What you should know: Ann Arbor officials are using two different methods to count city parkland – and the difference could cost you your parks and public land.

The official Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (PROPs) counts ALL 2,210 acres (17.96 acres/1,000 residents), including Leslie Park and Huron Hills golf courses.

But the new Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan uses a different method counting only 1,720 acres (13.9 acres/1,000 residents), conveniently excluding golf courses.

Why does this matter? Our City Charter requires voter approval to sell parkland. By reclassifying current parkland as "not parkland," officials could potentially bypass your right to vote on their future.

Several council members have openly advocated converting the golf courses to developments despite:

• Recent data showing Ann Arbor's population is actually declining by ~1.5%
  

• The CLUP projecting 30,000-45,000 new housing units (600% - 900% higher than SEMCOG forecasts) with no data source provided • No budget for replacing the courses' critical flood control functions ($30-40M)
  

• Loss of affordable recreation in neighborhoods where 21% lack cars

The same officials who reject modest EV charging for golf carts as "contrary to everything we stand for"support development that would eliminate 149 acres of tree canopy and require massive carbon-intensive infrastructure.

Date: June 3, 2025

Download 6/2/25 City Staff Presentation
Download 4/11/25 Water Plant Memo from OHM Advisors

Introduction

Brett Lenart (City Planning Manager): I'd like to invite our colleagues. We have Sky Stewart, Troy Boffman, and Molly Maciejewski from the city public services division. They also have some consultants with them in tow.

You will recall that we presented to you a summary memo of some of the past analysis that's been done about some of our utility treatment facilities. This same team is in the works of right now doing a lot of analysis of some of our infrastructure systems corresponding with those and so we wanted to provide them an opportunity to address any questions and an overview of some of the work that's going on in that regard.

Next up after that we'll also have a brief opportunity for questions with them. After that we'll be introducing Joe Giant, the city's new economic development director who will be just talking a little bit about his perspective, some of the tasks that he's been set forth with. A lot of this will be very familiar with you from the new approach to economic development report and just the investment in that as a department.

And although included on the agenda, we will not have a presentation from the office of sustainability because it is A2Zero week and they are very very busy.

Chair Donell Wyche: Thank you, Mr. Lenart. [Brief recess for setup]

Main Presentation

Sky Stewart (Chief of Staff, Public Services): Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is Sky Stewart. I'm the chief of staff for the public services area. I manage the systems planning unit which leads the utility infrastructure planning for the city. I'm joined tonight by systems planning utility engineer Troy Bauman, water treatment plant manager Molly Maciejewski, as well as a few of our consultant engineering partners at OHM Advisors who are working with us on utility studies to help us better understand what capacity constraints exist in our water distribution and collection systems today and what improvements are needed to continue to provide for our existing customers and support future growth.

Brett Lenart (City Planning Manager) recently shared a memo with the planning commission that provides an evaluation of the water and wastewater treatment plant capacities under various growth and development scenarios. I'll review the highlights of that memo and also share a little bit more about the other utility planning efforts currently underway that can inform the comprehensive land use plan.

First, I'll provide a quick orientation or refresher of the different parts of the water utility system. I'll review the growth and buildout scenarios that we're using for the utility infrastructure modeling for these studies and then I'll summarize where we are with the planning efforts and what constraints will need to be considered and then I'll open for questions.

Water System Overview

So as a quick orientation or refresher to the different parts of the water utility system we're discussing today, in its most simplistic way I like to think about the water system as moving through the city from the northwest to the southeast generally along the path of the Huron River.

Beginning of our water system starts with our source water. That's where do we get our water? Primarily most of our water comes from the Huron River but we also get water from ground wells a little south of town near the Ann Arbor airport.

That source water is sent through pipes to the water treatment plant. That is where we clean and treat the water to make sure it's safe for drinking. And from there it enters into the transmission and distribution system. It's a network of pipes and storage tanks and pump stations that get the water from the treatment plant to our customers to use in their homes and businesses across our service area.

