Comments from 215 Surveys, Summer 2003:

Each survey’s additional comments are listed below. A separate bullet mark is made for each survey returned with comments. (These comments are unedited except for the correction of spelling errors.)

Project Support/Desire for Completion

We need to get on with this! This will make the lakes a useable feature for everyone.
Do it all right!! This time. We want the Lakes Project completed properly. Assess us what it will take to do this. Don’t “shave off” a few dollars and have the result being that there isn’t money to make both lakes accessible to persons in wheelchairs. Please make it handicap accessible. Thanks!
Get this project completed ASAP!
It is our understanding that LAIA has already committed to do this. So why is it being raised as a possible “option” at this juncture?
Keep up the good work.
It is extremely important to complete the entire project as promised to the residents. The plan was sold to the residents based on lake access to enjoy the end result. Anything less than complete access would deprive 90% of residents of what they were promised and paid for. Only the lake lot owners will benefit if we fail to complete it.
All our meetings to date have been at times I could not come, so I’m not sure I understand all these options. As a lower lake resident who paid my assessment in full, I REALLY want to see water in that lake!
The original program was sold on the basis of lake restoration, improving access and recreation for all homeowners. One reason for the breath of this scope was to obtain financial support from all the members of the community. If the project is not completed based upon the project as a whole it will have broken that commitment made with the homeowners that voted for the project originally as a total plan.
Earnestly eager to have our lake bottom restored. Thanks to good efforts of all involved.
Not to remove the rest of the silt in the lower lake would be a short sighted action that doesn’t recognize that one cannot start again, without draining the lakes, again putting in silt retention mechanisms for construction and then removing all of those protections one more time after the silt was removed at some later date. It is penny wise and pound-foolish.
Just finish the lake before plant succession gets a foothold! Thanx.
I don’t see FILL THE LOWER LAKE! As a priority. Please don’t let the survey distract you from the immediate task of getting the lake filled. Regardless of how folks feel about these items, the committee’s proposal should be submitted for a vote ASAP.
At present, far and away the most benefit of the lakes goes to the owners around the lakes. Support for the project may increase if more attention is paid to those projects that make the lakes useful to all members, such as parking.
We weren’t sure about Boyden Creek – where would this be? Re-do the vote. We think a lot of people didn’t realize how important it would be. Even we didn’t vote. Ack! Can block captains actually gather/collect votes door to door?
Finish removing silt. URGENT!
I don’t know why an “Oversight Committee” is needed, except to satisfy the political ambitions of one Board member. I am disgusted by the amount of politicking I see on this project—including unfair an disruptive accusations. I want the project finished ASAP—so this Oversight Committee better perform, now that they’ve disrupted the process.
I want to express my opinion that the upper lake renovation even in its state of partial completion, is in my opinion a success. The water is very clear (more appealing for swimming) the fish and other wildlife are thriving, and the weeds that have overgrown the lake in the past are in very low supply. The difficulties on the lower lake are unfortunate, but we can still make it a success too.
This rejuvenation of the lakes represents 20-30 years of deferred maintenance. As much as I and many others are rightly concerned about the cost to do it right, I believe that it would “cheap at twice the price”. Let’s do it right and lets do it now. P.S. I also support the idea of allocating enough annual budget for routine upkeep of the lakes and peripheral property.
The silt from the lower lake needs to be removed as soon as possible.
Let’s do it. Get the job done ASAP.
No problem with paying full assessment or any part. Good survey instrument.
“Thank you” to all who have worked so hard on this project. Your efforts are appreciated.
Just Do It.
We feel this lakes project is very important to be done properly and appreciate all the work that has been done so far!
We want to complete the entire plan as previously described. And, we are willing to support it financially. If funds do not allow this, a few cosmetic elements could probably be safely delayed. The trouble, though, is that at some point we’ll need to find the funds. We wish we could just finish it all now. I think that parking spaces are important; however, paving them at a later date would be acceptable if necessary.

