Ann Arbor public art commissioner Wiltrud Simbuerger, showing other commission members some proposals from artists for a mural at Allmendinger Park. A local artist, Mary Thiefels, has been selected for that project. (Photos by the writer.)

The group unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for a $150,000 art project in the lobby of the city’s Justice Center, located at the corner of East Huron and Fifth Avenue. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists. It’s a sculpture called “Radius”.

Carpenter plans to create a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. Among the reasons for recommending Radius, the task force cited the sculpture’s metaphor: That the activities in the Justice Center have a “rippling” effect throughout the community, which echos the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

The Justice Center, a new building next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

In other action, the art commission voted to select Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park. A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Her proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. The task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural in the middle sections of the pillars.

Commissioners liked the concept of “found object” mosaics, but questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient. They ultimately voted to approve selecting Thiefels for the project, contingent on her submission of a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force. This project is the first one in a pilot mural program started last year by former commissioner Jeff Meyers.

AAPAC also discussed possible artwork for four sites connected to the East Stadium bridges, which are being reconstructed. The two commissioners who serve on a task force for that project – Wiltrud Simbuerger and Bob Miller – indicated that the budget recommendation will likely be at least $250,000 for artwork there. The task force is currently developing a request for proposals to be issued in the coming weeks.

In the context of developing their annual art plan for fiscal 2013, which by ordinance must be delivered to the city council by April 1, commissioners decided to hold a retreat next month. In addition to shaping the annual plan, the aim of the retreat is to develop a master plan that would provide a broader conceptual framework to guide AAPAC’s decisions. Input from an online survey of the public will also be used – the survey remains open until Feb. 20, and has garnered more than 400 responses so far.

Commissioner Appointments

Marsha Chamberlin, the commission’s chair, began the Jan. 25 meeting by welcoming two new commissioners: Bob Miller and John Kotarski. Kotarski had been appointed by the city council at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting to replace outgoing commissioner Margaret Parker. He has been a media consultant who previously worked for the Mount Clemens Schools. His three-year term expires Jan. 9, 2015.

At the city council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, Bob Miller was appointed to replace Cheryl Zuellig, and Chamberlin was reappointed for a second term. The terms for Miller and Chamberlin run through December 2015. Chamberlin is president of the Ann Arbor Art Center. Miller has worked as a real estate agent and homebuilder, and has a fine arts degree from The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Both Miller and Kotarski have attended AAPAC meetings over the past few months as observers.

Chamberlin reported that mayor John Hieftje has identified another candidate that he intends to nominate for approval by the city council, but she didn’t want to identify that person publicly until the nomination was made. The person would replace Elaine Sims, whose term expired at the end of 2011.

Justice Center Artwork

On the Jan. 25 agenda was an item to consider approval of artwork proposed for the lobby of the city’s Justice Center, located at the corner of East Huron and Fifth Avenue.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter's proposed "Radius" sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor's Justice Center lobby. This image was revised from earlier drawings by the artist to include more glass, at the request of a selection task force. (Links to larger image)

A task force had recommended the selection of Ed Carpenter’s proposal – a sculpture called “Radius” – from three finalists for the $150,000 project. Members of the task force who recommended Carpenter are Elaine Sims, Margaret Parker, Spring Tremaine, Karl Daubmann, Maureen Devine, Laura Rubin, Ray Detter, Margie Teal, Homayoon Pirooz, and Aaron Seagraves.

It will be the second major installation funded with money from Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program, which captures 1% of each city capital project – capped at $250,000 per project – for public art. The first major installation is located in the plaza outside of the Justice Center and in front of city hall: A bronze water sculpture by the German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, that cost more than $750,000.

Carpenter’s proposal calls for creating a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. The intent of the artwork is to reflect how the work of the courts and police radiate out into the community. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The task force cited several reasons for their choice. Among them:

• The artwork uses a great deal of the space in the lobby and makes the best use of the site.
• The reflective nature of the glass used in the design will incorporate direct lighting and reflective light, which will be visible from both indoors and outdoors, during the day and at night.
• The colored glass and moving reflections will add a mediating softness and color to the architecture of the lobby.
• The art’s metaphor that work within the Justice Center has a rippling effect throughout the community; the “ripple” metaphor is consistent with the Dreiseitl sculpture.

In his proposal, Carpenter wrote:

Like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond, “Radius” emanates outward through the Justice Center lobby, a reminder of the interconnectedness of the public with the agencies serving them, and suggesting a network of cause and effect in the public realm.

“Radius” is designed to involve as much of the lobby as possible, radiating from the southeast corner, visible from inside and outside, day and night. [Editor's note: The sculpture will be located in the lobby's southwest corner.] Lighting contained in its hollow center will illuminate gleaming glass and anodized aluminum details, creating elegant views of its expansive forms.

When sun strikes, dichroic glass elements will project and reflect colored light deep into the space in luminous compositions, slowly moving through the lobby in response to the arc of the sun and the passing of clouds.

Justice Center Artwork: Commission Discussion

John Kotarski noted that the task force had cited some issues they wanted the artist to address. Had the artist responded? Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said Carpenter had submitted new renderings showing additional glass in the sculpture, which the task force had requested.

John Kotarski at his first meeting as a public art commissioner on Jan. 25.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether the budget reflects those changes. [The budget of $150,000 includes a $9,000 line item for dichroic glass elements. Other major line items are for fabricated anodized aluminum elements ($35,000), installation ($20,000), lighting/electrical ($12,000), structural site work and ceiling refinishing ($12,000) and artist's wages/overhead ($25,700).] Seagraves said the artist had indicated that extra glass could be accommodated within the original budget.

Wiltrud Simbuerger wondered how quickly the work would be completed. There would be a six-month timeline, starting from the point of approval by the city council, Seagraves said.

Chamberlin noted that after the council approves the project, it typically takes an additional two months for the city attorney’s office to draw up a contract. She speculated that the six-month period would start sometime this summer, after a contract with the artist is signed. Kotarski asked whether it really takes two months for legal staff to prepare a contract. That’s been the commission’s experience, Chamberlin replied.

Chamberlin said she liked the project, and found it intriguing. Kotarski agreed, saying he especially liked the theme of the work. It puts the police and justice system at the center of the community, “as it should be,” he said. The ever-changing color and light reflects the community’s diversity, he added. It’s elegant, and light – it won’t disrupt the area at all. He also liked the fact that people can sit under it. Visitors are part of the center, and radiate out, he said – the artist ties this all together.

Connie Brown thanked the task force members for their work.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of Carpenter’s Radius sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for a vote.

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park

The art commission was asked to vote on selecting Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park.

A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Members of the task force include Wiltrud Simbuerger, Connie Pulcipher, Aaron Seagraves, Mariah Cherem and Hannah Smotrich.

This is the first project in a mural pilot program originally proposed by former AAPAC commissioner Jeff Meyers. Following Meyers’ resignation in mid-2011, Simbuerger has taken the lead on this project. At the Jan. 25 meeting, she briefly outlined the proposals for four finalists chosen by the task force. In addition to Thiefels, other finalists were (1) Robert Delgado of Los Angeles, Calif.; (2) Bethany Kalk of Moorehead, Kentucky; and (3) Jefferson Nelson of Liberty Center, Ohio.

The task force decided to recommend Thiefels not because hers was the best artistic treatment, but because of her proposal’s involvement of the community, Simbuerger said. Thiefels’ proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. In a sense, it would create a “library” of the neighborhood, Simbuerger told commissioners, and the task force really liked this concept. They also liked the fact that Thiefels has a concrete plan for how to execute the community involvement aspect of her project. [.pdf of narrative portion from Thiefels' proposal]

However, task force members had some issues about the imagery that Thiefels proposed for the middle of the columns, Simbuerger said. In her proposal, Thiefels described it this way:

My timeless design for the Allmendinger park will inspire all who encounter it year round. Each of the 12 pillars represent a month of the year, 3 pillars to a season. Seasonal activities illustrate the diversity and popularity of the park.

In the spring, lilac bushes blossom, children come out of hibernation to play hide and go seek, birds nest again in the oak and hickory trees, the playground comes alive with activity and laughter. On the summer pillars kites fly and sports abound, like basketball, volleyball, tennis, baseball, and soccer. On the fall pillars you see, colors changing, tree climbing, dog walking and frisbee tossing, sunny day picnics, and morning martial arts. Winter offers cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and snow angels.

I will paint these illustrations onto a third of each pillar space. The remaining area will be made up of tile or glass mosaic and a section of collected and found materials.

I intend to use striking and strong imagery, illustrating the activities with visual confidence. The figures, birds, and trees, could be painted in Kara Walker style silhouettes (to see visuals of Kara Walker’s work, visit: http://learn.walkerart.org/karawalker). They can be heavily modeled and detailed or played down (painted more like a wood block, stencil or silhouette). Grays and earth tones can be used instead of blacks to better harmonize with the surroundings.

Right now, those images might work if you’re close to them, but not necessarily if you’re driving by or looking at them from a house across the street, Simbuerger said. So the task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural on the middle sections of the pillars. Thiefels is willing to do that, but her new proposal isn’t yet completed, Simbuerger said.

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park: Commission Discussion

John Kotarski began by saying he really liked the proposal, especially because it involves the neighborhood and because Thiefels is a local artist. It’s important to build a sustainable community of local artists, he said. Kotarski agreed that the task force should continue to work with her on developing the project.

Image depicting Mary Thiefels' mural proposal at Allmendinger Park.

Connie Brown liked the collaboration between the task force and Thiefels – that’s a good process, she said, and will result in a richer design.

Tony Derezinski also liked the concept, and noted that members of the Allmendinger family still live in this area. He reported that his wife used to work in the Allmendinger building at First and Washington. [The historic brick building contains offices now, but was originally the Allmendinger piano and organ factory.]

Commissioners discussed other projects that Thiefels had completed, including murals in Hillsdale, Dexter and downtown Ann Arbor – a mural depicting Michigan veterans, located in the alley on West Liberty between Ashley and Main. AAPAC had selected Thiefels for a 2011 Golden Paintbrush award from the city for that mural.

Marsha Chamberlin questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient, considering the time and effort that would be required. Simbuerger agreed that it wasn’t much, but noted that it’s an amount low enough so that it doesn’t require the city council’s approval. Connie Brown clarified that the mural pilot program – approved by AAPAC in November 2010 – had designated a maximum $10,000 per project with the idea that multiple projects could be completed relatively quickly.

Simbuerger noted that the funding limit puts constraints on the types of materials that might be used, essentially limiting it to paint because of the cost. Bob Miller wondered whether there was any flexibility to add to the budget for materials.

Derezinski asked whether Thiefels is experienced at making bids on projects like this. Chamberlin reported that Thiefels has a company – TreeTown Murals – and has completed several projects. Chamberlin said she trusted that Thiefels could finish the project as proposed, within the amount budgeted. But it felt like AAPAC was setting up the program to encourage artists to cut corners, she added.

Chamberlin recalled that when Susan Skarsgard did the Imagine/Align project – a linear planting of daffodils at The Arb – it had been a major undertaking. Among other things, Thiefels’ project would entail cataloguing all of the contributed items to be used in the mosaic. It would be lovely to eventually have a story on the building’s wall to document the items, Chamberlin said.

Brown noted that this is a pilot program, so AAPAC could change it if they needed to.

Miller suggested that the commission ask Thiefels to submit a revised budget, one that would realistically reflect her work. At that point, the commission could discuss whether other funding might be available. After further discussion, Malverne Winborne made a friendly amendment to accept Thiefels as the artist for this project, contingent on her working with the task force to submit a revised proposal and budget.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to select Mary Thiefels for the Allmendinger mural project, contingent on asking her submission of a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force. Work on the mural is expected to begin this summer.

Artwork for East Stadium Bridges

Wiltrud Simuerger gave an update on artwork for the East Stadium bridges project. The task force, which she leads, now includes Dave Huntoon, Joss Kiely, Nancy Leff, Jim Kosteva, Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves.

The group met and talked about possible locations for artwork, Simbuerger said, within AAPAC’s framework of making it a high visibility project for a range of users – motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. They identified four locations: (1) on the East Stadium bridge itself; (2) on a fence in Rose White Park; (3) at the terminus of White Street, north of the bridge; and (4) on the stairs and underpass at South State Street. Artwork at any of these sites could be seen differently by various users, she said, depending on their velocity.

From left: Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and Malverne Winborne.

The task force is developing a request for proposals (RFP) that will incorporate one or more of these locations. The proposal should also introduce an overarching theme, ensure the artwork’s high visibility, and address the diverse nature of the site, she said.