Then the water is used in the domestic and business uses in all the ways that you can imagine. From there the network of pipes collecting all the water from dishwashers, washing machines, showers, toilets, the pipes, the sanitary collection system pipes carry that waste water to the water resource recovery facility or the wastewater treatment plant to be treated and ultimately returned to the Huron River southeast of town.

Each part of the system has its own infrastructure, its own constraints and investment needs. The memo focused specifically on the plant capacities at the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant, but other studies are underway with a broader scope. I will note that tonight storm water system is not a part of the specific discussion or the analysis that we're going to be talking about today, but I will note that major storm events do have acute impacts on our sanitary system.

Current Planning Efforts

On the drinking water side, the planning for the replacement of the oldest portion of the water treatment plant we call plant one began in 2022. It's nearly 100 years old and it's reaching the end of its useful life. These are long complex planning processes and out of that process has come the water facilities plan. It came in 2024 and that used long-term growth projections from SEMCOG, which is the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.

And using that information, it resulted in the determination that the existing plant capacity was sufficient for a 50-year horizon, which is a typical planning horizon for major plant projects. This planning for the replacement of plant one is underway now and the tentative schedule is that that construction would start around 2030 and hopefully finish by 2035.

Beginning in 2024, we also began a water distribution plan update to identify the needed improvements to the transmission and distribution pipe network, more than 500 miles of pipes underground. This project is anticipated to be complete by the end of this year. The hydraulic model has been updated and is being used to evaluate the distribution system under both existing conditions and also anticipated future conditions which incorporate a couple of the different scenarios contemplated in the draft comprehensive land use plan.

Growth Scenarios

The growth scenarios modeled in this memo included two buildout scenarios informed by our discussions with the planning staff. They were used to estimate future water demands and wastewater flows based on anticipated population increases. These are also compared to SEMCOG's more modest long-term growth projections.

• SEMCOG projections: Annual increase around 200 units per year. To 2050 that'd be about a 9% increase in population.

• Low-end buildout scenario: Around 1,200 units per year with an increase of about 66,000 residents or 52% increase in population

• High-end scenario: About 1,800 units per year with a 99,000 person increase in population, about 80%.

We do know that per the planning department in the most recent few years the actual unit count has been closer to around 650 units per year.

Key Constraints

Water Treatment Plant Constraints:

• Future demands are expected to exceed the current and planned treatment capacity based on those low and high-end buildout projection scenarios

• The existing water treatment plant is a landlocked site and cannot support additional capacity on that location

• Planning for plant one replacement has been underway for years and is based on that current capacity and current location

• The major investments required for plant one are required regardless of growth - it's nearly 100 years old

Source Water Constraints:

• 85% of our water comes from the Huron River and about 15% comes from wells at Steere Farm near the Ann Arbor airport

• We are not permitted to withdraw more water from the Huron River - limited to 40 million gallons a day to maintain the flow of the river during drought conditions (mandated by EGLE)

• Future demands in high and low-end buildout scenarios do expect to exceed available source water

• Additional supply would be required whether that's a new well field with additional treatment or regional connection

Wastewater System:

• Capacity is available to accommodate the projected future growth under dry weather conditions

• Limited capacity to accommodate peak wet weather flows under existing and future conditions

• The existing landlocked site can't support significant additional capacity - landlocked by a railroad and the Huron River and is also not in the city limits

Summary

The takeaway here is that there are existing constraints in our utility systems. We don't have all the answers to every single one of those constraints. That analysis will continue. There is capacity for growth but it will drive the need for major infrastructure investments particularly when we think about the intensity of development and funding strategies will be needed. The current way that we plan for repairs and replacement of improvements to our existing system can't necessarily fund all future needs.

Q&A Session

Commissioner Dan Adams: Thanks very much. That was really great. I had a question about the benchmark to compare those growth rates against. Your two charts compared the high and low ranges against a SEMCOG rate that we know from planning data is not accurate. It's off by 400% compared to the rate that we're seeing today. What's the right way to understand this?

Sky Stewart: I will say the SEMCOG growth projections that were used in 2022 was at a different moment where we were not building consistently at that rate. I totally agree that we are building at a higher rate right now. But we also know that development isn't linear and so a lot of this is making some assumptions and guesses about the intensity of development and how that will happen. But yes, you were right. There are capacity constraints in all scenarios.