Project Support in Prioritized Fashion

We supported the $600+ assessment, however, now believe the priority must be to do the lower lake properly and do fish replacement. Less is better than more now when looking for community support. We want to see closure on lake preservation.
Get rid of silt on lower lake to refill only. Fishing dock, parking lot, basketball court, lower lake walk all not necessary now. They are not fair to ask Loch Alpine people to pay for a few. Let few pay for those extras. Board is not listening to members and their wants, they want their way, not members.
Our interest is in restoring the lake and meeting the requirements (and undetermined fines) of MDEQ. Other amenities are not necessary at this time. We have other nearby recreational facilities for walking, fishing, canoeing, etc.
We need to complete the project as soon as possible. Additional frill can only be decided on with a price tag listed. I think they are all valuable but need to know how much they will cost.
Aside from the mandated MDEQ items all other items should be deferred until adequate funds from Association fees are available or other funding is raised. I consider the playground a vital area for our neighborhood yet the playground committee must raise funds via garage sales, cookbooks, and 4^th of July glow necklaces. I propose the non-essential items be funded similarly. Before consenting on any additional funds from my pocket, I would require the resumes of the members of the project management committee. I would also require approval of their appointment. The project has not been well managed and this has resulted in additional aggravation for all!!
Better to do this in stages over the next 2-3 years.
I disagree with my husband on fish replacement. I feel it would enhance summer and winter fishing—making it a year round activity. We feel the basics are important and the others can wait till next year or the year after that or more. Maybe one thing per year for the next five years.
Fix the lakes—lake restoration was the original objective. Deal with the access upgrades after fixing the lakes is satisfactorily achieved.
I believe that we should do only those items that are needed right now. The other items can be done as we can afford to do them.
Not interested in further improvements until real cost of regaining status quo (including MDEQ fines, consultants, etc.) is determined. Lower lake usage was rife with non-LA residents fishing, boating, etc. why invite more strangers when there is no enforcement of trespassing rules? We’re sick of looking at an ugly hole in the ground. Let’s fix it soon and move on. A disturbing and sad fiasco so far.
Let’s get the silt out first!!
Landscaping and parking can be phased in over 5 years. Why do we have to pay for this part now? Lets do the critical parts now and come back to the community with optional expenses to spread out the costs. It would be easier for us to support the entire project if costs were spread out.
We voted yes fro the Lakes in the beginning and again at the recent election. However, my sense is we should not spend the money for extra items now, we can gradually add the final amenities. The plan will be more successful this way.
Work should be completed on removal of silt and lakes restored ASAP. The rest seems to be geared to our recreational use of the lakes. Why not do some fundraising for these items so that the majority of the financial burden is placed on those who feel it is most important, instead of assessing everyone.
I would like to see the paths and landscaping complete, but it is critical to finish the dredging. I also think the Boyden Creek retention pond is key to preventing the lakes from silting up again, but we may need to postpone that for a few years. I’m sorry the Lakes Committee exercised poor financial controls, but the job needs to be finished and I am willing to pay more for it.
It is important to finish the lakes but costs must be contained. Finish the essentials that make the area nice for all residents (e.g. the pathways) Do not worry about little extravagances. Skip them.

Specific Suggestions:

Pathways could be maintained as gravel/crushed stone. Restoring fish population could be accomplished in regular budget later. Same for fishing docks and boat racks as well as paved parking areas.
Book racks and fishing docks: How about purchasing materials and having a work day or two with volunteers to offset cost. Also work day for landscaping.
I want parking; just don’t think it has to be paved. We don’t need to spend much to make fish replacement work. I think a dock would great, but we can do better than $10,000.
Instead of paved parking, gravel would save money. Instead of paved pathways, wood chip pathways would save money. The association should walk with the club. Silt from the lower lake could be spread on fairways to smooth out the bumps especially on holes 1, 3, 7, & 8. These fairways could 1^st be graded and the topsoil kept to put back on over the silt. It is a win-win potential.