After the draft RFP is approved by the task force, it will be presented to AAPAC for consideration. Simbuerger said the task force is inclined to suggest a budget of $250,000 because it will be a high-visibility project: “That’s why we really recommend putting in some money.” Miller added that the amount suggested might be even higher.

Malverne Winborne clarified with Aaron Seagraves that $100,000 in funding was available directly from the bridge reconstruction budget, as the Percent for Art earmark. Other Percent for Art funds could be tapped, as long as the artwork relates directly to the original funding source. For example, artwork for the bridge could be funded with some of the $529,251 that’s available for public art from street millage projects.

Connie Brown said it’s difficult to allocate money for these kinds of public art projects without having a sense of how the projects fit into a broader plan. Marsha Chamberlin replied that the commission’s annual art plan is designed to provide that kind of guidance. [.pdf of current annual art plan, for fiscal year 2012]

The annual plan gives a list of projects and potential sites for public art, Brown said. It doesn’t provide an overall framework, one that answers the question of what the public art program hopes to accomplish more broadly for residents, she said.

John Kotarski agreed. Without a “conceptual narrative,” it’s hard to say whether a project is worth investing $100,000 or $400,000, he said. It’s challenging to evaluate sites by location, without a broader narrative or theme. Without that framework, he said, people might ask whether the Percent for Art program is just decorating the city.

Brown described it as the difference between being reactive or proactive. The commission needs an upper-level vision, she said.

Winborne noted that a budget for the East Stadium bridges artwork didn’t need to be set that night. Even after the task force makes a recommendation, a draft RFP would need to be reviewed by the city attorney’s office, he said. So the commission has time to discuss these issues further.

Strategic Planning

The discussion of the East Stadium bridges project – and the need for a broader conceptual framework to guide AAPAC’s decisions – led to talk of developing a master plan, in addition to the commission’s annual art plan.

Marsha Chamberlin pointed out that the commission’s approach has been from the bottom up, but they need to also look at it from the top down. They could look at what they’d generally like to achieve in the next three years, for example, then evaluate how specific projects would fit those goals.

Chamberlin initially suggested using part of AAPAC’s Feb. 22 meeting to talk about a master plan. But after further discussion, commissioners reached a consensus that a half-day retreat would be a better approach. Chamberlin proposed asking the mayor to expedite his nomination of the new commissioner, so that person could participate in the retreat. Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit will be asked to facilitate. She has led AAPAC through similar exercises in the past, most recently in October 2011 to help commissioners prep for a Nov. 14 working session with city council.

No date has yet been announced for the upcoming retreat.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, informed commissioners that he’ll be making a presentation at a March 12 city council working session to give an update on the Percent for Art program. He noted that AAPAC needs to pass its next annual plan – for FY 2013 – in March, so that it can be presented to the city council by April 1, as required by the Percent for Art ordinance.

At AAPAC’s Dec. 13, 2011 meeting, Seagraves had led a discussion regarding the next annual plan. As a follow-up to that meeting, he’d subsequently surveyed commissioners via email about their priorities for the coming year. At the Jan. 25 meeting, he presented results of that survey, which five of the eight commissioners had completed.

Based on the survey input, Seagraves identified priorities in several categories for the city’s 2013 fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013:

• Streets: (1) the southeast corner of Main & William; (2) the intersection of Main & Huron; and (3) the median at Washtenaw & Stadium.
• Water & Sewer: (1) dams – Barton, Superior; (2) manhole covers; (3) interpretive signs regarding sewer “lead throughs” in parks.
• Programs: (1) crosswalk designs; (2) banners; (3) bus stops.
• Other: (1) roofs at the farmer’s market; (2) Douglas Park on Washtenaw Avenue; and (3) Miller’s Creek streambank.

Seagraves noted that in addition to priorities from commissioners, results from a public online survey could be used to guide the annual plan. The online survey, which launched earlier this month, will run through Feb. 20. So far, about 400 responses have been received, Seagraves said.

John Kotarski said he didn’t complete the survey because he’d had trouble figuring out what kind of responses were being sought. Connie Brown said she didn’t complete it either – she’d been frustrated that the questions didn’t fit into a broader framework.

Wiltrude Simbuerger suggested using this for the basis of discussion at the retreat, but not relying on the survey results exclusively to develop the annual art plan.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Cathy Gendron.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Carpenter’s proposal calls for creating a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. The intent of the artwork is to reflect how the work of the courts and police radiate out into the community. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for approval.

Also at the Jan. 25 meeting, the art commission voted to recommend the selection of Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park. A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Her proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. The task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural on the middle sections of the pillars.

Commissioners liked the concept of “found object” mosaics, but questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient. They ultimately voted to approve recommending Thiefels for the project, contingent on asking her to submit a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force.

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

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor's public art administrator, goes over some ideas for possible programs to be funded through the city's Percent for Art program. (Photos by the writer.)

Most of AAPAC’s December meeting was spent looking forward to the coming year – discussing how to develop the next annual art plan, which is due to be delivered to the city council in April. Commissioners talked about how to increase the amount of public art funded through the city’s Percent for Art, including putting in place new programs that would expedite the process. Some city councilmembers have raised concerns that few public art projects have been completed since the Percent for Art was created in 2007. The program, overseen by AAPAC, allocates 1% for public art from all of the city government’s capital projects.

So far, only two projects have been installed: (1) a tree sculpture at West Park, and (2) a large water fountain in front of city hall. Updates on several other projects were reviewed at AAPAC’s December meeting, and several days after the meeting, action was taken toward the selection of artists for two projects. A task force for a mural in Allmendinger Park is recommending Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for that work, with a $10,000 budget. And a task force that’s selecting artwork for the lobby of the Justice Center is recommending Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for that $150,000 project. AAPAC is expected to get more details and vote on both recommendations at its Jan. 25 meeting.

During Dec. 13 discussion of the annual plan, it emerged that there’s been a revision to a key constraint on Percent for Art spending: The aspect of permanence. Previously, city staff had told AAPAC that because all artwork needed to be capitalized, it had to last a minimum of five years. Now, Chamberlin reported, the city’s finance department has revised its definition of “permanent” to a minimum of two years, not five. “That does change things a lot,” she observed.

One item that fits the “permanent” requirement, but posed other concerns, was a proposed donation to the city via local attorney Kurt Berggren. The work is an eight-panel set of gates called the Global Peace Gateway, originally located at a cathedral in Los Angeles. Commissioners discussed several issues related to that donation, including the cost of transporting the work to Ann Arbor and the fact that the gates contain religious iconography. Ultimately, they voted to reject the donation.

One thing that wasn’t mentioned during the meeting: Margaret Parker’s decision to leave the commission one year before her term expired. The news was revealed later in the month at a city council meeting, when mayor John Hieftje put forward a nomination for her replacement – John Kotarski. Parker, a local artist, has served on AAPAC since its inception, including three years as its chair, and was instrumental in creating the Percent for Art program.

Project Updates

During the meeting, commissioners and staff gave updates on several ongoing projects.

Project Updates: Justice Center Lobby

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, told commissioners that a task force for selecting art in the lobby of the Justice Center would be meeting later that week and would likely pick an artist for the project. The names of three finalists had been posted on AAPAC’s website: Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon; Ray King of Philadelphia; and Thomas Sayre of Raleigh, N.C.

Responding to a follow-up email from The Chronicle, Seagraves said that the task force decided to recommend Carpenter for the project. Carpenter’s website describes him as an artist specializing in large-scale public installations, including architectural sculpture and infrastructure design – he has designed several bridges, for example. A total of $150,000 had been budgeted for the Justice Center piece; additional funds are available for artwork in an outdoor courtyard behind the building, facing Ann Street. The item will likely be on the agenda for AAPAC’s Jan. 25 meeting.

Project Updates: Dreiseitl Sculpture

Seagraves reported that the side panels were expected to be installed soon on the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture in front of city hall, and the blue lights would be turned on soon. He wasn’t sure why it had taken this long for the final work to be completed. [The bronze sculpture – with a water feature and blue lights that flash in automated patterns – was officially dedicated at a public ceremony on Oct. 4. It's the first major installation paid for out of the city's Percent for Art program. The lights were turned on later in December.]

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

Seagraves said he’d done a walkthrough of the site earlier in the week with the project manager for the East Stadium bridges, which are being rebuilt, and they looked at possible locations for public art. Jim Kosteva, the University of Michigan’s director of community relations, will be part of the task force for this project, Seagraves said.

Project Updates: Allmendinger Mural

The finalists for the mural on pillars of the building at Allmendinger Park had submitted preliminary concepts, Seagraves said, and the task force was meeting later in the month to make a recommendation. [The finalists were (1) Robert Delgado of Los Angeles, Calif.; (2) Bethany Kalk of Moorehead, Kentucky; (3) Jefferson Nelson of Liberty Center, Ohio; and (4) Mary Thiefels of Ann Arbor. The project has a budget of $10,000.]

In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Seagraves said that Thiefels will be recommended to AAPAC for the project. The commission is likely to vote on her selection at its Jan. 25 meeting.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

Connie Brown has been taking the lead on a task force for artwork at the proposed Fuller Road Station. But because that project is on pause – commissioners were told last month that the entire project, which has not yet been approved by the city council, has been pushed back 6-12 months – Brown volunteered to “champion” the public art component for the Kingsley rain garden project. She said she’d work with Seagraves to form a task force for the effort.

At its Nov. 30, 2011 meeting, AAPAC had approved moving ahead on the project. The city is buying 215 and 219 W. Kingsley – land that’s located in a floodplain – and building a rain garden there.

Project Updates: Huron River Artwalk

Seagraves reported that he, Margaret Parker and Malverne Winborne had attended a meeting organized by the Huron River Watershed Council about possible art projects along the river. AAPAC has identified two locations for possible public art along the river: (1) at Gallup Park, in conjunction with planned improvements to the canoe livery; (2) at the Argo Dam canoe bypass, which is currently under construction. [.pdf of River Art Walk proposal]

The HRWC is looking at a broader art project involving multiple communities. For AAPAC’s project, Seagraves said Colin Smith – an Ann Arbor resident and chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – is likely to serve on a task force for the effort, as will a member of the city’s park advisory commission.

Project Updates: Village Green

Elaine Sims asked whether there would be any public art at Village Green’s City Apartments, a residential complex planned for the corner of First and Washington. She recalled that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had a role in the project, but she couldn’t remember the details – nor could anyone else.

[The Ann Arbor city council finalized the sale of land to the developer Village Green at its Nov. 10, 2011 meeting. Village Green plans to build a 244-space parking deck as the first two stories of a 9-story building with 156 dwelling units, called City Apartments. The Ann Arbor DDA has pledged around $9 million of support for bonds to pay for the parking deck component of City Apartments, and the city will own that part of the project. Village Green representatives and the DDA had both discussed a possible public art component with AAPAC in 2008, but the issue hasn't been raised at AAPAC meetings since then.]

Project Updates: Street Art

Seagraves said he’d met with city staff who are involved in street repair and replacement projects, to try to get a sense of how public art might be incorporated. He plans to bring a more detailed report to AAPAC’s January 2012 meeting. As of December 2011, available Percent for Art funds from the street millage totaled $529,251.

Administrative Funding for Public Art

Margaret Parker asked whether there had been any movement toward increasing funds available for administrative support of the Percent for Art program. She has advocated for doubling the amount that’s currently set aside for the program’s administration. The position of public art administrator, currently held by Aaron Seagraves, is a part-time job. Other funds are available for project management work on specific projects, but the amount is capped at 8%. Parker would like to see the public art administrator be a full-time job, and the cap for other project management work raised to 16%.

Seagraves indicated that he hadn’t heard anything else about it, and said it’s a sensitive issue for him to pursue since it relates to his job. Parker said she doesn’t want the issue to slip through the cracks, and AAPAC needs to be kept informed about it.

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, said she meets regularly with the public services area administrator – that position has been held by Sue McCormick, who recently took a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. Chamberlin plans to continue meeting with the McCormick’s replacement, when that position is filled, as well as with the city administrator, Steve Powers. She said she’ll continue to pursue the issue of administrative funding.

Annual Planning

Most of AAPAC’s December meeting focused on long-range planning issues, beginning with the process of developing the commission’s annual art plan. [.pdf of annual plan for FY 2012, which was adopted earlier this year.] The discussion also looked at possible programs that AAPAC might pursue, similar to the mural program that’s now in a pilot stage.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, led the discussion. By ordinance, AAPAC must submit an annual public art plan by April of each year. He noted that to date, the plan has been primarily driven by location – the plan aims for geographic diversity of art installations – as well as by the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP), which outlines upcoming projects that include Percent for Art funding.