Commissioner Dan Adams: Would it be possible to have those charts updated with the 650 [units per year] so that we can actually see those rates modeled against what we know to be the actual rate of increase?

Sky Stewart: We would not be able to do that for this deck, but we could work with our consultants to work on that analysis.

Commissioner Sara Hammerschmidt: Thank you for this really good presentation. On the water treatment side, where have you been looking into where we could be expanding capacity since it sounds like we cannot expand at the current site? Would it be a second plant somewhere?

Molly Maciejewski (Water Treatment Services Manager): Yes, we are space limited. As you can see, there is that nice green grassy area that looks like we have all sorts of space. That's actually a 6 million gallon underground storage reservoir. So we cannot build on top of that. We have looked at different types of treatment, what could we fit in this footprint, but nothing has shown that we can actually expand capacity. So we would need to look at a whole new location.

As far as source, we know that we're limited at Steere Farm and we're limited at the river. So we would need to look probably to the north for additional well capacity or again consider connection to a regional system.

Commissioner Sara Hammerschmidt: At what point in that trajectory do we run into source water constraints?

Molly Maciejewski: It mimics the water treatment plant. They are designed the same. We have a little additional capacity that we believe that we could get out of the wellfield to the south at the airport. But it would still only get us to the existing treatment plant capacity.

Commissioner Richard Norton: I'm going to maybe be a little repetitive, but just so I'm making sure I'm understanding. If I heard clearly, all of our systems are going to need major upgrades regardless. It's an aging facility. It's an aging system. We're going to need to do it. The question on the right growth rate and what we're planning for is more a question of how soon we have to do that than it is how big the project needs to be to accommodate the growth that we're expecting. Or is it the case? We've been getting feedback from citizens like, "We don't have the capacity to do this and your growth expectations are way out of line and who's going to pay for that?"

Sky Stewart: The plants' capacities are set both by the current source water and what the treatment plant is designed to treat in a day. If we think we're going to surpass that, we will absolutely need to be looking for other locations. We have to make this replacement here to continue providing what we're currently providing, but to go beyond that, we would have to be seeking other treatment and source.

The funding for this is a bit chicken and egg. You can't build it hoping they will come. You need to build it knowing they will come because they have to buy into the system and pay for it. We can't fund full growth. We can fund improvements and repairs to existing system with utility rate dollars but you can't fund speculative future growth with utility rate dollars.

Commissioner Sarah Mills: I got some nerdy questions. Does it matter what kind of housing units - you talked about the adding of the number of units and some of what we're discussing is kind of the different types of housing. I assume water rates are different based on housing type. What's included here?

Sky Stewart: It's a great point. It's very hard to make - you have to make a bunch of assumptions, right? We don't know every single house that will be developed. So you have to make some estimates about what the average daily usage might be and how many people might live in that house. We did build in some assumptions - the assumptions that are built into the current charts that you saw were 2.19 people per unit.

Chris Albers (OHM Advisors): I will say at least on the water side and I believe on the sanitary side it's really reflective of average use in the city right now. So we've gone through looked at the use per person, the kind of peaking factor we see on that use and that is what we projected out.

Commissioner Sarah Mills: Part of this is that there's growth happening in the region, right? And so also when we're thinking about water withdrawal, like you mentioned, we got to think about other people's wells... I'm curious from the water utilities perspective if units from an energy perspective that are built outside the city of Ann Arbor tend to be bigger and so there's more to heat and cool, right? They're driving more because they don't have walkable neighborhoods. And so we shouldn't really like putting a bubble is counterproductive to the world. I'm curious from the water utilities perspective if that is also the case?

Sky Stewart: I would say at a high level, yes. And depending on scenario, we looked at what we would need to do for wells that could be contaminated still or have dioxane hits. So like we know that we may have to expand for those folks, right? So more of that could be necessary. But you're certainly right that we haven't looked at growth in the townships that we currently have contracts with as part of this analysis but it is going to be needed.