Why paving? Natural trail would be more to my liking and cheaper too. I voted for the initial project but against the June 16 proposal. I felt that the project was pushed forward without much thinking, organization, and certainly without much communication with the LA residents. (and yes, I went to the information meeting). I hope this new group will take the time to communicate, listen to the community, and just not rush into half-baked solutions.
Money is necessary no matter how critical an item is. Landscaping can be part of the annual budget – Grounds. Let the fish swim where they may. The retention pond is provided for in the annual budget and associated reserve. Gravel parking will be just fine.
After hearing that there would be time limits on path usage, I am no longer interested in supporting paths. People who work and would like to exercise before then need access at 6:00 am. Parking seemed to work fine for the fireworks this year: extra spaces would appear to be a lot of money spent for very little need. Fish will replace themselves – possibly waiting to see what comes in would be good. We should have LA stickers for boats. The storage of non-member boats should be prohibited as these are private lakes.
If a “balanced” fish population has implications for the health of the lake itself, I would rate it higher (2). If it is just a “balance” for fishing purposes, I find it less important.
We feel the money spent on the security patrol would be better spent to contribute to the lakes project. Unrelated—Is there anything LA or Washtenaw County could do to limit the Massasauga population and protect children, golfers and pets? We received a note from neighbors regarding excess signage on roads. We agree there are too many but do not want them eliminated of course—and could some “STOP” be “YIELD”?
Ann Arbor Country Club should help pay for community improvement projects. AACC’s members use our roads and benefit from other community projects, yet AACC pays little (if anything) to our community. Also, you should hand out absentee ballots or make them easily accessible for the next vote.
Make the lower lake a park for children—baseball and or soccer fields and dog park with small creek naturally running through it.
My real preference is that it stay AS IS! I think it is starting to look beautiful as a creek and wet land. Stop messing with nature.
The lower lake should not be re-established. Boyden Creek should have a serpentine path where the lake was. Remove the lake level control tower. Less money would be required to re-create the original stream path, not an artifical man-made lake. Just the current weed growth looks better than the lake.
Our neighborhood is special because of its rural woodsy atmosphere around the lakes. I don’t want to spend money to bring us one step closer to urban blight. Lets quit while we are ahead, financially and esthetically.
I read the latest LAIA Board meeting minutes and saw you are wondering what will make the community buy into this project. Well, here are some ideas: 1. I was shocked to discover that you have only ONE contractor bidding on the remaining project (as noted by Leslie) When was the last time you fixed up your house? You always get more than one bid. Show the community the bids before you ask for money. 2- Find out definitively what happened to the money already given for this project. Leslie feels the size of overrun is very suspicious. Was there embezzlement, favors to family and friends, just plain stupidity? At the meeting our president said he did not know, it was before his time—just hand over more money. Well that comment did not set well with anyone. We want to know what happened to the money and maybe we need to file a civil and/or criminal charges. 3-We need monthly updates on what is happening to the money. The oversight committee is a good idea but at this point I do not think this community is trusting anyone anymore. 4. Before you ask for anymore money tell us what we can expect to have to shell out for dam repair in the next year or two. We all know it is coming, so lets not brush it under the table. 5-and Fifth, Avoid all this by letting it be what it was, a creek and wetland. It is starting to look beautiful now, just let nature alone!
In the planning process it was stated that the Ann Arbor Country Club would be providing one or more retention basins in consideration for not participating in the assessment on the original project. Even though they use lower amounts of fertilizer than other golf courses, the nutrient loading on the lakes from their land area must be significant (and contributing to the eventual sediment build-up) So we need to keep this in mind with regards to costs for the retention ponds.