He had prepared a draft timeline for developing an annual plan, as well as three general criteria to consider when determining what to include: (1) the number of new projects, (2) estimated recommended expenditures; and (3) programs or “themes.” He said he hoped the discussion could give guidance to AAPAC’s annual plan committee, which would flesh out this input as they develop a formal recommendation. [.pdf of draft timeline and criteria]

The timeline drafted by Seagraves begins in January:

• January: Meet with city staff regarding upcoming projects in the capital improvement plan (CIP) for FY2013.
• February: (1) Begin public input process; (2) Request information from residents; (3) Conduct survey; and (4) Attend meetings and forums with neighborhood associations.
• March: (1) Hold work session with the city’s park advisory commission and city council; and (2) present the plan to AAPAC.
• April: Annual plan due – submit to city council.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested that the annual planning process be a year-long effort. If it starts in January, “you’re already too late,” she said. Seagraves agreed, but noted that they do need to start working on the next plan now, which is due in April 2012.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin.

Commissioners talked about different ways to gather public input for the plan, such as meeting with neighborhood associations or speaking at business and civic groups like the Rotary Club or Main Street Area Association. They also discussed using an online survey and publicizing it through groups like the PTOs at local schools. Margaret Parker said she finds online surveys cold and impersonal, and suggested that instead of having it online, commissioners should attend meetings and pass out surveys to people there. When Chamberlin asked if Parker would be willing to tabulate paper copies of a survey, Parker said she would not be interested in doing that and suggested that they find a student to do it.

Tony Derezinski suggested putting information on Community Television Network, saying it’s surprising how many people watch public access TV.

The group also discussed how to approach the presentations at the park advisory commission and the city council. Derezinski, who also serves on the city council, said AAPAC should present a list of projects they’d like to do, then ask for comments “but not approval.” AAPAC has momentum right now, he said, in the wake of defeating an attempt to temporarily reduce funding from 1% to 0.5%. “We have the advantage for the time being, and we have to utilize that and strike,” he said. AAPAC needs to show that they’re doing what they said they’d do, he added, “and we can – it’s really doable.”

Annual Planning: Projects, Programs and Criteria

Seagraves asked commissioners to consider how many new projects they might want to set as a goal in the annual plan. He listed current projects in the order of expected completion, and noted that the first three would likely be finished in 2012:

• Mural program at Allmendinger Park
• Justice Center
• Kingsley & First rain garden
• Argo mill race, or Gallup Park canoe livery
• East Stadium/State bridge and Rose White Park
• Fuller Road Station

He also asked whether there were particular funding sources that commissioners wanted to target. He gave estimated available funding through FY2013 for the various Percent for Art sources, based on upcoming capital projects: parks ($35,200); streets ($638,300); water ($230,100); sewer ($438,700); stormwater ($33,900); solid waste ($37,000); energy ($6,400); and airport ($3,100).

Seagraves also introduced some ideas for programs that AAPAC could develop, similar to the mural program that’s now in a pilot phase. Other possibilities include artwork at crosswalks or shared-use paths, or a variety of public items that could be designed by artists: manhole covers, banners, street “furniture” (like benches or lights), fire hydrants, wayfinding signs or kiosks.

For programs, Seagraves said, some things to consider include how often would a work be commissioned, what funding source would be used, how long would these items be expected to last, and where might they be located?

Elaine Sims wanted to add “community art-making” to the list of potential programs. In other communities, artists do projects that involve large groups of people, like school children, she said. It’s a way to get more community buy-in.

Margaret Parker said the estimated $638,300 in the streets fund would be a good source for purchasing non-commissioned artwork. Sims noted that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority has indicated a willingness to partner with the city on public art projects. Perhaps the streets fund would be a source for funding a project with AATA, she said.

Tony Derezinski suggested that the bus pullouts or bus stops along Washtenaw Avenue were an opportunity to install public art. Thematically, looking at bus stops might be a potential program, he said. From the city council’s perspective, he said, it would be helpful for AAPAC to develop collaborative relationships, like a partnership with the AATA.

With regards to partnerships, Marsha Chamberlin reported that she’d had some email exchanges with Abby Elias of the city attorney’s office regarding possible locations for art funded by the Percent for Art program. According to Elias, Chamberlin said, the AATA’s Blake Transit Center isn’t eligible because the city doesn’t own any of it. [The AATA is rebuilding the Blake Transit Center, located north of William between Fourth and Fifth avenues.]

Chamberlin said parking structures operated by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority do qualify as possible locations for Percent for Art projects, because those are owned by the city. So one criteria for selecting specific projects would be that the location must be on city-owned property, she said.

Tony Derezinski, who serves on AAPAC and city council.

Geographic location – making sure that work is spread out in different neighborhoods – would be another criteria. After additional discussion, the criteria of visibility, funding source, and ease of implementation were also added to the list.

Chamberlin told commissioners that the overall idea is to get more public art into the community. One approach would be to pick a program – focusing on murals or sculptures, for example – and issue a request for proposals for artists. From those who apply, AAPAC could choose five artists and match them with five locations, she said. That would put more work in the pipeline.

There was some discussion about the issue of permanence. In the past, commissioners had been told by city staff that Percent for Art funds could only be used on “permanent” art installations. From the Chronicle’s coverage of AAPAC’s October 2011 meeting:

Marsha Chamberlin noted that AAPAC is challenged because the Percent for Art ordinance restricts the kinds of projects that can be done. It’s limited to projects that are permanent – which means the visual arts. That eliminates the ability to support performance arts, for example. Tony Derezinski said that people often refer to ArtPrize, an annual artist competition in Grand Rapids that draws hundreds of thousands of people to that community. Some wonder why Ann Arbor can’t do something like that event, he said: “There’s some Grand Rapids envy there, I think.”

Chamberlin noted that the meaning of permanent relates to its ability to be capitalized – it needs to last a minimum of five years, she said. [At AAPAC's July 2010 meeting, McCormick told commissioners that the city runs a depreciation schedule on each piece of art.]

By way of background, the word “permanent” is not used specifically to refer to public art in the Percent for Art ordinance, which defines public art in this way: “Public art means works of art created, purchased, produced or otherwise acquired for display in public spaces or facilities. Public art may include artistic design features incorporated into the architecture, layout, design or structural elements of the space or facility. Public art may be any creation, production, conception or design with an aesthetic purpose, including freestanding objets d’art, sculptures, murals, mosaics, ornamentation, paint or decoration schemes, use of particular structural materials for aesthetic effect, or spatial arrangement of structures.” [.pdf of Percent for Art ordinance]

At the Dec. 13 meeting, Chamberlin reported that the city’s finance department has revised its definition of “permanent” to a minimum of two years, not five. “That does change things a lot,” she observed.

Toward the end of the meeting, Seagraves offered to put together a summary of their discussion, and bring it to the January meeting for additional refinement. The group also agreed to discuss the development of a rating sheet at that meeting, to be used in assessing projects based on the criteria they’ve identified.

Commissioners also discussed modifications to a draft, outlining steps that should be taken in developing public art projects. [.pdf of project steps spreadsheet] Seagraves plans to bring an updated version of that document to the January meeting too.

Donation of Gates

Marsha Chamberlin noted that she had emailed commissioners regarding a proposed donation to the city. Typically, when AAPAC receives an offer of a donation, a task force is formed to evaluate it and make a recommendation on accepting it. Chamberlin began by asking whether there might be any circumstance in which AAPAC did not need to take that step – for example, if it were a donation that commissioners felt would grossly offend public taste.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Elaine Sims.

In the current case, the donation was offered by local attorney Kurt Berggren for an eight-panel set of gates called the Global Peace Gateway, originally located at a cathedral in Los Angeles. They were created in 1922 by an unknown artist, Chamberlin said, and include religious iconography – specifically, several large crosses. At a minimum, it would cost an estimated $15,000 to transport the gates to Ann Arbor, she said. So the question for AAPAC is whether to create a task force to evaluate the donation before making a decision, or whether to simply make a decision without taking that step.

Margaret Parker said the gates are actually a piece of architectural detail, not a standalone work of art. “We’re not in the architectural element recycling business,” she said. Parker also noted that there’s no indication as to what the maintenance costs for the gates would be.

Wiltrud Simbuerger observed that the gates would have to be made into a piece of art, and someone would have to do that, which would result in additional expense. Tony Derezinski said the gates could be located at a gateway to the city, citing Fuller Road Station as a possibility. But he added that his initial impression was he’s doubtful about accepting the donation. It would cost the city some money, and there are unanswered questions. What additional information did they need to make it more appealing? he asked.

Chamberlin ventured that paying so much for transport isn’t the best use of city funds. Elaine Sims said she’s troubled by the crosses, while Connie Brown noted that there’s nothing like this proposed in AAPAC’s annual art plan.

Derezinski said the cumulative effect of all these concerns make it difficult to move ahead.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to turn down the donation of the Global Peace Gateway.

Parker’s Resignation

At the Ann Arbor city council’s Dec. 19, 2011 meeting, mayor John Hieftje nominated John Kotarski to replace Margaret Parker on AAPAC. Kotarski has been a media consultant who previously worked for the Mount Clemens Schools. He has attended several recent AAPAC meetings as an observer.

Parker served for several years on the commission on art in public places (CAPP), the precursor to AAPAC. She was last re-appointed to AAPAC on June 15, 2009 for a three-year term, which would have ended Dec. 31, 2012. Parker served as chair of AAPAC from the enactment of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance in 2007 until the end of 2010. Marsha Chamberlin agreed to assume responsibility as chair in April this year.

At the Dec. 13 AAPAC meeting, Parker did not mention her plans to resign.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Margaret Parker, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Elaine Sims. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Cathy Gendron, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Margaret Parker and Malverne Winborne at the commission's Nov. 30 meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

Former board chair Margaret Parker, who was instrumental in creating the Percent for Art program in 2007, argued passionately that commissioners should be strong advocates for it. Saying she didn’t believe councilmembers really understood the issues that AAPAC is facing and that the currently proposed changes represented an “incredible kink in the road,” she urged commissioners to attend Monday’s city council meeting and speak against the proposed changes during the public hearing.

Parker also argued that the council should double the budget for administrative support to public art projects – from 8% to 16%.

As she’s done in the past when the proposals to cut Percent for Art funding have been floated, Parker is trying to mobilize people in the local arts community. She has sent emails urging people to lobby councilmembers, including a bullet-point “fact sheet” related to the program. [.pdf of Parker email] [.pdf of "fact sheet"]

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s current chair, questioned whether commissioners should “pick a fight” with city council, and said she felt that councilmembers did understand the issues clearly. Noting that she had attended previous council meetings and also communicated with councilmembers privately, Chamberlin wasn’t convinced that turning out yet again would be effective.

The councilmember who has in the past advised AAPAC about the sentiment on council – Tony Derezinski, who also serves on AAPAC – did not attend the Nov. 30 meeting.

Malverne Winborne pointed to political realities at play, and said that AAPAC needs to be realistic about the situation – other programs are being cut, too. If the council decides to get rid of AAPAC, he said he wouldn’t fight that. “Decommission me – what the hell,” he quipped.

In addition to an extended discussion on city council’s proposed changes to the Percent for Art ordinance, commissioners voted to move forward on two projects: (1) public art in a proposed rain garden at the corner of Kingsley and First, and (2) a partnership with the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project, which involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.

Commissioners were also briefed on a range of other projects, including the latest on a mural at Allmendinger Park. A task force has selected four finalists for the $10,000 project: (1) Robert Delgado of Los Angeles, Calif.; (2) Bethany Kalk of Moorehead, Kentucky; (3) Jefferson Nelson of Liberty Center, Ohio; and (4) Mary Thiefels of Ann Arbor. The artists will submit preliminary concepts for potential murals on Dec. 8, and from those, the task force will recommend one for AAPAC and the city council to consider.

Commissioners also changed the date for AAPAC’s final meeting in December – to Dec. 13, when they’ll hold a follow-up discussion to their Oct. 26 working session. That October session, intended to prep AAPAC for its presentation at a Nov. 14 council work session – focused on challenges facing the Percent for Art program, and possible solutions.

Proposed Percent for Art Changes

As part of his administrator’s report, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – updated commissioners on the status of proposed changes by city council to the Percent for Art ordinance.

By way of background, the city enacted a law in 2007 that requires all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project. Since then, there have been previous unsuccessful attempts by some councilmembers to reduce the percentage allocated to public art. This most recent proposal, which the council approved on an initial vote at its Nov. 21 meeting, would temporarily reduce the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%.

