for tennis playing at the park – even on Mother’s Day there were people out playing. [On the morning of Memorial Day, May 28, The Chronicle also observed a tennis lesson in progress at the Windemere courts.] He noted there aren’t many courts on the east side of town. He also felt there are some small improvements that could be added to the courts – like a windscreen and a practice backboard. He supported the plan to get neighborhood input. As a tennis player, he just wanted to see top-quality courts, but that should be a decision that comes out of the meeting between the parks staff and the neighborhood, he said.

Windemere Park tennis courts in relation to the rest of the park. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Scott Campbell told the commission he’d been on the board of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association since 2000. He also teaches urban planning at the University of Michigan, he said. But he allowed that he did not know soil science. He could recall two cycles of repairs of the courts, he said. The first repairs, undertaken in 2000, seemed to work fine and give the courts new life. But in 2009 the attempted repairs went very slow and were inadequate in setup. Back then, he’d tried contacting people in the parks department and city planning office and got no reply, he reported. He suggested that the problem could be not with the choice of the site, but with the inadequacy of the 2009 repair.

Speaking to the issue of idea of moving the tennis court to the east side of Windemere Park, he noted that the park’s layout is not a rectangle. There’s a nice clustering of activities in the narrow, western part of the park, which works well for the smaller-scale functions – playing on the playground equipment and playing tennis. On the eastern side of the park, which is larger, the space works for well as open space for soccer and other impromptu sports. Placing the tennis courts in that open space on the eastern side of the park would substantially disrupt the best landscape feature of the park, he contended. He hoped the courts would be kept where they are and renovated on site. He figured that would be cheaper than building from scratch.

Rod Sorge, with the Earhart Village Homes Association, supported the position of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association – that the tennis courts should be replaced. He allowed that the duty to maintain, repair and replace facilities is difficult and not as much fun as building new things. But he hoped that the commission would look favorably on replacing the court. He concluded by saying that he was impressed with the communication he’d received from parks and recreation manager Colin Smith and Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm, so he appreciated their efforts.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Staff Presentation

Parks planner Amy Kuras reviewed the location of Windemere Park and the number of courts and their locations throughout the city. She then reviewed the history of the Windemere Park tennis courts:

• 1986: Windemere tennis courts constructed
• 2007: Windemere tennis courts color coated
• 2009: Crack repairs attempted; failed due to poor soils
• 2009: New net posts installed; but failed (freeze-thaw heave)
• 2011: Soil boring showed saturated organic soils and fill in current location
• 2012: Second soil borings, with construction recommendation

Kuras said she did not pretend to be a soil scientist or an engineer. The recommendation she’d received from a city engineer for reconstructing the courts on the existing site was to remove the poor soil to a depth of three feet – which had doubled the price of construction. A different option, she said would be to use a geo-grid honeycomb layer, which would provide additional stability. That had been an option suggested for the eastern location in the park, which has better soils than the existing location – but the soils there are not optimal, either.

Kuras said she called that engineer and had a nice long conversation about whether the geo-grid option would work for the worst soils in the park – that is, where the tennis courts are currently located. The engineer had indicated the geo-grid would probably still work, but some additional drainage would be needed. The biggest issue, Kuras said, would be the need to go down 9-10 feet for installation of the net posts. Normally it’d be 42 inches to avoid the risk of frost heave in this part of the country.

Kuras laid out the currently-contemplated contrasting costs for replacement of both courts. The normal soil condition cost estimates are based on actual costs incurred for tennis court reconstruction at West Park and Veterans Memorial Park.

Same Location: If Soils Were Normal
Price    Item
$13,000  Demolition of existing courts
 26,867  Gravel base and asphalt
  3,000  Netposts
 14,667  Color coating
  2,450  Geotextile
 20,000  Fencing
 12,000  General conditions
===========================
$91,984

Additional Costs Given the Poor Soils*
Price    Item
$ 3,000  Restoration of original area
  3,000  Additional gravel base
  4,500  Geogrid for base stabilization
  2,500  Perforated drain
  2,000  Stormwater connection or rain garden
===========================
$15,000  Subtotal

*Does not include some additional drainage and
costs associated with extra-deep placement of
net posts.