I truly appreciate all the time and effort of the board and committee members so far and realize that kudos have been few and far between. Thank you! However…. 1. The survey is a great idea to assess the residents opinions. Should have been done earlier. 2. Five weeks is way too long for reports of votes, actions and decisions from the committee and board to the residents. Two weeks should be the maximum. 3. Finish the silt removal and MDEQ/DNR required operations and corrections first. Refill the lake. Everything else can be budgeted/completed at a later date. Do not assume that an additional requests for money will ever be approved beyond cleaning up the current mess. 4. This means no paved parking, absolutely unnecessary. If pavement is required to park on, leave the car in the garage or go to the Metro Park. Fishing docks for the kids? This projects is already over budget, get real. No boat racks. And how about requiring a Loch Alpine sticker on stored watercraft to assure only residents storing their boats. Landscaping/plantings are pretty but hardly a necessary requirement for an over budget project that has already been denied additional funds once. Consult the Garden Club or Grounds committee. Perhaps they have funds and the interest is available. Upper and Lower Lake pathways could easily be completed later, as budgets/funds allow. These are still only cosmetic additions and can be built over time. Simple clearing of the underbrush creates a path. 5. Funds being available, the Boyden Creek Retention Pond element would seem a logical piece of the puzzle to complete. This would slow the silting of the lakes, which is what got us in this mess in the first place. 6. The most critical job of the entire project is still ahead for the board and committee. Craft a frugal plan that hews as closely to the original budget as possible. Include only the expenses necessary to clear and refill the lake. Fulfill the MDEQ/DNR requirements. Delete or delay the cosmetic elements for later. Then and only then will the project will be approved.
Thank you for seeking more detailed community input about the lakes project. This level of communication is essential. The survey is well-done, but I believe you should have offered a fifth category: “actively opposed to seeing it completed”. Given the option, I would have checked that box for boat racks, for example, and so would several of my near neighbors. Overall, the integrity of the infrastructure should be the first priority; second priority should be balancing user-friendliness with preservations of the unique natural, rustic beauty of our lakes and parks. Cost vs. benefit of each piece of the project, however large or small, should be carefully considered (e.g. Paved paths would be expensive, would give us minimal change in user-friendliness and would detract from the rustic beauty, so they would be a poor choice; relocating the portapotty to the old playground area would be free and enhances both user-friendliness and appearance, so that would be a good choice—and I am proposing it). I have specific comments about each line item beyond the three necessities listed at the top of the page.
Removing the remaining silt in the lower lake: I believe that was already mandated by the community, and while the lake is already drained we should get it done.
Upper Lake Pathways: I was asked to speak on behalf of the entire playground committee to tell you that we would find a paved pathway to the playstructure unnecessary, unsightly, and overall a detriment to the park. We are satisfied with the current access to the playstructure. The existing grassy slope (from the corner of the Wise’s property down to the structure) is perfectly passable with strollers, and strollers can also comfortably cross the old ballpark as well. So no more access is needed. An asphalt path would require maintenance; it would not fit aesthetically with the natural landscape of the park; and the inevitable geese droppings on it will be especially unattractive. Also, the existing bridge over the creek is just fine and quite functional; it also has history here in LA and is beloved by many children and parents.
Lower Lake Pathways: Again, asphalt would be unsightly, and would add to future maintenance costs while offering dubious benefits. The stairs previously in place on Midway, and the sandy access areas on Loch Alpine Drive offered excellent access to the lower lake already. More would be frivolous.
Paved Parking: Again, frivolous. As I’m sure you saw on the 4^th of July, parking is not a problem. And other than on special occasions such as the 4^th, I have never seen more cars than can fit at any of the existing parking areas, so the current amount of parking access is more than ample.
Landscaping: I believe a commitment was made to the residents whose property abuts the walking paths to plant privacy screens; we should uphold this commitment. After that, shade trees for the Rock Park beach area and the playground area are the next priority. The small firepit should also be replaced—closer to the beach if possible. I am concerned that plantings designed to keep the geese off the grass will force them to congregate on the beaches, which would be even worse! Resident Mary Quinlan, who lives almost across from the park, is an environmental engineer and could possibly advise as to the wisdom of any proposed “goose prevention” plantings.
Fish replacement: This would be nice because some of the fishing boats would stay out of the swimming lake if they had another good place to fish.