In addition to cutting the public art amount from 1% to 0.5% per project, several other revisions to the public art ordinance received initial council approval, and are expected to be considered for a final vote at the council’s Dec. 5 meeting:

• The reduction from 1% to 0.5% would apply for the next three fiscal years, from 2012-2015. After that, funding would revert to 1%. [A proposal by councilmember Jane Lumm to cut the funding even more – to 0.25% – did not pass.]
• A sunsetting amendment would require that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance, starting in fiscal 2012, must be spent or allocated within three years. Money that is unspent or unallocated after three years must be returned to its fund of origin. This applies only to “pooled” funds – from Percent for Art money funded by parks, stormwater or solid waste projects, for example, and not for specific building projects like the proposed Fuller Road Station. The proposed revision would also make it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.
• For the purposes of the public art ordinance, a definition of capital improvement projects would exclude sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.
• Any capital projects funded out of the general fund would be excluded from the Percent for Art requirement. Such projects are rare.

The sunsetting amendment came in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years, just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

When it became clear earlier this year that a proposal to reduce the Percent for Art funding would be brought forward to the city council, AAPAC commissioners and others in the arts community began lobbying informally as well as speaking during public commentary at city council meetings. The council focused on the Percent for Art program at its Nov. 14 working session, which included a presentation by AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin and by Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, who oversees the program.

AAPAC held an Oct. 26 working session to prep for the Nov. 14 presentation to the council. At that meeting, commissioners cited a range of challenges facing the program, including: (1) a lack of public awareness about the program, its constraints, funding sources, and AAPAC’s role; (2) the perception that not enough art is coming out of the program, and that the process is too slow; (3) the complaint that local artists aren’t given preference; and (4) the sense that in this difficult economy, city funds shouldn’t be spent on public art.

In addition to offering ways to address these challenges, at the Oct. 26 session commissioners also discussed their own workload. They noted that AAPAC is still relatively new and is one of the few city commissions that hasn’t enjoyed consistent staff support over the years. Although a new part-time public art administrator was hired this summer – Aaron Seagraves – the program had no dedicated staff person for about a year.

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Commissioner Discussion

On Nov. 30, Seagraves reported that he thought the Nov. 14 work session with city council had gone well, and that the information about the Percent for Art program had been well-received by councilmembers. Based on his observation of the subsequent Nov. 21 council meeting, Seagraves felt councilmembers understood the situation and were sympathetic to the situation that AAPAC has operated under for the past few years. That’s all positive, he said.

In reviewing the proposed ordinance changes, Seagraves noted that the biggest change would be the funding reduction from 1% to 0.5% – but it would return to full funding at 1% in fiscal 2016. [The city's fiscal year starts on July 1 and runs through June 30.] He clarified that the proposal to return funds to their original source after three years, if unspent or unencumbered for specific projects, would apply to funding that’s allocated to the Percent for Art program starting in FY 2013 – that is, starting on July 1, 2012. The proposal includes an option of an unlimited number of six-month extensions for funds that haven’t been spent or encumbered, he noted.

Existing funds wouldn’t be affected, he said, but the wording on that part of the ordinance revision is unclear. He said he expects the wording will be changed before the final vote, to clarify that existing Percent for Art funds will be exempt from the three-year spending rule.

Connie Brown raised some concern about funding for art at the Fuller Road Station project. She observed that since the overall project has been delayed, it’s unclear how long it will take before the public art funding for that is available. Seagraves said that because those funds are tied to a specific capital project – not part of the pooled Percent for Art funds – the three-year rule won’t apply.

Malverne Winborne wondered “who’s the timekeeper?” With football, he said, there are 60 minutes in the game but it typically takes three hours to play, because of timeouts and other factors. With public art projects, there are many things out of AAPAC’s control that might delay a project, he said. Each project has its own clock, and the question is “do we own the clock?” he said.

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Administrative Costs

At this point, Margaret Parker weighed in, saying she had sat through the full discussion at the city council’s Nov. 21 meeting and she didn’t believe the councilmembers had responded to the Nov. 14 work session at all. The council didn’t discuss the work session, she said, but instead jumped into a new proposal that had “popped up” over the previous weekend to cut the program even more – to 0.25%. [That proposal, by newly elected councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2), was ultimately rejected.]

Parker spoke at length about her concerns. She contended that councilmembers didn’t seem to hear about all the projects AAPAC had in the works, which had been described to the council at the Nov. 14 working session. They didn’t seem to hear that the program needs more administrative staff time, she said. Rather, councilmembers intimated that AAPAC has bungled the program and hadn’t successfully finished enough projects, Parker said.

The idea of returning funds that haven’t been spent or encumbered after three years is an “incredible kink in the road,” Parker contended. Every project takes a different length of time, she said, and this ordinance change will make it a lot harder to do projects. The council also didn’t address the fact that it’s been taking longer to do projects because of a lack of administrative support, Parker said. [During council deliberations, Margie Teall among others mentioned lack of staff support to the commission.] Currently, spending on administration is capped at 8% of total public art funding – it should be 16%, she said. If the council wants AAPAC to do more projects, more quickly, she added, then they need to provide the administrative support for that.

By way of additional background, at the council’s Nov. 14 work session, Sue McCormick had alluded to an 8% limit on administrative costs – the costs associated with the functioning of the commission itself (for example, keeping meeting minutes, among other items). The 8% limit is not a part of the public art ordinance. By way of comparison, the city’s greenbelt program operates under the legal limit of a 6% cap on administrative costs, though it has expended considerably less than that – 1.5% for the most recent fiscal year. The 8% limit would still be in effect for public art administrative costs, McCormick had explained. She also recommended increasing the contract for the city’s public art administrator by $35,000 – moving the position from part-time to full-time status, but still as a contract employee.

At AAPAC’s Nov. 30 meeting, Seagraves noted that the percentage for administration isn’t written into the Percent for Art ordinance – it’s a separate issue, he said. He noted that McCormick is working on a way to increase funding for public art administration.

“It’s not a separate issue,” Parker replied. It’s a step in how the ordinance was developed, she said, and it’s important to say that. It would be a recipe for failure if Seagraves has to do all the work as a part-time employee, she said.

Parker said the council asked AAPAC to examine its policies and procedures, and AAPAC did that faithfully. Yet all that work has been swept under the rug, she said. The reason why things haven’t moved faster is that volunteers are doing the work, she said, referring to AAPAC commissioners. And those volunteers have just about worn themselves out, she said.

There was some uncertainty among commissioners about how the 8% amount for administration is allocated. Brown noted that if the 8% isn’t part of the ordinance, it’s important to understand how that’s managed. In addition to the public art administrator, city project managers – for the municipal center building, for example, or the proposed Fuller Road Station – spend part of their time managing the project’s public art component.

Cheryl Zuellig wondered whether Seagraves could take on additional project management responsibilities related to public art projects, in addition to his part-time job as public art administrator. Marsha Chamberlin indicated that would be possible.

Parker said that since the council is looking to cut Percent for Art funding in half, and is pointing to money that hasn’t been used as a rationale for doing that, then this issue of administrative costs needs to be raised.

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Role of AAPAC

During the discussion, Parker criticized Chamberlin for not attending the Nov. 21 council meeting. Chamberlin replied that she has attended previous meetings and has been doing a lot of behind-the-scenes communications with councilmembers as well. Parker said she felt councilmembers aren’t giving AAPAC credit for work that’s been done. If AAPAC doesn’t insist that more funding be allocated to administration prior to council’s final vote on the ordinance revisions, then it won’t happen, she said.

When Seagraves replied that the issue is being addressed by McCormick, Parker pressed for details. Seagraves said he wasn’t sure how McCormick was planning to handle it, but that she planned to make a recommendation to the council at some point about increasing the budget for public art administration.

AAPAC needs to know what that recommendation will be, Parker said. Councilmembers who’ve been supportive of the Percent for Art program are now willing to back a funding cut, she said, because they feel the program isn’t running well. This needs to be addressed before the council’s final vote, she said.

Chamberlin wondered whether Parker felt that these issues weren’t covered adequately by McCormick at the Nov. 14 council work session. Parker replied that the council didn’t discuss the issues at their Nov. 21 meeting, when they gave initial approval to the ordinance changes. She implied that since the issues weren’t discussed, councilmembers hadn’t grasped their significance.

Chamberlin queried the other commissioners, asking for their opinion on how to proceed. Should they take action as Parker had suggested? Or should AAPAC work through Seagraves and Tony Derezinski, the city councilmember who also serves on AAPAC, and trust their leadership and advice? [Derezinski did not attend the Nov. 30 meeting.]

Cheryl Zuellig suggested that commissioners could speak during public commentary on Dec. 5, getting it on the record that AAPAC is working with McCormick and others on the project management issue, which they’ve identified as a challenge. They could present it in a proactive way, she said.

Wiltrud Simbuerger also supported speaking to the council on Dec. 5, telling the council how AAPAC feels about the proposed changes. It would send a bad message, she said, if the reaction by council to problems that arise in the program is simply to cut the budget – commissioners need to respond to that.

Chamberlin observed that there seems to be a perception among commissioners that there hasn’t been adequate reaction to these proposed ordinance changes. She said she’s had private communication with councilmembers, and wondered whether other commissioners have as well. Simbuerger replied that it was important to make a public statement, in addition to whatever other communication occurred.

Parker added that it’s important for AAPAC to advocate for its position. Chamberlin wasn’t so sure. Is it their role to publicly argue with city council? she asked. “I don’t think so.”

Malverne Winborne said he felt “lost in the weeds.” The commissioners all had opinions, he said, but he wasn’t sure they knew what they were talking about – or rather, he added, he didn’t know. AAPAC now has a project management process in place that hasn’t been allowed to operate for very long. As a volunteer, Winborne said, he doesn’t have time to handle the workload that’s been expected of commissioners. As for staff, if there isn’t enough staff time to manage the projects, then AAPAC should go to the city council and communicate that.

But the elephant in the room is the political reality of the situation, he said. There are underlying political issues that AAPAC needs to be realistic about. Everyone’s being cut, but until now, the Percent for Art program hasn’t been cut. The question is – do they have the votes on the council or not? he said.

Chamberlin said AAPAC doesn’t have the role of a political action committee. But Parker made another plea for advocacy. She said that in the past when she was AAPAC’s chair and the Percent for Art program has been threatened, it made a difference when commissioners and other supporters of public art attended the council meetings and spoke during public commentary. In the past, none of the proposed cuts were approved. All councilmembers have told her that it makes a difference when people show up, Parker said. If people don’t show up and advocate, the cuts will be approved. In the past, Parker said, councilmembers have told her that “cuts have not been made –because of eloquent public input.”

Parker said she has orchestrated public feedback in the past, and is organizing it again. [.pdf of Parker's email urging support for the Percent for Art program] [.pdf of "fact sheet" Parker attached to the email]

Parker told Chamberlin that it’s important to lobby privately, but it’s also necessary to turn out in public, because that makes it a lot more difficult for councilmembers to vote for the cuts. Council is trying to cut a very small program in half, when nothing else is being cut that much, she said.

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Coda

At the end of the Nov. 30 meeting, Parker brought up the issue of the proposed ordinance revision again, asking to know which commissioners planned to speak at the Dec. 5 city council meeting. Commissioners were initially silent. Then Connie Brown noted that they’d indicated they would state that the program is important. But who is coming? Parker wondered.

Again, Chamberlin asked whether they really wanted to pick a fight with the council. She said she has another commitment that night, and from talking with councilmembers, it seems clear that they understand how AAPAC feels. The council has also heard from the public, Chamberlin said, because Parker has done a good job in organizing that. So the question is how much does AAPAC want to do beyond that, she said.

Winborne noted that commissioners serve at the pleasure of the mayor. [The commissioners are nominated by the mayor, and confirmed by the entire city council.] Is it their job to advocate for something they’ve been assigned to? he asked. It seemed to him that AAPAC’s role is to lay out their approach and agenda. If they’re not wanted, the council can get rid AAPAC, and he wouldn’t fight that. “Decommission me – what the hell,” he said. AAPAC’s job is to represent the public in terms of distributing public art around the city, he concluded.

Brown said she couldn’t attend the Dec. 5 meeting. When Parker said she’d be attending and had invited others to come, Winborne indicated support of that approach, saying that the public should be the the people to speak to the council. Parker said she’s always been told by councilmembers who support this program that it’s helpful to have a turnout during public commentary, and she said she’s been thanked “profusely” afterwards. She said she’s been told it’s important to speak during the meeting because it’s televised. [Meetings are broadcast live by Community Television Network on cable access Channel 16, are streamed live via the Internet, and are available via video-on-demand.]

Having at least two commissioners at the meeting, in addition to members of the public, would be very powerful, Parker said. It’s not picking a fight – it’s stating what’s important. And it has to be restated, because there now different councilmembers on board, she said.