-

Windemere Tennis Courts: Deliberations

Tim Berla noted that the neighbors want the courts reconstructed, and they seem to want them reconstructed in the same location. He asked Kuras what her confidence level is that the expensive option would last for 10 years, say, without requiring maintenance. He said he didn’t want to do a big piece of maintenance every 3-4 years. He wanted to know if Kuras was confident or if it would be “an experiment.”

Kuras indicated that the current approach she’s taking with older tennis courts in the city is to take out the existing base to establish a new foundation – that approach, she said, tends to yield about 20-25 years of life, as long as the subsurface conditions stay the same. If the subsurface conditions change, then the lifespan can be reduced, she said, which is what happened at Windemere.

Responding to a question from parks and recreation manager Colin Smith, Kuras explained that for the first soil borings, they’d simply requested the log – and from that you can see, for example, that at a depth of two feet, there’s brown silty medium sand. For the second soil boring, she’d told the company that she wanted to build a tennis court and asked: What do I need to do to ensure that it’ll last for 25 years? The company had given the recommendation to increase the profile of stone in the base and to put in drainage, and use a geo-grid system. “Water is the biggest enemy,” Kuras said.

Sam Offen asked if the company recommending the geo-grid had offered a guarantee that it would work in the current location. Kuras noted that the company would never give a guarantee, but the engineer she’d spoken with kept saying, “It should work.” Kuras felt it might be worth having a third company interpret the soil borings to confirm the opinion.

David Barrett asked for some additional clarification of how the geo-grid system would work. Kuras noted that compared to a site that had normal soil, the recommendation would be to excavate two inches deeper – eight inches instead of six – and to use geo-fabric, a geo-grid and under-drains. Barrett wanted an estimate of the cost of unsuccessful repairs over the years – $20,000? Not nearly that much, Kuras told him. It had not been contracted out, so it would be staff time and materials only.

Colin Smith summarized the city’s position by saying that the staff wants to see the tennis courts at Windemere replaced. As far as the location goes, Smith said staff would work on that with the community. He wanted to make sure the place selected is best for the investment of the city’s money. He expressed no doubts about the need for the tennis courts as an amenity. Compared to the initial construction estimates based on the three-foot excavation of soils, the 15% additional money the city might be looking at is “not outrageous.”

Asked by Berla what Kuras thought of the geo-grid strategy at the current location, Kuras said she still thinks it’d be better to move a location with better soils. But she said the point of holding public meetings is not to say: Here’s what we’re doing! The reason for a public meeting is to get public input, she said. Berla felt like based on what he’d heard, he thought it would be best to replace the courts where they were currently located.

PAC chair Julie Grand then offered the text of a resolution expressing support for reconstruction and additional public input. She prefaced that by saying in her long history on PAC, the feedback PAC had received on the Windemere tennis courts had been the “most civil and well-researched communication we’ve ever received.”

The resolution expressed PAC support for the replacement of the Windemere Park tennis parks and called for additional input to be solicited through public meetings. The resolution stipulated that the reconstruction costs not be more than 10-20% greater than the cost of replacing tennis courts on normal soil.

Barrett stressed that it’s something that PAC supports, but he just doesn’t want to put the court on a “poltergeist.”

Kuras indicated that some time would be required to take another couple of soil borings, and based on the time it would take to properly notice another public meeting, she did not anticipate reconstruction of the tennis courts this summer. That would have to wait until the spring, she said.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to support reconstruction of the Windemere Park tennis courts.

Canoe Liveries

Cheryl Saam, who manages the city’s canoe liveries at Argo and Gallup parks, gave the commissioners an overview of operations, highlighting the new bypass around Argo Dam, which is called Argo Cascades. It’s a series of pools, with drops between the pools. The Cascades includes nine such drops and pools.

Canoe Liveries: Argo Cascades

One of the benefits to the bypass is meant to be that canoeists and other paddlers who launch from the Argo livery, can paddle down the Huron River to Gallup Park without having to portage. The former headrace, which occupied essentially the same channel as the cascades, ended near Swift and Broadway, and people had to carry their boats from the headrace down to the river. The new bypass offers a navigable channel, under a bridge, from the bypass to the river.