Commissioner Richard Norton: Does your stomach turn when you think about the high-end estimates for what population increases could be like? Is the water system or the wastewater system going to crash or yeah, we can accommodate that, we just need to plan for it and make sure we're baking it into our planning efforts?

Sky Stewart: What I can say is that there is capacity for growth. It's the amount and intensity of growth that I think is where we get nervous as utility, as pipe people because you never want basements to back up and you can't have a day where you can't provide water to the customers that you have. And so you do have to be conservative. Thinking about the intensity particularly the very very high end is something that we're worried about. That doesn't mean we can't figure it out. But it is something we are worried about and would cost a lot.

Chair Donell Wyche: Thank you all so much. One of the things that I think I heard that was very clear is you are going to build for the growth of the city as you have as best an understanding of the estimates that you have, right? So you can't build for capacity that isn't here. So as the development occurs that necessitates the growth and then the users help contribute to the funding source to build it out. You have a conservative posture now because of the considerations that you articulated like we cannot say no to the delivery of water and you don't want to overbuild capacity because then you have all this capacity and it's not being utilized.

Sky Stewart: Growth has happened in the whole history of Ann Arbor, right? And so we've always been building as we go. One of the things that we do is when we're planning for the capital plan, when Troy and other engineers are looking at this data, we are looking at this pipe, this 6-inch pipe is getting really old. We need to replace that pipe because it's had a break history or whatever. We are looking at what are the other demands in this area. Where do we think this area is going to be redeveloped and would it need additional - if we're going to be in there replacing that pipe would we want to have additional capacity. So we are looking at incremental ways to create capacity as we're making improvements.

Chair Donell Wyche: Great. Thank you so much.

Additional References:

• Ann Arbor Water Strategic Plan (Feb. 2024, Adopted by Council)

• One-page Summary Ann Arbor Water Strategic Plan (Feb. 2024)

• More about the Ann Arbor Water Plant Facility Plan

As Ann Arbor grapples with its Draft Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission discusses "innovative tools" at this 5/6/25 meeting, including notions like pneumatic tubes for future waste disposal. This foray into futuristic "visions" starkly contrasts with pressing, unresolved planning issues, highlighting a peculiar detachment from the city's immediate and practical infrastructure needs.

The key "visionary" concept captured includes:

• Futuristic Waste Management: A notable idea floated is the evolution of solid waste disposal systems, potentially incorporating networks of tubes under new developments to collect waste, thereby replacing conventional bins and garbage trucks.

While innovation is often welcome, the Commission's engagement with such speculative, long-term concepts can be viewed critically:

• A Question of Priorities: For a Planning Commission seemingly struggling with fundamental aspects of the current comprehensive plan—like accurate data interpretation, realistic growth projections, and addressing existing infrastructure deficits—a discussion centered on futuristic waste tubes can appear as a startling misprioritization or a distraction from more immediate and tangible challenges.

• Detachment from Current Realities: This focus on far-off "innovations" highlights a troubling disconnect from the present-day realities and urgent needs of Ann Arbor's residents and its existing infrastructure. It raises concerns about whether the Commission is adequately addressing current problems before venturing into speculative future technologies.

• Competence Under Scrutiny: Rather than inspiring confidence, such discussions reinforce perceptions of a Commission more comfortable with abstract, "visionary" brainstorming than with the rigorous, data-driven work required to solve today's pressing planning issues. This instance offers another example of the Planning Commission appearing out of touch with practical solutions and immediate community needs.

A letter addressed to the Planning Commission from Ann Arbor native Ken Burns about the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Read by resident Tony Pinnell at the April 1st, 2025 meeting:

--------------

March 31st, 2025

To the Planning Commission, Ann Arbor,

Word has reached me that the planning commission in Ann Arbor has prepared a draft comprehensive land use plan that many residents fear will alter the city's college town landscape too radically. I've read that while smart high-density development is welcome at many locations, the plan's broad-stroke approach exposes much of old Ann Arbor to tear down and high-rise building catering only to wealthy buyers and high-end renters.

