You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2009.
join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/PlanforTC
Last week the city made progress on a couple topics discussed here. On Friday, the DDA agreed to spend up to $100,000 on the design and engineering of the waterfront projects that we hope will make the Parkway safer to cross, fix up the west end, and create a central park on the zoo property. The Parks Commission http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/boards/parksandrec.pdf will be heading up the design and engineering project, with help from Jim Carruthers of the city commission, Mike Jackson of the DDA, and a planning commissioner who will be named January 6. Their first meeting on this project will be Thursday, January 7 at 6:30 pm in the city county building. Please write or attend the meeting and tell us what you think.
Also, the city decided to go back to the county and request a discussion of how the city can get value for the money city taxpayers contribute to the GT Sheriff”s budget. A good summary is in this Record Eagle story: http://www.record-eagle.com/archivesearch/local_story_351072203.html.
This week the city will be talking about topics including groundwater contamination at Front & Division St; west side parking; and public access TV. Detailed info is at http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091221.pdf. A summary is in the Record Eagle: http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_353005209.html.
This past week saw a lot of discussion on this site about streets and sidewalks, which we hope can continue. (click here for recent comments: http://planfortc.com/2009/12/13/streets-police-energy-update-for-dec-13-20/comment-page-1/#comment-151).
The gist is that the city is starting to put real money into our streets and sidewalks: $1.2 million this year, including over $100,000 on sidewalks. The city’s new infrastructure policy calls for a bias in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes. http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/Policy/InfrastructureStrategyPolicy.pdf. In the future, we’ll be using a technique called “asset management” to maintain streets and sidewalks, but this year and next we’ll be focusing on the absolute worst condition streets. There is a map of these at http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091214.pdf, on page 19 of the pdf. A list of streets for next year and the year after is at pages 31-41 of the same pdf.
Last week I suggested some key questions remain. Here are those questions, with some additional info:
a. Should local street reconstruction include traffic calming measures ( http://www.trafficcalming.org/ ) to slow down cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods? Even if it costs more? Some feel the city made a promise to people in the neighborhoods that calming would be done when the streets were re-constructed. 20 years ago, the Residential Retention Task Force report identified traffic in neighborhoods as one of the top three issues affecting quality of life in the city. Yet traffic calming is not part of the discussion as we embark on major streets work. Shouldn’t it be?
b. Is $1.2 million per year enough to spend on streets and sidewalks? A 2006 report found that we need to spend more than $26 million to meet our infrastructure needs in this city. http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/departments/engineering/pr2006/tcpr2006.pdf. The city has 78 miles of streets, and 40 miles of those are rated in poor condition. (Gravel streets are not even included in the “poor” 40 miles.) With $1.2 million, plus additional money from other sources, we will fix 1.9 miles of those streets in the next year. That’s less than 5% of the poor streets. And that does not count gravel streets, nor does it count those areas of the city without sidewalks. Is this enough? How much should we be spending? How long should we plan to take to tackle these problems?
c. The plan says we have a bias in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes but some of our key transportation corridors remain almost impossible to cross on foot or ride through on a bicycle. For example, the city re-striped the far east end of 8th street saying it was a “pilot program” that we would seek input on. Whatever happened to that? 8th St is one of the most important corridors – it borders, crosses, or touches six of our major residential neighborhoods (Oak Park, Boardman, Traverse Heights, Old Town, Central, and Kids Creek). If 8th St is not important enough to make safe and useable for everyone, what street would be? Should we favor sidewalks and bike lanes only when it is easy, when there are no trade-offs we have to make, or should pedestrians and cyclists be a real priority?
This fall the city of Marquette re-built one of its major east-west corridors, Wright Street, as a complete street. Read about it here: http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/535479.html. Wright Street is also a county highway.
Bill Paladino has a good photo essay about the city’s priorities when it comes to cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Read it here: http://planfortc.com/2009/10/08/liveable/#comments
The city is in the process of making decisions on streets and sidewalks that we will have to live with for 20 years. We need your feedback to make good decisions. Let us know!