Argo Cascades on Memorial Day, May 28, 2012.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners that parks staff had worked with TSP Environmental, the construction company, through the winter as the bypass construction was taking place, to test out the features. There was a “soft opening” on Saturday, May 5. On that day, there was too much water flow and the drops between pools were harder than staff expected, he said. They reduced the water flow, and on Sunday it was significantly better.

Smith told commissioners that he and parks and recreation deputy manager Jeff Straw, along with other staff, were on site that Sunday to observe. They’d met at the end of that week with TSP. Smith reported that TSP wants to do what it can to make the site as novice-friendly as possible. A lot is possible with computer modeling and design, Smith said, but ultimately it’s not possible to evaluate the features until they are in place. He said that staff who’d been involved in preliminary testing had tried to pretend to be novices, but at heart they were not novices. TSP will be back in touch with suggestions for any changes they might be able to undertake.

Canoe Liveries: Basic Operations

The discussion of Argo Cascades came in the context of Saam’s general overview of all the city’s canoe livery operations. She circled back to the issue of the cascades in the context of the types of boats in the city’s fleet that are best-suited for navigating the drops and pools.

First, Saam reviewed the basics of the parks canoe liveries. The Argo livery is 3.7 miles upstream from Gallup. Most river trips are from Argo down to Gallup right through the city of Ann Arbor, she said. There are also drop-offs at Barton, Delhi and Dexter, she said, for trips originating at those locations.

Saam described the range of activities at the Gallup livery, which include meeting room rentals and a coffee shop with Zingerman’s products. The Gallup livery runs a river camp summer program with 250 campers – for 1st through 5th graders. There’s also a pre-school program. The livery holds a boat auction to sell old boats. The city has received a grant from the state of Michigan for monthly river cleanup days. Out of the Gallup livery, the city also runs moonlight paddle, and trick-or-treating on the river.

Saam highlighted Huron River Day being held on July 15, which includes a triathlon this year. Participants will bicycle to Argo from Gallup, run around Argo Pond, and boat back to Gallup for the final leg.

Saam described Gallup and Argo as essentially two sites of the same livery. Argo has four vans with trailers, while Gallup has two vans. There’s more boat storage at Argo, she said, because of the greater number of trips that originate there. Argo has a relatively new summer camp that is growing each year, she said. It’s for kids in 6th, 7th and 8th grade. Last year, 96 kids participated, which is the maximum (12 kids each week).

The most popular river trip, Saam said, is Argo-to-Gallup – which is typically about a 1.5-hour trip. It costs $18 for a single kayak and $22 for a double. The Barton-to-Gallup stretch has fewer trips, but Saam expected that would increase, because of the elimination of the portage around Argo Dam.

Combined, the Argo and Gallup liveries count as the largest livery in the state of Michigan, she said. The two liveries have 38 staff and 492 boats: 315 kayaks, 155 canoes, 15 paddleboats, 5 rowboats, 2 stand-up paddleboats (SUP), 6 rafts and 50 inner-tubes. In the last fiscal year, 53,210 people visited the liveries, which generated revenue of $473,015 against expenses of $368,436, for net of $104,579.

Saam described the Argo-to-Gallup trip as a beautiful scenic urban river. People are astounded at how gorgeous it is, she said, and they come from all over southeast Michigan and northern Ohio.

Saam noted that the number of kayaks in the fleet is huge – 10 years ago when she started, there were zero. The new equipment, she said, can be purchased with the park maintenance and capital improvements millage. When new equipment is purchased, she said, some of the old equipment is sold through an auction.

Canoe Liveries: Cascades Again

About the Argo Cascades, Saam reported that construction of the bridges is complete and the pathway along the divider between the dam bypass and the river is now paved. Concrete sidewalks have been installed around the Argo livery. The challenge, she said, is deciding the boats and the skill level that is appropriate for customers.

Canoes are difficult for beginners to navigate through the drops, she said. Water comes up over the edge. Kayaks have an easier time of it. The sit-on-top kayaks are the best, because they have scupper holes, which allow any water to drain if it sloshes into the boat. The rafts fit five adults comfortably, she said, and would be a good choice for the cascades. Tubes haven’t been rented to the public yet, but the livery will try them as a soft opening at $10 for 2 hours. She felt that people would use them like a sled run – floating down the cascades and getting out and walking back to the top of the cascades for as many runs as they could fit into two hours. She figured the tubes would be popular.