Chamberlin concluded the discussion by saying she’d urge anyone who can attend the Dec. 5 meeting to do so, and that she’d try to change her schedule so that she could attend, too.

Project Votes: Kingsley Rain Garden, DIA

AAPAC discussed and voted on two projects that had been presented at the group’s Oct. 26 meeting: (1) public art in a rain garden at the corner of Kingsley and First, and (2) a partnership with the Detroit Institute of Art.

Project Votes: Kingsley Rain Garden

At AAPAC’s Oct. 26 meeting, Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum and Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, had talked to commissioners about possible public art in a rain garden that’s being designed for property at the corner of Kingsley and First. The city is buying 215 and 219 W. Kingsley – land that’s located in a floodplain. A boarded-up house is located on the corner lot; the adjacent lot is vacant. The city received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish the house and stabilize the site.

The city has awarded Conservation Design Forum (CDF) the contract for the project, which will include building a rain garden on the site. CDF was also involved in the new municipal center project and the Dreiseitl sculpture.

The overall project cost is about $280,000 – the city will pay for 25% of that, or about $70,000. Because the city’s portion will come from the city’s stormwater fund, the public art component can use pooled Percent for Art funds captured from stormwater projects. A balance of about $27,000 is available in stormwater Percent for Art funds. [.pdf of rain garden project form]

At AAPAC’s Nov. 30 meeting, Cheryl Zuellig reviewed the proposal. Advantages of putting public art there include the fact that it will be on city-owned land in a visible and accessible location, because the street serves as a cut-through for motorists trying to avoid Main Street. Another advantage is that it’s a project supported by city staff, she noted, and the project’s designer is willing to integrate public art into his work. Cons to the project include somewhat limited public visibility – it’s a relatively small site, and not on a major thoroughfare.

Zuellig said she’d been on the fence about it. It’s not part of AAPAC’s annual public art plan, but the overall rain garden project is part of the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). Although there’s $27,000 in funding available, Zuellig wasn’t sure they should spend that full amount, and wondered whether $10,000 would be an appropriate figure.

Malverne Winborne wanted commissioners to at least think about the fact that this project isn’t in their annual plan. In the context of concerns over AAPAC’s ability to get projects done in a certain timeframe, he didn’t want them to lose focus on what they’d already said they’d do.

Zuellig said this question came up with the West Park sculpture project, too. Like the rain garden, public art in West Park was initiated by the city and tied to renovations there, but hadn’t been part of AAPAC’s annual plan. In the past, AAPAC has accepted projects if they are tied to the CIP or proposed by city staff, she said. Commissioners can change that stance, she added, but that’s what they’ve done to date. She said they should think about the implications of saying no to projects like this – what message will it send to city staff?

Marsha Chamberlin noted that since the Fuller Road Station project is on hold, that frees up some time to take on something else. She characterized the rain garden as an interesting project, in a different part of town from other art installations.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said he didn’t think AAPAC should limit projects only to those in its annual plan. The plan is designed to be a guideline, but does not bind their work. In response to a question from Connie Brown, he said installation for the public art piece in the rain garden would likely happen in the spring.

Referring to a conversation that commissioners had earlier in the meeting, Margaret Parker said this situation illustrates the “jaws” of their dilemma. On the one hand, they face pressure to move more projects along quickly. On the other hand, she isn’t confident they have the administrative support to take it on. Aside from those concerns, she said, it’s a great project, and would support using the entire $27,000 to fund it.

Brown asked Seagraves whether he felt he could manage it, given that Fuller Road Station is delayed. Yes, he said. In that case, Brown said she’d support the project, but felt that $27,000 was too much.

Wiltrud Simbuerger called it a great opportunity. They could do the project quickly – and it’s important to have a range of projects, she said, both smaller and larger projects that would take longer to complete. As head of AAPAC’s mural program, she noted that the $10,000-per-mural that they had approved was really insufficient, so she supported allocating more for the rain garden. Perhaps $20,000 was the right amount, she said.

Chamberlin indicated that it might be possible to pay Seagraves to manage the project, in addition to his part-time administrative role. She agreed on the need for a higher budget – for the West Park sculpture, she noted that the artist had absorbed much of the costs, because the budget had been too low. She supported using the full $27,000.

Winborne said he’s not opposed to the project, but is concerned about possible “scope creep.” He wants a process that doesn’t let AAPAC lose focus. They need to be vigilant when things like this pop up. That said, this project is low-hanging fruit and can be done quickly, he said, and he’d support it.

After additional discussion, commissioners voted on a resolution to accept the project for public art in the Kingsley rain garden and to create a task force to work on it. The resolution recommends funding the project at between $20,000 to $27,000, with the final recommendation for funding to come from the task force.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the Kingsley rain garden public art project.

Project Votes: DIA Partnership

At AAPAC’s Oct. 26 meeting, commissioners met with Larry Baranski, director of public programs for the Detroit Institute of Arts, regarding the DIA’s Inside|Out project. The project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.

In 2010 the DIA installed 40 works within 60 miles of Detroit, including two pieces in Ann Arbor: One on the exterior of Zingerman’s Deli on Detroit Street, and another reproduction on the Borders building on East Liberty. The DIA is planning an expanded program in 2012, funded by the Knight Foundation. Each community will have between five to eight installations grouped within a one-mile radius. Communities will participate during one of two periods: from April through June, or July through September. DIA would provide the framed reproductions, printed materials to distribute, and informational labels for the artwork – including a QR code that links to a website with an animated feature on the program.

The DIA pays for everything, including the cost of installation and liability insurance. The frames are mounted to the building walls by customized brackets. The DIA will also replace any work that’s stolen or damaged by vandalism, or will remove it if requested.

At AAPAC’s Nov. 30 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin said the partnership would involve the city simply selecting seven sites on city-owned property. Malverne Winborne supported it, with the caveat that the commitment on the city’s part was limited to site selection.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the partnership with the DIA for the Inside|Out project.

Project Updates

At the beginning of the Nov. 30 meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – gave brief updates to the commission on several projects:

• Dreiseitl sculpture: There’s no completion date set for the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl. A formal dedication took place in October, but since then the blue lights and flowing water have been turned off so that additional work could be done. Seagraves said he didn’t know what the hold up is.
• Justice Center artwork: On Dec. 12, the selection committee for artwork in the Justice Center lobby will meet with finalists and see presentations of the artists’ proposals. The meeting will not be open to the public, Seagraves said, but other commissioners can attend.
• Fuller Road Station: Because the overall project has been delayed, possibly by as much as 6-12 months, Seagraves said the art component is also on hold. A task force had previously been formed for the project, but will wait until the rest of the project moves forward before continuing its work.
• Mural at Allmendinger Park: The deadline for the four finalists to submit preliminary concepts is Dec. 8. The four finalists are: (1) Robert Delgado of Los Angeles, Calif.; (2) Bethany Kalk of Moorehead, Kentucky; (3) Jefferson Nelson of Liberty Center, Ohio; and (4) Mary Thiefels of Ann Arbor. The mural has a budget of $10,000.
• Stadium Bridges: A task force is being formed for the public art component of the Stadium bridges reconstruction, and will hold its initial meeting on Dec. 5.

Later in the meeting, Seagraves also briefed commissioners on proposed changes to a document outlining the steps for completing public art projects through the Percent for Art program. [.pdf of draft project steps document] Commissioners discussed the need to streamline the steps even more, and proposed that Seagraves work with Connie Brown to refine it before bringing it back to the full commission at their Dec. 13 meeting.

Project Updates: “Street Art Spots”

At AAPAC’s October meeting, Cheryl Zuellig had mentioned that the planning committee, which she chairs, was developing a strategy for procurement of public art. On Nov. 30, Seagraves presented a draft document outlining the concept of a public art procurement program for non-commissioned, completed artwork. The program is tentatively titled “Street Art Spots.” [.pdf of draft proposal]

The proposal calls for selecting curators – such as a gallery owner, arts advocate, artist representative, or art curator – who in turn would present AAPAC with potential artwork to acquire, based on certain selection criteria. At the same time, AAPAC and city staff would identify possible locations for artwork. A selection panel would evaluate and decide whether to recommend purchasing the work that’s been submitted by curators. There would also be a public opinion component involved in selecting art for each location.

Seagraves suggested reviewing the draft proposal and discussing it at a future meeting.

Some commissioners raised concerns over how curators would be paid. It’s common for such work to be handled on a commission basis, Zuellig said. Connie Brown said she was uncomfortable with that, and would prefer to pay a fee to a consultant instead. Seagraves indicated that this was an initial draft, and he could investigate how other cities handle this kind of procurement process.

Malvern Winborne wondered if this program was a “nice to do” or a “need to do.” He said he’d always bring up that point, to keep their focus.

Margaret Parker pointed out that this effort is in direct response to concerns that city councilmembers had raised about AAPAC not getting enough public art into the community quickly.

Chamberlin suggested putting it as an agenda item for AAPAC’s meeting in January or February.

December Meeting: Working Session Follow-up

AAPAC’s regular meetings are set for the fourth Wednesday of the month. The December meeting would fall on Dec. 28, between Christmas and New Year’s. After some discussion, commissioners decided to switch the date to Dec. 13 instead. At the meeting, commissioners plan to follow up on an Oct. 26 working session held to prep for a presentation to city council on Nov. 14.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested that they take the ideas and challenges identified at that October work session, and decide how to move forward. She noted that the discussion would dovetail nicely with development of the annual public art plan, which the commission needs to complete by April.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Margaret Parker, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Connie Pulcipher of the city's systems planning staff led the public art commissioners in a discussion to prep for a November working session with the city council. (Photos by the writer.)

But most of their 2.5-hour meeting was spent prepping for a Nov. 14 working session with Ann Arbor city council, focusing on the city’s Percent for Art program.

The council working session was prompted in large part by a resolution proposed by councilmember Sabra Briere, which she brought forward at the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. The resolution would revise the city’s public art ordinance explicitly to exclude sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art. It would also require that any money allocated for public art under the program be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin. The council ultimately postponed action on the resolution until its Nov. 21 meeting, with a working session scheduled in the interim to focus on the Percent for Art ordinance.

The timing of the proposed ordinance change is related to two proposals on the Nov. 8 ballot: (1) renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to fund street repair; and (2) imposing a 0.125 mill tax to fund the repair of sidewalks – which is currently the responsibility of adjacent property owners.

At AAPAC’s Wednesday meeting, Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit led commissioners in a discussion to organize their thoughts before the council work session. She asked them to identify the program’s biggest challenges, from the community’s perspective, as well as the primary causes and possible solutions to those challenges.

Commissioners cited a range of issues, including: (1) a lack of public awareness about the program, its constraints, funding sources, and AAPAC’s role; (2) the perception that not enough art is coming out of the program, and that the process is too slow; (3) the complaint that local artists aren’t given preference; and (4) the sense that in this difficult economy, city funds shouldn’t be spent on public art.

In addition to offering ways to address these challenges, commissioners also discussed their own workload. They noted that AAPAC is still relatively new and is one of the few city commissions that hasn’t enjoyed consistent staff support over the years. Although a new part-time public art administrator was hired this summer, the program had no dedicated staff person for about a year.

Wednesday’s meeting began with two presentations. Larry Baranski of the DIA talked about how Ann Arbor might participate in the museum’s Inside|Out project, which involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks. Also, Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum and Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, floated ideas for possible public art in a rain garden that’s being designed for property at the corner of Kingsley and First, located in a floodplain. Commissioners were generally receptive to both ideas, but plan to discuss them in more depth at their monthly meeting in November.

Detroit Institute of Arts

At AAPAC’s September meeting, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had briefed commissioners on a meeting that he and Tony Derezinski had with representatives from the Detroit Institute of Arts. The DIA is interested in partnering with the city on the Inside|Out project.

On Wednesday, Larry Baranski, DIA director of public programs, attended AAPAC’s meeting to provide more details about the proposed partnership. He noted that this kind of project was first done in 2007 by the National Gallery in London, and that the DIA was the first U.S. museum to do something similar. It’s a way to engage people with art who might never go to a museum, he said – they can encounter art in a neutral environment, in their community.

In 2010 the DIA installed 40 works within 60 miles of Detroit, including two pieces in Ann Arbor: One on the exterior of Zingerman’s Deli on Detroit Street, and another reproduction on the Borders building on East Liberty. They learned a lot from that initial effort, he said, and were inundated with positive press coverage. It was so popular that some people were actually angry when the installations were removed, he said.