Boat Racks: Absolutely extravagant. Unnecessary. Big and ugly. Benefitting only a select few. Instead, I propose a modest residents-only boat sticker fee (e.g. $50/year). The sticker program would limit the number of boats stored at the lake and would eliminate non-resident boats (which the survey indicates to be a problem). The fees could help offset the cost of beach, lakes, and park maintenance. And at almost no cost, we could strategically place cinder blocks or metal rings on trees for boaters to anchor their boats on shore.
Boyden Creek Retention Pond: Yes, this is a valuable infrastructure investment.
Please remove “Junk” trees and bushes obscuring view of lower lake
Landscaping…we would like to see less shoreline vegetation so that we can actually see the lake on East Loch Alpine Dr. when we drive to our home. It looks unkempt and ugly!! We would like to see a path around the lake to walk or jog!
Kill the geese. Get I.D. decals for boats annually.
If boat racks get completed, I would like to see a nominal charge for boat owners, for use of the racks. This would provide an “incentive” for boat owners who never used the boats a reason to remove or sell them. Also could help to pay for upkeep and administration of their use. If racks are built, I would like to see it a requirement that they be used, so they don’t interfere with access to lakes.
Require residents to register boats with Loch Alpine, just as cars have stickers so could the boats. This will reduce the number of non-resident boats as they can be identified and tagged for removal.
There is no plan for a driveway for those who wish to unload a boat from a trailer. It is difficult to launch a boat into either lake. Recommend that it be planned.

Concerns:

1- Please state how the proposed project management and insurance recovery may achieve possible cost savings. 2-Who will provide consulting/engineering services (expert oversight) and how will these services be managed? 3-Please clarify the exact location of the proposed Boyden Creek Retention pond – was that part of the original plans?
Would like more information concerning the location of the retention pond.
Thanks for the thought and work that went into completing this survey. I appreciate being asked what my funds will be going towards and disliked having options of which neither were acceptable thrown at me for a vote. I did not vote.
1- Maintenance program: With this kind of investment, it is essential to have a detailed maintenance plan for both lakes, retention ponds, and other areas. It is also essential to share info across committees—i.e. putting fertilizer on park causes run-off directly into new lake- not a good thing. An annual budget amount is essential as well as an active volunteer committee. 2- Thank you very much for reorganizing this information. I again urge you to follow the clear consensus at the large meeting – do the essentials first, let us vote on that amount.
More important than pursuing additional lakes project works, is to maintain what we already have. Our upper lake is already beginning to fill with weeds. The sand at the beach is not play quality. I will support the lakes project, but I’d rather have one usable lake than two un-maintained useless weed nurseries.
The community needs to know how we will pay for maintenance of the project once it is done, although the plan is to NOT ask for more money the residents need to be informed how much our annual lot assessment will increase (if this is how $ will be collected to develop a reserve fund for maintenance.
Two kids in college. Can’t afford to keep hemorrhaging money on this. Don’t trust these contractors not to keep coming back for more. Unimpressed with quality of finished work at Rock Park.
There are too many endless requests for money.
We have paid the assessment in full and are not interested in any more of our money going toward the lake project.
This survey would be more useful if projected expenditures had been cited for each item. Knowing something of costs would change prioritizing.
I wonder if you will get an accurate view of the wishes of the community on this survey. If you had included estimates for each of the above items I think you may get different results. We voted against every item we considered a “frill” because I didn’t know what it would cost us.
Do we have drawings? Having a hard time visualizing the upper lake pathway. If “fish replacement” and “Boyden Creek” are important to long-term health of pond, then I vote 1 if not then 3 or 4. Cost enters significantly into my decision and I feel I’m lacking information. I would be good to have approx. cost and current money available.
It is amazing to me when we are so far over budget that you still try to put items through i.e. paving paths that were never spoken of from day one or voted for. You can’t even keep the paths clear now!! Have you walked on them ever!
The survey is a great idea. Thanks, LA committee. All remaining work needs to be done within our present budget. No new or increased assessments.