Novice canoeists can put in at the base of the cascades. Park staff pull canoes from a pile and drag them down the incline.

Saam stressed that in terms of risk management, the briefing given to prospective paddlers is important. Before allowing people to navigate the cascades, the staff is imposing requirements that include prior experience paddling, being a capable swimmer, and the ability to right a capsized boat. For people who are nervous, they can watch a DVD, she said. Livery staff are working with Community Television Network to produce a video. Subsequent deliberations by commissioners drew out the fact that the additional safety precautions are focused on the orientation to the river. Smith noted that a waiver that boat renters must sign has been reviewed by the city attorney’s staff.

Those who don’t want to navigate the cascades can still do a “pond paddle” or do the river trip from Argo to Gallup by launching at the bottom of the cascades. Saam described how a pile of canoes had been stacked at the bottom of the cascades and staff were putting people in at that point. Staff who put in canoes at the bottom of the cascades will keep an eye on the cascades, she said. They are still trying to figure out the best boats and best requirements.

Saam described to commissioners that the city has rented a business parking lot just north of the livery to accommodate the additional demand at Argo livery.

Canoe Liveries: Commissioner Discussion

David Barrett ask about the possibility of people swimming in the pools of the cascades – especially as the weather gets warmer. Colin Smith noted that there’s a park rule against swimming in the river using parkland as a bank. And given the level of boating activity in the cascades, he said, if the intent was to go for a relaxing dip, it wouldn’t be all that relaxing.

A pile of canoes ready at the base of Argo Cascades for use by novice paddlers.

Sam Offen asked how deep the pools are. Cheryl Saam explained that the intended depth was three feet, but she allowed that there are some deeper holes.

Barrett asked about the stand-up paddle boats: If someone took a tumble, is that an issue? Saam explained that they’re intended for pond paddles, not for river trips. She said the city does not currently own any helmets to rent out. She also pointed out that the stand-up paddle boats can be converted to kayaks.

Christopher Taylor followed up on Smith’s description of TSP Environmental possibly making further modifications to the drops based on the city’s feedback. Taylor wanted to know if TSP had indicated cost. Smith told Taylor that the city had provided feedback and that TSP said they’d do more modeling. TSP didn’t know what specifically they could do, but their intent is to do the best they can within the existing site. Taylor asked what was meant by the existing “site” – which Smith characterized as the height of the water at the top and the bottom of the cascades.

City of Ann Arbor parks and recreation manager Colin Smith describes how the site of the Argo Cascades is constrained by the height of the water at the upstream end and the height of the water at the downstream end.

John Lawter expressed his hope that any modifications – ones that make things easier for novices – don’t go so far that it’s made “too lame” and too easy. Smith suggested that commissioners need to bear in mind that the goal is to make the cascades as novice-friendly as possible. And that’s what the staff will work toward. Given that Argo-to-Gallup is the most popular trip the city offers, it’s hoped that everyone can be launched from the livery, without needing to launch people from the base of the cascades. Responding to the idea that the drops that are modified too much wouldn’t be very much fun for those with more experience, Smith indicated that those with more experience will perhaps be more creative and do what they want with the drops.

Lawter asked for an update on the whitewater features that are supposed to be installed in the Huron River itself by DTE, coordinated with the environmental cleanup of the MichCon site, which is across the river from the Argo Cascades. DTE agreed to pay for the cost of the whitewater features in the river. They’ll be placed somewhat upstream from the base of the cascades as the bypass feeds into the river. The idea is that experienced paddlers who want to navigate the whitewater on the river will paddle through the cascades, then paddle a bit upstream, then navigate the whitewater as many times as they like.

Argo Cascades on Memorial Day, May 28, 2012.

Smith told Lawter that the permit for the whitewater was submitted to the state of Michigan and initial feedback had been received. The state has some concerns about fish passage, Smith said, and the design will have to be modified to accommodate some of the state’s feedback. Returning to Lawter’s concern that the drops might become too “lame,” Smith pointed out that the future whitewater features in the river will be a place more experienced paddlers can go.