The DIA is planning an expanded program in 2012, funded by the Knight Foundation. Each community will have between five to eight installations grouped within a one-mile radius. Communities will participate during one of two periods: from April through June, or July through September. DIA would provide the framed reproductions, printed materials to distribute, and informational labels for the artwork – including a QR code that links to a website with an animated feature on the program. [The distinctive DIA ad campaign, including the Inside|Out animation, was developed by Perich Advertising + Design of Ann Arbor.]

A reproduction of "Young Woman with a Violin" by Orazio Gentileschi, installed by the DIA at Zingerman's Deli in 2010. Walking past is Diane Giannola of the Ann Arbor planning commission, and Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects.

The DIA pays for everything, including the cost of installation and liability insurance, Baranski said. The frames are mounted to the building walls by customized brackets. The DIA will also replace any work that’s stolen or damaged by vandalism, or will remove it if requested.

In the past, the DIA has primarily worked with downtown development authorities (DDAs), which in turn identify local business owners who are willing to have the reproductions installed on their buildings – not many communities have a public art commission, Baranski noted. The Ann Arbor DDA facilitated the DIA’s 2010 Inside|Out installations, and Baranski has already talked with DDA executive director Susan Pollay about the 2012 project. But because Ann Arbor also has a public art commission, the DIA wanted them to be involved too.

Each community will get reproductions in an assortment of sizes, he said – the largest is eight feet wide. The works are chosen with the public’s sensibility in mind – there’s very little nudity or religious references, Baranski said. The DIA also offers programming related to the installations, including bike tours, geocaching scavenger hunts, a speakers bureau, and participation in community festivals and other events.

Baranski outlined the steps that are required, if the city is interested in participating. The city would need to designate a “community curator” to act as a point person with the DIA, helping secure necessary permits and installation agreements. A participation agreement would be drawn up, and the city would select which three-month period it wants for the installations and how many pieces would be hung. The main job for the DDA and public art commission would be to select locations for the installations, Baranski said. Installation agreements would be needed for each site.

For any freestanding locations – like installations along bike paths – the DIA would contact MISS DIG to ensure that no utilities are in the way. A contractor would be hired by DIA to install and remove the reproductions, and a DIA staff member would be on site for that work. Baranski concluded by saying that the DIA has a great track record with this program, and that everyone seems to like it.

DIA: Commissioner Discussion

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, asked whether the DIA had a working agreement with the DDA for this project. Not yet, Baranski said, but executive director Susan Pollay had indicated interest in it. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, asked whether there could be two agreements – one with the city, the other with the DDA. That’s workable, Baranski said. Perhaps Ann Arbor’s allotment of reproductions could be divided into public installations, which would be handled by the city, and installations at private businesses, which would be handled by the DDA.

Margaret Parker asked if they could see the reproductions before choosing the sites. Yes, Baranski said, that’s possible.

In response to a query from Elaine Sims, Baranski said the installations hold up pretty well, despite being outdoors. They are totally immersible, he said – printed on alumacore with UV coating, like standard outdoor signs. And the frames “have enough varnish to float a Chris-Craft,” he joked.

Sims wondered what happens to the reproductions when they’re removed. Baranski said the DIA needs to be careful that these installations didn’t become ubiquitous – that’s why they are taken down after a limited period. They need to retain an element of surprise, he said.

Chamberlin clarified with Baranski that the main thing the DIA needs from commissioners is to select public buildings or spaces where the reproductions could be installed. There would also be a reception at the DIA in early 2012 for representatives from all participating communities.

Chamberlin wrapped up the discussion by saying that AAPAC would consider it at their November meeting and get back to Baranski. She indicated that it seemed like something they’d want to do, calling it a terrific idea to democratize art.

Rain Garden Art at Kingsley

Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum and Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, attended Wednesday’s meeting to talk about possible public art in a rain garden that’s being designed for property at the corner of Kingsley and First.

The city is negotiating to buy 215 and 219 W. Kingsley – land that’s located in a floodplain. A boarded-up house is located on the corner lot; the adjacent lot is vacant. The city received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish the house and stabilize the site.

The city has awarded Conservation Design Forum (CDF) the contract for the project, which will include building a rain garden on the site. CDF was also involved in the new municipal center project and the Dreiseitl sculpture.

Jerry Hancock, and Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

The FEMA grant can’t be used to build the rain garden, Hancock said, so that part will be funded by the city. The project cost is about $280,000 – the city will pay for 25% of that, or about $70,000. The city’s portion will come from the city’s stormwater fund, and the Percent for Art will be captured from that amount.

Aaron Seagraves noted that additional funding could be used from the existing Percent for Art funds that have accrued from other stormwater projects. [As of Sept. 1, there was a balance of $27,235 in the Percent for Art program's stormwater funds. A percent of the budget for each city capital project – up to $250,000 per project – goes toward public art. Money earmarked for the Percent for Art program must be used for public art that somehow relates to the original funding source.]

Judd explained that Kingsley – a one-way street heading west off of Main, then curving south as it turns into First – is a busy one, used by motorists as an alternative to avoid Main Street. The site could be very visual, serving as a secondary gateway into the city. He was throwing out the possibility of incorporating public art, he said. Otherwise, he’d just build a decent-looking rain garden.

The basement won’t be completely filled in after the house is demolished – the hole will be incorporated into the site design. When Elaine Sims expressed concern about the safety of that, Judd assured her that there would be safety precautions taken. Hancock added that it’s a fairly shallow Michigan basement – the house was built in the 1920s, and the basement is only about five feet deep. Some of the soil from the site will be used to partially fill it, so it would be two feet deep at the most, he said.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether the site would be big enough to be a gathering place, or whether it was conceived of more as a pocket park. There will likely be benches and a path, Judd replied, so it’s more of a pocket park – a place that people can come and enjoy.

Chamberlin asked if there’s general agreement that a pocket park there is a good idea. That depends on who you ask, Hancock said. The city’s parks staff isn’t interested in adding another park, because of the additional maintenance it would require. Hancock said he’s building other rain gardens in the city now, and that the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) staff have agreed to take on maintenance of those. But funding for maintenance would come from the stormwater fund, he said, to pay for NAP staff time.

[Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Hancock said the rain gardens are part of an impervious area disconnection and infiltration project that involves several groups, including the city, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the consultant InSight Design. The sites are located at: (1) 2000 S. Industrial Hwy.; (2) Burns Park (around the tennis courts, next to the Senior Center); (3) Fire Station #3 (next to Veterans Memorial Park); and (4) Vets Park Arena (the rain garden is on the east side of the arena, with underground infiltration on the west side).]

Cheryl Zuellig asked whether this rain garden on Kingsley would be temporary – that is, does the city eventually envision using the site for something else? Hancock said that in order to accept the FEMA grant, certain deed restrictions must be placed on the property. The motivation on FEMA’s part is to restore land in floodplains to its natural function, thereby reducing FEMA’s insurance obligations in the event of a flood. The deed restrictions require that the land be “vegetated” and that no building is constructed on the site.

Is there any issue with a piece of art causing an obstruction? Zuellig asked. Things like open-walled structures or benches are permitted, Hancock said. But it couldn’t be something that blocked the flow of water. Zuellig joked that they should build a boat anchored to the site, which would float if the area flooded.

Responding to a question about the project’s timeline, Hancock said the property owner is reviewing the purchase agreement now. The purchase process will likely take a few more months, he said. Demolition, surveying and design work will be necessary, so the installation of the rain garden and accompanying art wouldn’t likely take place until the spring of 2012.

Judd suggested that the artist selection could follow a parallel track. Margaret Parker proposed soliciting an artist with landscaping experience, who could be involved in the rain garden’s design from its early stages.

Zuellig asked whether Judd had any ideas for public art at the rain garden. He hadn’t given it serious thought, Judd replied. It might be interesting to incorporate some artifact that represents why there shouldn’t be buildings in a floodplain, he said, or something that could be used to measure water levels.

Parker said that if AAPAC selected an artist based on qualifications – not on a specifically proposed project – then that person could work with CDF from the beginning, and meet with the community to get input on the project. That might “mitigate storms of some kind,” she joked – likely an allusion to the controversy surrounding the Dreiseitl sculpture at city hall.

Parker also noted that this would be the first public art installation in the Allen Creek greenway. Hancock observed that the greenway doesn’t really exist at this point, and it’s not clear where it would run. There might be property across the street from the rain garden site, next to the railroad tracks, that could be part of the greenway, he said.

Elaine Sims asked whether any other building had been located on the property, prior to the current house. Hancock indicated that city records didn’t show any other structure had been on that site. Even so, Sims said, the construction crew should look for artifacts during demolition – that might inform the project, she said. Chamberlin noted that a property on Felch Street used to be the city dump, so it wouldn’t be surprising to find that something had previously been located on the Kingsley site too. [Chamberlin is president of the Ann Arbor Art Center, which previously owned the site at 220 Felch.]

AAPAC plans to discuss this project in more depth at its Nov. 23 meeting.

Prep for City Council

A city council working session on Nov. 14 will include a presentation and discussion of the city’s Percent for Art program. Public art commissioners spent much of their Oct. 26 meeting preparing for that session. The discussion was facilitated by Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit, who has worked with AAPAC in the past on strategy sessions and retreats.

The council working session was prompted in large part by a resolution proposed by councilmember Sabra Briere, which she brought forward at the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. The resolution would revise the city’s public art ordinance to explicitly exclude sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art. It would also require that any money allocated for public art under the program be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin. The council ultimately postponed action on the resolution until its Nov. 21 meeting, with a working session scheduled in the interim to focus on the Percent for Art ordinance.

The timing of the proposed ordinance change is related to two proposals on the Nov. 8 ballot: (1) renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to fund street repair; and (2) imposing a 0.125 mill tax to fund the repair of sidewalks – which is currently the responsibility of adjacent property owners.

From left: Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims and Cheryl Zuellig in a priority-setting exercise at the Oct. 26 public art commission meeting.

Marsha Chamberlin told her fellow commissioners that the discussion they’d have now would inform the presentation given to city council on Nov. 14.

Cheryl Zuellig asked Tony Derezinski – AAPAC’s newest member, who also serves on city council – what the council was expecting from the working session. Derezinski responded by talking about some of the broader expectations among councilmembers: They expect the Percent for Art program to result in more public art. Councilmembers need to understand the constraints that AAPAC is operating under, he said, and what’s in the works. The working session “gives us an opportunity to really show our stuff,” he said.

Pulcipher told commissioners that she was there to help organize their thoughts so that they could go into the working session in a proactive way. They could tell councilmembers the program’s history and current projects, but also communicate that they understand the concerns of the community, and can provide alternatives to some of the primary challenges they face. By the end of the meeting, she hoped they’d have a cohesive list of ideas to bring to council.

Before the council working session, a smaller group – including Pulcipher, Derezinski, Chamberlin, and public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – will meet with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, who oversees the Percent for Art program. Before the Nov. 14 working session they might need to consult with the city attorney’s office too, Pulicpher said, and gather additional information, depending on the outcome of this initial discussion.

Pulcipher organized the discussion by asking commissioners first to identify challenges as seen from the community’s perspective. They then looked at primary causes for those challenges, as well as possible solutions.

For purposes of this report, a summary of AAPAC’s discussion is organized thematically.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Why Isn’t There More Art?

The amount of time that it takes to do public art projects was cited as a challenge by several commissioners, in that the public perceives it as taking too long. People have commented that there should be more public art by now generated from the Percent for Art program, commissioners noted, and that the process moves too slowly.

Streamlining the number of steps it takes to do a project would help, Wiltrud Simbuerger said. Elaine Sims cautioned against simplifying the process – because they’re working with public funds, certain steps have to occur. She noted that it simply takes a long time to complete a project, and likened it to the length of time it takes for a development to be built, from the time it’s proposed to the time when it’s approved by the city and the work can begin.

Margaret Parker suggested that as AAPAC establishes programs – like the current mural program that’s being developed – they’re putting systems in place that initially take longer, but that will move more quickly after they’ve been established. Sims agreed:  ”There’s a start-up process to all this.”

Simbuerger said it would help if the city could revise the Percent for Art ordinance to make it possible to fund temporary projects, which could generally be done more quickly. Marsha Chamberlin suggested making the community aware that the city accepted extant works – people don’t think of the city as a place to donate artwork. Purchasing existing artwork is another way to increase the city’s public art holdings more quickly, she said.

Cheryl Zuellig said AAPAC’s planning committee, which she chairs, is developing a strategy for procurement.

Part of the reason there hasn’t been more public art from the Percent for Art program is that AAPAC has spent much of the past three years putting a new system in place, Chamberlin said – developing policies, procedures and guidelines, for example. Sims added that another time-consuming element is working with the city’s legal staff. That’s part of the untold story, she said.