This week the city will be talking about our streets and sidewalks, and about getting more help with police protection from the Grand Traverse County Sheriff, among other things. We are also continuing the discussion here about renewable energy and efficiency. Please give us your thoughts here, or join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/PlanforTC.
1. Streets and sidewalks. The city is starting to put real money into our streets and sidewalks. In two years, we have gone from spending $100,00 per year to spending $1.2 million. Over $100,000 of that will be spent on sidewalks. We have a new infrastructure policy that calls for a bias in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes. http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/Policy/InfrastructureStrategyPolicy.pdf In the future, the policy calls for a technique called “asset management” to maintain streets and sidewalks, but next year we’ll be focusing on the absolute worst condition streets. There is a map of these at http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091214.pdf, on page 19 of the pdf. A list of streets for next year and the year after is at pages 31-41 of the same pdf.
Key questions remain:
a. Should local street reconstruction include traffic calming measures ( http://www.trafficcalming.org/ ) to slow down cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods? Even if it costs more? Some feel the city made a promise to people in the neighborhoods that calming would be done when the streets were re-constructed, yet that is so far not part of the discussion. What kind of measures do you want in the neighborhoods?
b. Is $1.2 million per year enough to spend on streets and sidewalks? A 2006 report found that we need to spend more than $26 million to meet our infrastructure needs in this city. http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/departments/engineering/pr2006/tcpr2006.pdf How much should we be spending? How long should we plan to take to tackle these problems?
c. The plan says we need a bias in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes but some of our key transportation corridors remain almost impossible to cross on foot or ride through on a bicycle. The city re-striped the far east end of 8th street but currently has no concrete plan to re-stripe the area between Woodmere and Lake. You cannot legally and safely ride a bike east across Division St at the 7th St light because you are immediately riding against one-way traffic. (Division St itself is a whole other matter we’ll be getting to on this site soon). Should we favor sidewalks and bike lanes only when it is easy, when there are no trade-offs we have to make, or should pedestrians and cyclists be a real priority?
The city is in the process of making decisions on streets and sidewalks that we will have to live with for 20 years. Let us know what you want us to do!
2. Police. Traverse City residents are also residents of Grand Traverse County. As county residents, we help pay for the Grand Traverse County Sheriff’s department. We do not currently receive services from the Sheriff’s department other than at the jail, and through some mutual aid responsibilities. Two areas that have been discussed are:
Road Patrols. Based on a per capita breakdown of the 2008 budget, Traverse City taxpayers pay a share of the county’s road patrol budget that adds up to over $600,000 per year. Yet we receive no road patrol services from the county. Instead, we pay over $3.6 million for police protection from the Traverse City Police Department, a budget which includes road patrol.
Community Police Officers. The County also provides community police officers to townships who request them. The townships pick up roughly 75% of the cost of these officers, and the County picks up roughly 25%. The County could be asked to provide this service to the city. We could try a pilot program for using County community officers to meet some of our city policing needs. A pilot program could mean 2 to 8 officers to try it out. The city would be protected by the same number of officers, but at a lower cost to city taxpayers. By keeping the pilot program small at first, it could allow operational issues like chain-of-command and call responsibility to be worked through.
Benchmarking. The city has done some benchmarking of our police force to those of other comparable cities. The results are at http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091214.pdf, starting on page 42 of the pdf.
Would you support asking the GT County Sheriff to take over a portion of the road patrol responsibility in the City that is now handled by the Traverse City Police Dept? Would you support a community police program in which some City police positions were replaced by community officers provided by the GT County Sheriff? Are there other collaborative efforts between these two law enforcement agencies that you would support? Do we have the right-size police force? Do we need more officers? Could we protect the city with fewer officers? What other ideas should we be looking at?
3. Renewable energy and efficiency. This week we’re continuing the Question of the Week on Traverse City Light & Power’s renewable energy plans, including biomass. Good questions and comments here and on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/PlanforTC about renewable energy and energy efficiency – look for more info in the comments to the Question of the Week page. (if the new info is not up yet, please check back later)
As always, thank you for visiting, and please give us your comments!