Offen wanted to know if TSP was surprised by the challenging navigation of the drops. Smith said that everyone was a little bit surprised, because they’d all taken trial runs. Smith clarified that TSP Environmental was the construction company; it was Gary Lacy who did the design.

Smith offered much praise for Saam’s work over the last 10 years with the city’s canoe liveries. Looking back to where the liveries were before Saam started, Smith characterized it as “night and day.”

South University Park

The commission considered a resolution recommending approval of a $39,575 contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. for improvements to South University Park. The project is funded by a $50,000 donation from Leslie and Michael Morris. News of their gift had been announced nearly a year ago, at PAC’s June 21, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, Leslie Morris – a former Ward 2 city councilmember – had explained how the couple had played a role decades ago in creating the park at South University Avenue and Walnut. The dynamics of the neighborhood have changed, and the park is in need of an overhaul to serve the needs of current residents.

Terra-Firma, based in Ypsilanti Township, was the lowest of 10 bids received for the work. The budget includes a 10% construction contingency of $3,958 for a total project budget of $43,533. According to a staff memo, the work includes removing trees and shrubs that are overgrown and invasive; replacing the existing basketball court, which is in poor shape and undersized; removing the bench and kiosk; and installing three new benches located on the park’s interior along a new concrete walk that bisects the park.

A picnic table, native flowering trees and shrubs will be added to the site. Because a large play area is located in the nearby Angell Elementary School, it’s felt that a play area in the park isn’t needed.

At the May 15 PAC meeting, city park planner Amy Kuras described the park as having deteriorated. She had held a public meeting to discuss the improvements back in January, she said. Several former neighbors attended, as well as people who live there now, she reported. She noted that one of the “strange features” of the park are some berms, apparently built to get rid of soil.

Kuras noted that there’s a bus stop near the park, and people cut diagonally across the park to reach it. People also cut across the park diagonally for other reasons. That’s why a new path will be added. People at the meeting liked the idea of keeping the basketball court, but wanted to improve it. Kuras said there will be an engraved boulder to recognize the Morris couple’s contribution.

Sam Offen wanted to know if the park is used actively for things like Frisbee. Kuras said she had not seen that, but people at the neighborhood meeting reported that the basketball court is used. Kuras reported that the references for the contractor said Terra-Firma was fabulous. Asked about the disparity between high and low bids (around twice as expensive), Kuras felt that sometimes a contractor will throw out some numbers without doing a careful cost analysis, perhaps hoping they will be the only bidder. Kuras said the winning bid was somewhat lower than she had estimated, and that it was good that the donation will cover all of the work.

Julie Grand asked about the balance of the donation. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith explained that it would stay in a special donation fund. Even if the entire amount isn’t used, it’s good to have some leftover – in case, for example, a bench needs to be replaced. The money is earmarked specifically for that location, Smith said.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the resolution recommending approval of a $39,575 contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. for improvements to South University Park.

Sustainability Goals

Park advisory commissioners considered a recommendation that the city council move ahead to incorporate 16 sustainability goals into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of sustainability goals]

PAC is one of several Ann Arbor advisory groups that have been working with city staff to develop a focused set of sustainability goals, drawing from more than 200 existing goals in city planning documents. The project began more than a year ago, after the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project.

The grant funded the job of a sustainability associate, a position held by Jamie Kidwell, who’s been the point person for this effort. Originally the effort involved four advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. More recently, the city’s housing commission and housing and human services commission were added to the effort.

The goals are fairly general, and are grouped into four main categories: climate and energy; community; land use and access; and resource management. Four public forums were held earlier this year, with speakers and public input on each of those categories. [See Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and "Final Forum: What Sustains Community?"] The city also maintains a website with information on the project.

Kidwell attended the May 15 meeting to explain the sustainability goals to park advisory commissioners. The recommendation would be going before the city’s environmental commission and the planning commission later.

She sketched out how the work had been approached – with formation of a staff working group; and smaller staff focus groups. A series of community forums had been held, which had been attended by a total of more than 300 people. David Barrett wanted to know if there’d been any outreach to the business community. Kidwell told him that the business community was not singled out for outreach, but the process had been inclusive. She pointed out that Ingrid Ault, a newly-appointed park advisory commissioner, had been able to provide some insight into the part of the business community she represents as the head of the Think Local First organization.