I grew up in Ann Arbor in a small modest wooden house that's still there in Burns Park at the bottom end of Wellington Court, a little back alleyway off of Cambridge. I went to Burns Park Elementary, Tappan Junior High School, and Pioneer. I graduated in 1971. I walked down Minerva Road, Olivia, and South Forest every day. It delights me that school children of Burns Park who perhaps watched some of my work may actually pass by my house and maybe, just maybe, be inspired.

Creativity is born from knowing and curating our past while exploring and embracing the future. Ann Arbor has traditionally enjoyed a strong sense of the past mixed with innovative cutting-edge thinking. My hope is that the town can find a healthy, productive balance to modernize intelligently and ergonomically, but also to retain, nourish, and rejuvenate its storied history and architecture. That moderation and balance will keep your sense of place strong.

Sincerely,

Ken Burns

On 5/6/25, the City of Ann Arbor Planning Commission reviewed a memo sent on 4/11/25 from their Water Treatment Plant Consultants, OHM Advisors. The memo clearly stated that currently approved planning is appropriately using official population growth forecasts from Ann Arbor's regional planning authority (SEMCOG).

Watch as the Planning Commission members then proceed to discuss the city's water infrastructure in relation to their own inflated housing production targets. They ponder water source limits, potential water shortages, and long-term investment strategies, yet the discussion showcases their apparent incompetence, confusion, and disregard for real data, math, and science as they fail to grasp the simple implications of the report they were provided.

Key points that highlight the Commission's disconnect include:

• Water System Capacity: While emphasis is supposedly placed on maintaining an 80% capacity threshold for water delivery systems for flexibility and to trigger state-level investment discussions, their discussion indicates a poor understanding of how their aggressive housing targets conflict with this.

• Water Usage and Conservation: The conversation touches upon residential water pricing and potential savings. A report by City Administrator Dohoney is mentioned, which notes that significant water conservation efforts could, counterintuitively, lead to decreased revenue for the city – a financial reality seemingly lost as they push for unsustainable growth.

• Current Infrastructure Adequacy and Water Sources: Despite the OHM Advisors memo, the Commission's discussion reveals a failure to acknowledge that the city’s current infrastructure is NOT capable of handling the wildly inflated development goals they promote, especially given existing limits on its water sources. Ann Arbor sources its water from the Huron River and various wells and has been working on a 25-year plan based on SEMCOG's realistic population forecasts – not the unsubstantiated ones the City of Ann Arbor fabricated.

• Long-Term Planning Urgency: The discussion underscores the critical need for realistic long-term strategic planning. The OHM memo implies that based on actual SEMCOG projections, the city would approach its water capacity limits around 2035; however, the Commission's apparent disregard for this data suggests a path towards a manufactured crisis.

Council Member Lisa Disch at Ann Arbor's Planning Commission’s 4/22/25 workshop recounts a story about new buyers can’t find housing due to current residents not dyingand “holding on.” It’s like “waiting to get into the restaurant”?

This grim reality highlights the profound failures of the Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan to address the needs of fix-income residents, showcasing their prolonged disconnect from the affordable housing crisis.

The core problems presented, which the Commission's plan seemingly fails to address with any competence, include:

• Paralyzed Housing Turnover: A significant lack of affordable options exists among current residents to transition to more appropriately sized homes. This inertia, as Disch points out, delays generational turnover in housing. Consequently, instead of meaningful price relief, the market sees only steady hyper-inflation in prices—a fundamental market failure that the Commission’s planning apparently disregards.

• Incentives Entrenching Scarcity: The situation is worsened by existing incentives that encourage incumbent homeowners to retain their current housing indefinitely. This practice further constricts the already limited affordable housing availability, a stark reality that the Planning Commission’s strategies seem to either completely ignore or even enable through ineffective or poorly conceived policies.

• A Market of False Hope: The combined effect of these issues, as presented directly to the Commission, creates a dire scenario. Hopeful buyers and renters find themselves perpetually "waiting to get into housing that may never become available". This critical observation casts a damning light on the Planning Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan, exposing its detachment from the lived experiences of residents and its overall incompetence in fostering a functional and accessible housing market for the people of Ann Arbor.