Hello again and thanks for reading. This week the City approved a new manager for the city opera house and the first steps toward the waterfront plan and a parks fund. The new Question of the Week is about biomass. Check back later this week for info on next Monday’s meeting.
1. City Opera House. Two weeks ago over 90 people attend the city commission meeting to be heard about the proposed agreement to in which Michigan State University’s Wharton Center for the Performing Arts would run the Traverse City Opera House: http://www.upnorthmedia.org/govtprogram.asp?mid=1077#vid. The City Commission referred the matter to City Manager Ben Bifoss to negotiate community access guarantees with the Wharton Center.
The new agreement is at: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091207.pdf, starting on page 68 of the pdf. The part of the agreement about community access has been modified to say that local access for local providers will be maintained at least at historic levels, and if not the agreement can be canceled early. The operating agreement (the contract the city is involved in) has also been changed so that the city can ensure that the access requirements are met. The agreement has also been changed so that the city has access to the financials of the opera house’s operation. You can read updated stories on the opera house at http://www.northernexpress.com/ and http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_341235110.html
Thank you to everyone who emailed, commented, and attended city meetings on this important topic. I believe and hope we reached a better outcome with your help. (For more background on this issue, see last week’s update in the post archive.)
2. Waterfront and Parks. The city commission also approved the first steps toward implementing the bayfront plan, and perhaps creating a sustainable parks fund for the entire city, using Brown Bridge Trust Fund money as well as grants and other financial sources.
Key feedback we have received included (a) the importance of safe crossings over Grandview Parkway, (b) leaving the Open Space views unobstructed, (c) more amenities on the zoo property, like a playground and “boat stable,” (d) fixing up west end beach west of Division Street, (e) addressing other city parks as well as the waterfront.
You can view a collection of the comments received here: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091130.pdf
See this Record Eagle editorial from yesterday: http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_339233225.html
You can view a more readable version of the Bayfront Plan here: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/departments/planning/waterfrontplanfinal.pdf
The City Commission approved these steps:
1. Making the city parks commission the lead agent to work on the bayfront plan, with help from the city commission, planning commission, and DDA.
2. Hiring an engineer to do preliminary engineering, cost estimates, and design.
3. Asking the DDA to pay for the engineering work.
4. Seeking money from Rotary to hire a grant expert to help us locate all possible funding.
5. Putting in a grant for $500,00 to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to help with this project.
Other info on the waterfront/parks proposal can be found in this 7&4 story:
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/video.aspx?id=377874. Please continue to give your feedback, here, on Facebook, and at the Parks Commission meetings on this topic. Stay tuned for more info.
3. Biomass. This week we are asking what you think about Traverse City Light & Power’s biomass plans on the Question of the Week. Click on Question of the Week, above, for details and please, let us know what you think!
Welcome, or welcome back. Here are updates on three items this week: the waterfront/parks proposal, the City Opera House, and the Question of the Week about the Grand Traverse County Sheriff ’s role in Traverse City. There are also post-scripts with a couple questions about the dog park idea, and our plans to improve this website.
1. Waterfront and Parks. Thanks to all of you who weighed in with comments and emails about the proposal to use Brown Bridge Trust Fund money to implement ideas in the Bayfront Plan. Key feedback we received included (a) the importance of safe crossings over Grandview Parkway, (b) leaving the Open Space views unobstructed, (c) more amenities on the zoo property, and (d) fixing up west end beach west of Division Street.
Other comments related to how we take money from the fund (all at once, a percentage per year, or some combination?), and whether the money should be used solely on the waterfront or whether it should be split between the waterfront and other city park needs. Everyone said, leverage the dollars to get other grants!