Tim Berla felt that the sustainability goals are admirable, and he understood that there would be a next phase. However, he felt that any time something comes forward, there’s typically two sides to it. He wondered if that had been incorporated into this process. For example, the kind of argument that might be brought forward could be: Even though we’re causing pollution, we’re creating jobs. He wondered if the sustainability goals would have any functional impact, or if they’d just be abstract.

Kidwell responded to Berla by saying the goals should be taken as a whole set of principles. As far as their implementation, she said, the goals could inform the development of the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP). To develop the CIP, the staff already use the city’s environmental goals to rank and prioritize projects. She ventured that a proposed projected on the CIP could be evaluated along a metric like: Does the project support three or more sustainability goals?

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the resolution recommending integration of the sustainability goals into the city’s master plan.

Introduction: Public Art Annual Plan

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, summarized the public art annual plan for commissioners. It’s required to be presented annually to the city council. This year, it was presented at the city council’s May 7, 2012 meeting. AAPAC had settled on the final plan at its March 28, 2012 meeting. The plan describes projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan]

The final plan includes a list of five objectives for the next fiscal year:

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects

David Barrett wanted to know if AAPAC was hoping to get artists from this area if possible for upcoming projects? Seagraves explained that if local artists meet the qualifications, then they would be eligible for selection. [The city attorney's office has given the advice that it's not legally possible to give preference to local artists.]

Sam Offen asked about the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out program: Who picks locations and the art that’s displayed? Seagraves characterized that as a collaborative effort. Responding to a question from Offen, Seagraves said he expected that some of the works would be displayed in public open spaces.

Offen also wondered about the possible impact of graffiti on murals. Seagraves said that murals are generally respected by graffiti artists. It’s also possible to apply overcoat to protect the murals.

Introduction: New Market Manager

Sarah Benoit – the city of Ann Arbor’s new market manager – was introduced to the city’s park advisory commissioners. She replaces Molly Notarianni, who resigned from that position earlier this year. Benoit delivered some brief remarks to the commission.

Sarah Benoit, new market manager for the city of Ann Arbor, attended the May 15 meeting of the park advisory commission, to introduce herself to commissioners.

Benoit grew up in Kalamazoo and earned an undergraduate degree in urban studies & European studies from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, where she participated in a pilot farmers market on campus. After graduating, she spent a year in Ann Arbor, then moved to New York in 2010 to attend Fordham University. She received a masters degree in urban studies and completed a thesis on the role of seasons in local food education in New York City.

As Ann Arbor’s market manager, Benoit will oversee the operation of the Ann Arbor farmers market and work with the city’s public market advisory commission. She began work as market manager during the week of May 14.

Cobblestone Farm Update

George Taylor gave commissioners an update on the activities of the Cobblestone Farm Association (CFA), which helps manage and oversee the city-owned farm and helps provide volunteer opportunities. The mission of the CFA is to “to provide an example of a Washtenaw County farmstead, showing aspects of its settlement in the nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, and by demonstrating agricultural, architectural, domestic, religious, and social customs and activities across time, …”

Taylor sketched out the strategy for planning activities for each year – a spring event, July 4, then a harvest event. The biggest one is July 4, he said. For the fall, the harvest event is held around the theme of Halloween, including a visit from the “headless horseman.” Other activities include pumpkin decorating and throwing pumpkins using a trebuchet.

Taylor told the commissioners that CFA had a new treasurer in Scott Diels, and a new historic district commission representative in Thomas Stulberg. Taylor thanked the city for hiring an architect to survey the Cobblestone Farm site including the house, the barns, and the log cabin. Based on the survey, he said, CFA can prioritize what needs to be done with the buildings. He also thanked the city for the restoration of the log cabin – because it was in very bad shape. He thanked the city for hiring Toth Brothers for the log cabin restoration. The cabin is now used for the Pioneer Living program, he said.

In the coming year, CFA will be working on its articles of incorporation and amendments to bylaws. The group is talking about moving the gift shop and setting up exhibit space. They’re looking forward to scheduling more tours of the house for wedding parties, when they book the barn as a wedding venue. Another new activity is a possible Tuesday evening farmers market, organized by nearby residents, which would be held from 4-7 p.m. in Buhr Park in front of the tennis courts.