Parker added that the city staff has also struggled with knowing how to handle the Percent for Art program. When seeking information, commissioners have often been bounced around to different city staffers, who aren’t sure of the answers, she said.

Sims said a typical public art project takes about three years – that’s true for any program, not just Ann Arbor’s, she said. Parker noted that getting public input adds even more time to the process.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Funding

Several issues were cited related to funding. One challenge that commissioners hear frequently in the community is the argument that given current economic conditions, now isn’t the right time to fund public art. An argument against that, Tony Derezinski said, is that these are the times when you show what the community really values – it’s an artistic community, but those values are being tested, he said.

Wiltrud Simbuerger said she always assumed that people in Ann Arbor supported public art, but that’s not necessarily the case, she noted. People might like art in general, and Ann Arbor has an active private sector arts community, she said, but a case needs to be made for spending money on public art.

There’s also confusion about where the Percent for Art funding comes from, Margaret Parker said. There’s a complexity to the system and to how the percent for art is calculated. That’s reflected in comments that people make about money for art that could be used to pay firefighters, she said, adding that it doesn’t work like that.

Malverne Winborne, who participated in Wednesday’s meeting on speaker phone, felt they shouldn’t be arguing over whether to have a public art program. AAPAC needs to take the position that it’s a no brainer – the city will support public art. It’s part of the city’s culture and shouldn’t be debatable, he said. Arguing about it is a distraction and not worth it, in his view. They shouldn’t allow the public to define AAPAC’s role in that way, he said.

Marsha Chamberlin raised the issue of councilmember Sabra Briere’s proposed resolution, saying AAPAC should approach the resolution positively. To respond to the proposed elimination of street millage funds, she said, one idea is to show the council some imaginative ways that street millage money could be used for public art.

Regarding the requirement that any money allocated for public art be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin, Chamberlin suggested requesting the option of a two-year extension to the three-year limit. That would give them more flexibility, she said.

Parker opposed the three-year spending limit, saying it would “incredibly complicate things.” It’s too soon to propose that limit, she said, since AAPAC is relatively new and they haven’t had adequate staff support so far.

It wasn’t clear to commissioners when the clock would start on that three-year period proposed in Briere’s resolution. Connie Pulcipher suggested that they get more details on that.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Artist Selection

One criticism levied against the Percent for Art program is that local artists aren’t given preference. The first major project funded by the program was awarded to the German Herbert Dreiseitl, for a large water sculpture in front of city hall.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that someone recently drew a parallel between the city’s public art program and the University Musical Society. Should UMS only bring Michigan artists to perform? Of course not – they bring the highest quality, most imaginative performers to the city, and the Percent for Art program should do the same for public art.  “We don’t want to be xenophobic about art,” Chamberlin said.

Part of the solution, Margaret Parker suggested, would be to provide the public with a list of local artists whose work is already owned by the city. “It’s a long list,” she said.

Elaine Sims pointed out that it’s not even clear what an “Ann Arbor artist” means – people come from all over to live here, she said. It’s a polyglot, global world.

Malverne Winborne recalled that he had previously suggested that being a local artist should be a factor as part of the artist selection process. He’d been overruled, he said, but he still felt local artists should be given some consideration. All other things being equal, being a local artist should be a tiebreaker.

Parker commented that local artists are considered for all projects, even if they aren’t ultimately selected.

Cheryl Zuellig said the Percent for Art ordinance allows non-local artists to be selected. She also noted that during his speech at the Dreiseitl dedication, mayor John Hieftje had indicated that it’s illegal to give preference to local artists. AAPAC needs clarification from legal staff about what he meant by that, she said.

By way of background, The Chronicle had previously queried Hieftje about the source of his remarks on the illegality of giving preference to local artists. He subsequently emailed this response, which he said was modified from communications with the city attorney’s staff:

The concern is a possible violation of the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Attorneys have no doubt that the ability to travel to another state to do business (to create a work of art and be compensated for it) would be considered by a court as a privilege subject to constitutional protection against discrimination, i.e., a prohibition against out of state artists. (Earning a living is uniformly held to be a privilege.)

An in-state (or local) preference might be justified if there is an identified evil that the restriction is narrowly tailored to address. Not referring to the devil or such, but using language from one of the leading US Supreme Court decisions on the issue) that a local preference is intended to remedy. We can’t just have a preference for Michigan (or local) artists because we feel like it.

To respond to the question about proof, any kind of preference will require proper proof – and can lead to fraudulent claims by someone that they qualify. There may need to be investigations to confirm that an artist or team of artists qualifies, which will require additional staff time, etc.

There might also be an Equal Protection challenge, based on residence as opposed to a “suspect” class (e.g., race, gender, national origin). The test to uphold discrimination or discriminatory impact against a non-suspect class is less stringent than for discrimination against a suspect class, but it still would have to be justified in the same manner as for the Privileges & Immunities Clause.

Although the City would not violate the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution if it limited art projects funded solely with City money – or with City and other money in which use of only Michigan artists was explicitly authorized – to only Michigan artists. But that is a different analysis than, and does not trump, the Privileges & Immunities Clause or Equal Protection Clause analysis.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Permanent vs. Temporary

Marsha Chamberlin noted that AAPAC is challenged because the Percent for Art ordinance restricts the kinds of projects that can be done. It’s limited to projects that are permanent – which means the visual arts. That eliminates the ability to support performance arts, for example. Tony Derezinski said that people often refer to ArtPrize, an annual artist competition in Grand Rapids that draws hundreds of thousands of people to that community. Some wonder why Ann Arbor can’t do something like that event, he said: “There’s some Grand Rapids envy there, I think.”

Chamberlin noted that the meaning of permanent relates to its ability to be capitalized – it needs to last a minimum of five years, she said. [At AAPAC's July 2010 meeting, McCormick told commissioners that the city runs a depreciation schedule on each piece of art.]

By way of background, the word “permanent” is not used specifically to refer to public art in the Percent for Art ordinance, which defines public art in this way:

Public art means works of art created, purchased, produced or otherwise acquired for display in public spaces or facilities. Public art may include artistic design features incorporated into the architecture, layout, design or structural elements of the space or facility. Public art may be any creation, production, conception or design with an aesthetic purpose, including freestanding objets d’art, sculptures, murals, mosaics, ornamentation, paint or decoration schemes, use of particular structural materials for aesthetic effect, or spatial arrangement of structures. [.pdf of Percent for Art ordinance]

Margaret Parker said that part of AAPAC’s mission is to educate the public. AAPAC needs to find a way of funding the promotion of what they do. Within that framework, perhaps they could then fund temporary work, she said. [Parker had elaborated on this proposal in more detail at AAPAC's September 2011 meeting.]

Cheryl Zuellig expressed concern about making changes to allow for more temporary art, without having the staff resources to handle it. Without some change in the role of staff, she said, then AAPAC was just making more work for itself.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Size of Commission, Staff Support

The topic of AAPAC’s workload emerged at several points during the discussion. Elaine Sims pointed to the size of the nine-member commission as a challenge, as well as the lack of staff support they’ve had. Although Aaron Seagraves was hired this summer as a part-time administrator, that position had been vacant since the previous administrator, Katherine Talcott, stepped down in mid-2010. Talcott had been hired in early 2009 as the city’s first public art administrator. The Percent for Art program was formed in 2007.

Tony Derezinski observed that most other city commissions – like the planning commission or housing commission – are truly advisory, and that the work is staff-driven. That hasn’t been the case with AAPAC, he said. Sims noted that commissioners are busy volunteers, and it’s like having another job.

Marsha Chamberlin said they couldn’t really ask for more staff, but it should be noted that they’ve only had some staff support for about half of AAPAC’s existence. Connie Pulcipher said that Seagraves has a 20-hour appointment, but she wondered if there was an understanding that beyond that, he could be paid for doing specific project management.

That’s tricky, Margaret Parker said. When does the extra time kick in, and what work counts as part of his base of 20 hours? For example, AAPAC is starting to talk about the rain garden project at Kingsley, which will be paid for with stormwater funds. At what point would Seagraves be paid out of the stormwater funds to handle that project? “It gets incredibly complex,” she said.

Pulcipher observed that AAPAC needs a better understanding of how staff time can be allotted. Cheryl Zuellig added that a simplification of how staff time is allotted would also be very helpful. AAPAC has spent a lot of time talking about this issue, she said.

Zuellig said an alternative to adding more staff time is to adjust the community’s expectations, to better align with the city’s actual public art resources. The reality is that they might not be able to add more staff time, and that’s OK, she said.

Malverne Winborne said he struggles with the role of the commission, and said he feels like a worker bee. He doesn’t object to working, but he said he does have another job. AAPAC has a lot of responsibility, he said, but very little authority. Their decisions can be quickly overturned, he noted. “To me, that is a problem.” If nothing else, the public needs to know that AAPAC is simply making recommendations, he said.

Derezinski described AAPAC’s role as one of governance – or at least it should be. Staff should be the people doing the actual work, with AAPAC acting as advisors, he said. Zuellig noted that if they had taken that view, nothing would have gotten done.

Sims said the public thinks AAPAC is responsible for putting public art in the community, but commissioners don’t have that power. The public perceives AAPAC as staff, not advisors, she said. Winborne noted that at some point, reality and perception need to align. There are some issues that are out of AAPAC’s control, he said.

Zuellig said she’d like to get to the point where AAPAC was like the planning commission, with sufficient staff support. Derezinski, who also serves on the planning commission, said planning commissioners don’t champion projects, and that there’s a general deference to staff. That’s because staff has much more knowledge and expertise, he added. For the most part, he said, the planning commission follows staff recommendations.

AAPAC needs to provide the vision for the “what,” Sims suggested, while staff needs to be responsible for the “how.” Right now, AAPAC is doing both the “what” and the “how,” she said.

Chamberlin agreed, and noted that AAPAC commissioners had to handle the logistics for the recent Dreiseitl dedication, down to the details of buying cookies for the reception. Zuellig observed that city staff hasn’t taken ownership of the Percent for Art program. But it’s really the city’s program, she noted, and AAPAC is helping govern it. The roles need to be better defined.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Community Awareness

One challenge facing the Percent for Art program is that the community isn’t aware of what public art projects are underway, Tony Derezinski said. Although the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl was a high-profile project, other things in the pipeline aren’t well known, he said. People also aren’t aware of the various partnerships and collaborations that AAPAC is pursuing – Derezinski pointed to the Inside|Out program with the Detroit Institute of Arts as an example.

It’s important to get the public involved as much as possible, Cheryl Zuellig said – not lecturing them, but getting people involved in task forces and in other ways. The more that happens, the more people will understand the value of the Percent for Art program, she said.

Margaret Parker pushed for more regular public input. After AAPAC develops its annual plan, for example, commissioners or staff should make presentations about it in every one of the city’s wards, as well as to civic groups like Rotary or Kiwanis. AAPAC hasn’t gone directly to the people to communicate what they’re doing, she said. Elaine Sims noted that Parker’s suggestion creates more work for commissioners – something they had already identified as another challenge.

Malverne Winborne thought that making those presentations would just bog them down. The public has entrusted AAPAC with responsibility for public art, he said. And the mechanism for getting the word out is already in place, he added – people can attend AAPAC’s monthly meetings.

Zuellig noted that AAPAC has a calendar of events, and observed that the commission has had difficulty in getting people to attend meetings. Public forums regarding potential murals weren’t well attended, for example.

At the least, Parker said, AAPAC’s chair or someone else from the commission needs to attend the city council meeting when AAPAC’s annual public art plan is submitted, to give a presentation and highlight their work. Zuellig said that’s a good point – they need to improve communication with the city council in general.

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Next Steps

Connie Pulcipher wrapped up the meeting by asking each commissioner to prioritize their top three challenges from among those they’d discussed. Pulcipher, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski and Aaron Seagraves plan to meet with Sue McCormick to further develop the presentation, which Seagraves will likely make. If more input is needed from the rest of the commission, they could schedule another meeting between now and Nov. 14, Pulcipher said. Chamberlin said she plans to attend the council working session, and encouraged other commissioners to come as well.

Commissioners will be telling the council their story, Pulcipher said, but it’s also important to let councilmembers know that AAPAC understands the challenges facing the Percent for Art program and is proactive in dealing with them.

Commissioners present: Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Margaret Parker, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Elaine Sims, Malverne Winborne (via phone), Cheryl Zuellig. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Cathy Gendron.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Parker told PAC members that two locations have been identified for possible public art along the river: (1) at Gallup Park, in conjunction with planned improvements to the canoe livery; (2) at the Argo Dam canoe bypass, which is currently under construction. A broader project for art along a much longer stretch of the river could also be developed in connection with the RiverUp! project, she said. RiverUp! is an effort to shore up the ecological health and recreational infrastructure of the Huron River and to strengthen the economies of river communities like Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. PAC had been briefed about RiverUp! at its July 19, 2011 meeting. RiverUp! is being administered by the Huron River Watershed Council, and the group’s executive director, Laura Rubin, attended PAC’s meeting to speak in support of public art along the river.