You can view a collection of the comments received here: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091130.pdf
You can view a more readable version of the Bayfront Plan here: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/departments/planning/waterfrontplanfinal.pdf
This past Monday the City Commission heard a presentation from Mike Jackson, the chairperson of the former Bayfront Planning Committee, and Nate Elkins, chairperson of the Parks Commission (and himself a landscape architect). The next steps for the commission to vote on will be a preliminary engineering and costing study that will help determine what will be built, where it will be built, what it will look like, and what it will cost. Here is a story about the meeting from 9 and 10 News: http://www.9and10news.com/category/story/?id=187775 and a story from the Record Eagle: http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_335071648.html.
It is my hope that the Parks Commission, with some help from the Planning Commission, DDA, and City Commission, will be given this assignment. Once we have this info, we can determine the financial “structure” of the proposal – how much money up front, how much to leverage with grants, and how we can do a sustainable parks and maintenance fund on the back end. This process of designing the waterfront amenities, and designing the ballot proposal, will be shaped by the input we received this year and will hopefully continue to receive. Then, if all goes well, we can hopefully put this on the ballot and get to work!
Other info on the waterfront/parks proposal can be found in this 7&4 story:
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/video.aspx?id=377874
and this piece in the Record Eagle:
http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_321072325.html?keyword=secondarystory Please continue to let us know what you think.
2. City Opera House. Thank you to everyone who attended last week’s city commission meeting, and for all the emails we have received. We want to keep hearing from you on a proposed agreement to put Michigan State University’s Wharton Center for the Performing Arts in charge of running the opera house.
A little background. The Votruba family gave the opera house to the City of TC. The city rents the building to an entity controlled by the City Opera House Heritage Association. The Heritage Association raised over $8.5 million to renovate the Opera House, and it is magnificent. You can see pictures here: http://www.cityoperahouse.org.
While the building is magnificent, the operations of the Opera House so far have lost money, and they’re currently running a six-figure deficit.
The Heritage Association proposes that operations be contracted to the Wharton Center, http://www.whartoncenter.com. Wharton would plan the programming and decide rental rates for the building, and would receive $75,000 per year plus 25% of net revenues for its services. A news story on the proposal is at: http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_324073121.html. The Northern Express has a cover story here: http://www.northernexpress.com/
An outline of the proposal can be found in: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091123.pdf
The most recent version of the agreement is at: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/draftmgtserv.pdf
Supporters of this arrangement point to Wharton’s expertise running performing arts venues, and its connections in the world of arts and culture. They also note that Wharton is willing to absorb any operating losses starting next year. Opponents are concerned about outsourcing the operation of a community asset, and question whether the Opera House will remain available for local artists, promoters, and events.
There was siginificant discussion of these issues at the Downtown Development Authority: http://www.upnorthmedia.org/govtprogram.asp?mid=1076#vid and at the City Commission: http://www.upnorthmedia.org/govtprogram.asp?mid=1077#vid . There have also been some comments on http://www.facebook.com/PlanforTC
The City Commission referred the matter to City Manager Ben Bifoss to negotiate community access guarantees with the Wharton Center. We will be discussing this again this coming Monday, December 7. See this Record Eagle story: http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_336073023.html
Let us know what you think. Post a comment here, or use the link under the Blogroll on the left to email the City Commission.
3. GT Sheriff’s Role in TC. We are carrying over last week’s Question of the Week about whether you would support a greater role for the Grand Traverse County Sheriff within the city limits. Click on Question of the Week, above, for details and please, let us know what you think!
P.S. We have not forgotten about you, dog park people! I hope to have some ideas to report out in the next few weeks. For now, a couple questions based on the comments so far:
(1) would you support making Hickory Meadow (a/k/a Oleson Field) http://www.garfield-twp.com/hickorymdws.asp a no-leash area as an alternative to an official dog park?
(2) would you be willing to support a dog park with user fees (like a one-day ticket machine at the entrance, or a yearly dog-park dog tag)?
We’ll get back to you, and thanks for writing.
P.P.S. For those who asked that we get this site a bit more organized, that will be a project for the next couple weeks. Stay tuned.
Recent Comments