All items circled 2’s depend on cost as to whether they should be done.
Bob & Committee: I find it very difficult to prioritize without having values associated with each
You should have listed the cost for each of the survey questions.
I voted “NO” on the first two ballots, citing too many TBDs! Talk about an understatment! Now I note, after-the-fact, that there seems to have been inadequate cash flow management.
No basketball courts. In the past, these were used by non-resident youth who left broken beer bottles and created an atmosphere not suitable for family activities. The Dexter School system provides abundant facilities for basketball to be played by residents of this community.
We trap silt in our lakes constantly. Why do we have to be the responsible clean-up cost party? Building more ponds just gives more places that have to be cleaned right? The phosphate level resulting in eutrophication isn’t reduced by this effort of distributing silt cleaning locations is it?
I am not impressed with the quality of the water in the lake that was already dredged. It looks dirty and smells. It does not appear that it was dredged deep enough to begin with. It doesn’t look clean enough to swim in, which I believe was the point for dredging it. If the second lake isn’t dredged any better than the first one then it will be a waste of money. If the lakes were supposed to be dredged to be able to swim in, then do it right so the lakes are swimmable.
I believe we’d all enjoy the beaches and lakes more if something could be done about the algea and muck that covers the shoreline at Loch Alpine Park beach. Is there a safe way to control this problem?
Should I be concerned about the growth in vegetation in the upper lake? The water may be clean but it looks dirty. Thanks.
We would like to see bubbles in stagnant areas of both lakes but particularly near the beach on the upper lake. The stagnant area around the island needs clean-up
You’ve done a very thorough job! Thank you for all your time and effort. Concern: upper lake already has a lot of scum/seaweed in it. Will it be dredged? Perhaps aerating the lake with a bubbler to prevent it from stagnating?
Mosquito control would be important. Boat racks: if people want a boat rack they should be responsible for payment.
We are against any further use of any lawn chemicals. The entire community should be notified if any algicides or any other chemicals are used in the lakes.
I am amazed that the country club does not have to contribute to this project. They receive as much benefit as I do. Who made this decision? Obviously country club members. Are there other ways to raise money for the frills (fish replacement, landscaping, docks, etc) Grants? Fundraisers? Fishing license?
There was no effort in this questionnaire to define any scope of work, any time line for planning or work to be completed. Asking the residents of LA their opinions without defining a proposed time line gives limited credibility to any further action by the current board or lakes committee.
This project should of never been started. You will never be able to swim in those dirty lakes. This money should have been put towards a community/neighborhood swimming pool and sidewalks. Those dirty lakes and ponds are not used by most or the majority of the community. The money should have been spent on something we could all enjoy. What a waste of time and money. People are moving out of this area due to high association costs that are dictated. Also too strict of bylaws. Too many rules.
Management of this project was terrible. Too many expensive additions and improvements. The lakes and fish are all that should matter. Terrible oversight. Awful consulting and engineering. The non-votes were voting against. Lower the assessment—fix the front lake—put fish (no perch-they take over everything) back in and then quit. No landscaping, paving, bridges, or other stuff. When cost overruns, the first think I look at are ways to cut: pathways, paving, etc.
A substantial additional assessment to lot owners to “complete” the Lakes Project is inappropriate. JJR Engineering and Michigan Landworks should bear the full cost to complete, including possible MDEQ fines. We were informed these were/are professional firms in their fields of expertise that were retained by the LAIA Board. We will again vote NO and urge the community to vote NO. This project has been bungled from start to the present.
We are sick of paying for other people’s lake front property improvements. We had to pay for our own new mailbox. Our road looks like something from Bagdad. We are reluctant to venture near the lakes area because of too many stop signs, speed bumps, and secret security forces.
We haven’t seen anybody swimming at the new beach—if they have a choice they’re over at the ACC pool. When we bought in Loch Alpine five years ago—the lakes were more scenery than anything else. How many people really use the lakes? Most of the fishing I’ve seen is by outsiders. We walk every night and see few people out.