When Taylor concluded his briefing, Sam Offen wanted to know if CFA coordinated with other historical groups in the county. Yes, answered, Taylor, the CFA works with all 26 historical societies in the county. He gave the Kemp House Museum as an example. He also noted that CFA also worked with Washtenaw County parks and recreation.

Julie Grand had a question about where the food for the farmers market would come from – and the explanation she received was that the nearby residents were just helping to organize it. The food would come from local farmers.

Parks and Rec Manager Report

City of Ann Arbor parks and recreation manager Colin Smith update commissioners with a number of dates on upcoming events.

He reported that the mowing season had started off not as well as the city would have liked. Part of the challenge was that there are no returning seasonal staff for the mowing. Now that the city is all staffed up with an understanding of their routes, things are going smoother. Getting people to know where they’re going and when is not easy. Smith also pointed out that the mowing takes place in two phases. First, the very large mowers go thorough, then the trim mowing comes a day or two behind. He noted that even the trim mowers are fairly large – about six-feet wide. So if it looks like the parks staff mowed part and then forgot to do it all, that’s not the case, he said. They come back a day or two later to finish up. The mowing is on a 14-day cycle this year, he said.

Smith also reported that city administrator Steve Powers had announced a number of organizational changes recently. For parks, the natural area preservation (NAP) program will return to the community services instead of reporting to public services area. There’s a desire to have one department that oversees volunteerism within the city, he said. So the NAP volunteer program will be in community services along with the Give 365 program. The time frame for that change is within the next month or two, he said.

Off-Leash Dogs

During the section of the meeting for general commissioner discussion, Tim Berla said he wanted to toss out some issues he’s recently encountered involving dogs and the city’s parks. He said he’s been playing tennis regularly on Saturday mornings in Burns Park, and he’d noticed regular dog walkers. Many don’t have their dogs on leashes, he said. They have “a whole activity going” with ball throwing. Should we consider this a problem in our parks? he asked.

A second issue he raised stemmed from a conversation he’d had with someone who goes to a commercial dog park – she drives her dog there. She does not use the city’s dog park, because she’d heard it was dangerous and that dogs had been killed or maimed. He wanted to know if parks staff had any information on that? Parks and rec manager Colin Smith allowed that there have been times when there’s been an aggressive dog that would go after another dog. He characterized it as unfortunate. The expectation is that owners have their dogs under control. Smith said there are signs indicating that police should be called. There have been incidents, he said, but he could not imagine a dog park that would not have incidents.

Smith said that some of the new park rangers can help with the educational effort on the leash law. They won’t be able to enforce the leash law, but they can help educate people.

John Lawter suggested that alternatives could be explored for off-leash hours in existing parks. That would not incur the expense of a fence. Lawter said there needs to be some kind of enforcement of the required permits to use the dog park. Part of the problem is that there is no oversight or enforcement, he felt. Lawter said he’d never seen dog fights at the park – though they might bark and argue. He ventured it was a no-blood-no-foul kind of thing. Incidents would be less likely if there were more enforcement. He came back to advocating for some off-leash hours in existing parks – because there is no place that’s easy to get to without getting in the car and driving.

Last Meeting: Sam Offen

On the occasion of Sam Offen’s last meeting as a park advisory commissioner, chair Julie Grand offered praise for Offen’s service, saying that he had helped to bring clarity to the parks budget. Offen has chaired PAC’s budget and finance committee.

Sam Offen. The May 15, 2012 meeting was his last as a park advisory commissioner.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith also told Offen that from the staff’s perspective, they really appreciated the work Offen had done.

Park advisory commissioners are limited to two three-year terms in a row. Offen was first appointed in 2006. His replacement on the commission was announced at the May 21 city council meeting – Alan Jackson, who serves with Offen on the board of the Leslie Science and Nature Center.

Offen said it had been a pleasure to serve on PAC. The city of Ann Arbor’s parks are a magnificent asset, he said, and he hoped they don’t take it for granted. He reflected on the fact that the topic of dog parks had been discussed at his very first PAC meeting, just like it was at his final meeting.

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

Absent: Ingrid Ault, Doug Chapman, Tim Doyle.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [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 paddle its boat, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to dip a blade in the water as well. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.