Park commissioners expressed interest in working with the public art commission to set up a task force and explore the possibility of art in parkland by the Huron River.

This brief was filed from the city council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron St. A more detailed report will follow.

On the morning of Sunday, Oct. 2, Herbert Dreiseitl (center, in maroon cap) meets in front of city hall with the design/fabrication team for his sculpture. To the right is Rick Russel of Future Group, the Warren firm that fabricated the bronze sculpture. To the left of Dreiseitl is Patrick Judd of the Ann Arbor-based Conservation Design Forum, which helped with the design. In the background, electrician Jim Fackert hooks up wiring to operate the blue lights embedded in the bronze. (Photos by the writer.)

The installation was still underway – blue glass lights embedded in the elongated metal panel hadn’t been wired, and water wasn’t yet flowing over the sculpture. But those elements are expected to be in place by Tuesday evening, when the German artist will be among those gathering on the plaza in front of city hall for the dedication ceremony. [Dreiseitl and members of the design/fabrication team have been testing the lighting and water flow, but it will be formally "turned on" at the dedication ceremony.]

The Percent for Art program was also a topic of discussion at AAPAC’s Sept. 28 meeting, in light of recent proposed action by the city council. A council resolution sponsored by councilmember Sabra Briere – who attended AAPAC’s meeting but didn’t formally address the group – would explicitly exclude sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art. Briere’s proposal would also require that any money allocated for public art under the program be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin. The council ultimately postponed action until their second meeting in November, following a working session on the Percent for Art program that’s scheduled for Nov. 14.

In the context of those possible changes, Margaret Parker made an impassioned plea for her fellow commissioners to increase their efforts at public outreach. Many people didn’t know about all the work that was being done through the Percent for Art program, she said. By not getting their message out, she cautioned, ”that can be the undoing of all the work that we’ve done.”

Updates on several projects were given during the meeting, and commissioners took one formal vote – giving approval to set up a task force that will select public art for the East Stadium bridges project. Other projects in the works include a mural at Allmendinger Park, artwork in the lobby of the new justice center, a possible partnership with the Detroit Institute of Arts’ Inside|Out program, and public art for a rain garden to be created at the corner of Kingsley and First.

Parker also made a pitch for a possible way to fund temporary art – such as performances or short-term exhibitions – that can’t be paid for by the Percent for Art program, as stipulated by city ordinance. Rather than describing it as temporary art, she said, perhaps AAPAC could characterize such temporary work as promotion for public art in general, or tie it to promotion of a permanent piece, like the Dreiseitl sculpture. There was no action taken on this idea, other than an apparent consensus to explore that possibility further.

Dreiseitl Dedication

Commissioners discussed plans for the Tuesday, Oct. 4 dedication of the sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl, being installed this week in the plaza in front of city hall. The event will take place from 7-8 p.m. in the plaza, or inside the building’s atrium if it’s raining.

Connie Brown reported that the dedication will include performances by Jazzistry, and remarks by Dreiseitl, Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje, and Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the public art commission. Margaret Parker, a current commissioner and former AAPAC chair who was instrumental in starting the city’s Percent for Art program, will also be part of the program. Light refreshments will be served, and a display with photos of other public art in the city will be set up in the city hall atrium.

Brown said she’s been assured that the sculpture’s lights and water will be functional by Oct. 4. Blue glass bulbs are embedded in the bronze sculpture, over which water will flow. [On Friday, a Chronicle Stopped.Watched observer reported that the water flow was being tested for the first time.] Commissioners discussed the importance of highlighting how the sculpture contributes to the site’s stormwater management system. The site also includes a rain garden.

On Sunday evening, Oct. 2, tests of the light and water system of the Dreiseitl sculpture were undertaken.

There will also be “a little bit of silliness” injected into the event, Brown said, involving blue beach balls, blue “glow necklaces,” and glow-in-the-dark buttons.

The building’s design team will be hosting a private reception after the dedication – commissioners will be invited to attend, Brown said.

The group also discussed how to promote the event. Malverne Winborne is contacting public radio stations – including WEMU, WUOM and WDET in Detroit. Wiltrud Simbuerger is designing a flyer and brochure, which will also be distributed at the dedication. She said she incorporated a simple description that Margaret Parker had used to describe the Percent for Art program at a recent city council meeting – a penny of every dollar for public art.

When Parker suggested modifying it to “every capital improvement dollar,” Simbuerger said she was trying to make it catchy, and not include every detail. Winborne added:  ”I have a new saying – ‘The more you explain, the less they get it.’”

The Dreiseitl piece was the first one commissioned by the city using Percent for Art funds. Last year, the city council approved a budget of $737,820 for the piece, including design and construction costs. The city had previously paid Dreiseitl $77,000 in preliminary design fees for three pieces, but two of those pieces did not move forward because of budget constraints and aesthetic considerations. Funding for the sculpture comes in part from the Percent for Art stormwater funds, because the sculpture is designed as part of the site’s stormwater management.

City Council, Percent for Art Ordinance

Margaret Parker gave a report on the Sept. 19 city council meeting, when she and other supporters of the city’s Percent for Art program spoke during public commentary. Her comments at AAPAC’s meeting developed into an impassioned plea for the commission to devote more resources to promoting its work.

The attendance by Parker and other public art advocates at the Sept. 19 council meeting was prompted by a resolution to revise the city’s public art ordinance. The resolution – which council ultimately postponed until its Nov. 21 meeting – would explicitly exclude sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art. It would also require that any money allocated for public art under the program be spent within three years, or be returned to its fund of origin.

The resolution was sponsored by councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – she attended AAPAC’s meeting on Wednesday, but did not formally address the commission.

The timing of the ordinance change was related to two proposals on the Nov. 8 ballot: (1) renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to fund street repair; and (2) imposing a 0.125 mill tax to fund the repair of sidewalks – which is currently the responsibility of adjacent property owners.

At Wednesday’s AAPAC meeting, Tony Derezinski – a city councilmember who was recently appointed to serve on AAPAC – noted that some councilmembers wanted to table the resolution and not consider it at all. But postponing it seemed like the best option, he said, and will give AAPAC time to prepare for a Nov. 14 council working session.

Commissioners agreed to spend part of their next meeting – on Wednesday, Oct. 26 – prepping for the working session presentation. A few of them plan to meet with Derezinski before the Oct. 26 meeting to draft a plan for the presentation.

Later in the meeting, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, gave a handout to commissioners with information about how the Percent for Art funding might be affected if the proposed ordinance changes take effect. [.pdf of Percent for Art handout] On average, money coming from street millage capital projects account for about 38% of total Percent for Art funds. For fiscal years 2011 and 2012, it represented even more of the program’s total revenues – about 55%.

Seagraves also provided a chart that showed how fund balances would be affected if the proposed three-year time limit went into effect during the current fiscal year. However, Briere clarified that the ordinance change would start the clock going forward, beginning when the ordinance is adopted – that is, the calculations would not be retroactive and would not impact funds that have previously been allocated to public art.

Seagraves noted that the largest pool of unspent Percent for Art funds has come from the street millage, which has a balance of $555,248. The total balance from all funds – parks, solid waste, water, sewer, energy and airport – is $1,229,705. When Seagraves suggested that commissioners might want to consider projects that could tap these street funds, Parker noted that the upcoming East Stadium bridges project would fall into that category. [Percent for Art projects must relate in some way to their funding source. For example, because the Dreiseitl sculpture is connected to the stormwater management system at the new municipal center, it was paid for primarily partially from stormwater Percent for Art funds.]

Parker said it’s important to note that no general fund dollars are used for the Percent for Art program. [The city's ordinance does not prohibit spending general fund dollars directly on the Percent for Art program. In actual practice, however, capital improvement projects are typically not paid directly out of the general fund.]

Percent for Art: Public Outreach

Parker said that as she’s been talking with people about the Percent for Art program, they seem totally surprised that AAPAC is doing anything. The commission is not getting its message out, she said. “That can be the undoing of all the work that we’ve done.”

At AAPAC's Sept. 28 meeting, Wiltrud Simbuerger holds a flyer she's designing to promote the Oct. 4 dedication of the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture. Next to her is Connie Brown.

Commissioners need to redouble their efforts at outreach, Parker said, adding that the Dreiseitl dedication is important for that reason. She expressed dismay that AAPAC didn’t have promotional materials at the recent Convergence event, a day-long conference for the Washtenaw County arts community. If commissioners want AAPAC and the Percent for Art program to continue, she said,  “we need to tell people what we’re doing in an effective, repeated, committed way.”

Parker also expressed frustration that more information isn’t posted online – such as AAPAC’s project tracking spreadsheet – in advance of their monthly meetings. It’s important to include as much information as possible in the city’s Legistar system, she said, so that the public can be informed about what AAPAC is doing.

Derezinski agreed. “The medium is the message,” he said, adding that by posting on Legistar, they’ll be communicating that AAPAC is open and transparent.

Derezinski offered some other suggestions for getting the word out. There are spots on the agenda of council meetings for councilmembers to give liaison reports, he noted, and he could update the council about AAPAC’s activities then.

Other options for making presentations include being a guest speaker at the weekly Ann Arbor Rotary Club lunch, he said, or meetings of the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue group and the Main Street Area Association. He also noted that Rotary might be interested in partnering with AAPAC on a project to beautify entrances to the city.

Cheryl Zuellig suggested doing more outreach each year after the annual art plan is completed. It’s really about increasing AAPAC’s network, she said. That’s time consuming, but now that Seagraves has been hired and is picking up administrative tasks, commissioners should have more time to do outreach, she said. Parker added that going out to business associations and other groups could also be an opportunity to ask for input about what types of public art projects people are interested in pursuing.

There was some discussion about whether any funds are available from the Percent for Art program for public relations and promotion. Seagraves indicated that some funds tied to specific projects, like the Dreiseitl sculpture, could be used for that purpose.

Percent for Art: Temporary Installations as Promotion?

Later in the meeting, Parker floated an idea that evolved from discussions she’s had about the Dreiseitl dedication. Several people have talked to her about projects related to the theme of water, she said. Mary Steffek Blaske, executive director of the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra, mentioned that AASO had commissioned a piece titled “Watershed,” by Evan Chambers, and that it could be performed by a quintet rather than the full orchestra. There’s also a book titled “H2O” with water-related work by artists, and a local group that’s developed dances with water themes.

Parker also mentioned FestiFools, which has previously approached AAPAC about funding. FestiFools is still interested in publicly displaying the large puppets that its participants construct for the annual Main Street parade, she said.

All of this got her thinking about how to tap this interest, while taking advantage of city hall’s new atrium space, Parker said. She thought that perhaps the atrium could be used for displays and events, and portrayed as a way to promote public art. It would not be expensive, she said, but it would be a way to work with other parts of the arts community under the constraints of the Percent for Art program.

Connie Brown pointed out that AAPAC had previously been interested in temporary installations like the FestiFools proposal, but had been told by the city attorney’s office that temporary work couldn’t be funded by the Percent for Art program. [This issue has been discussed at several AAPAC meetings. In November 2010, commissioners noted that Mark Tucker, founder and creative director for FestiFools, had sent a letter to mayor John Hieftje, asking that the city consider having an installation of FestiFool puppets in the justice center lobby.]

Brown wondered whether the Percent for Art could fund a permanent gallery, but with temporary installations. They’d have to figure out how to make it work to conform to the Percent for Art ordinance, she said.

By way of background, the Percent for Art ordinance defines public art in this way:

Public art means works of art created, purchased, produced or otherwise acquired for display in public spaces or facilities. Public art may include artistic design features incorporated into the architecture, layout, design or structural elements of the space or facility. Public art may be any creation, production, conception or design with an aesthetic purpose, including freestanding objets d’art, sculptures, murals, mosaics, ornamentation, paint or decoration schemes, use of particular structural materials for aesthetic effect, or spatial arrangement of structures. [.pdf of Percent for Art ordinance]

Parker acknowledged that commissioners keep trying to find a way to work around the ordinance, so that temporary work could be included. She said they could start small, perhaps by holding events on Sundays that link to the Dreiseitl sculpture and water-related themes. It could be presented as a way to promote the Dreiseitl piece, or the newly renovated city hall, or public art and the region’s arts community in general, she said. They wouldn’t characterize it as temporary installations, but rather as promotion for the city’s permanent artwork.

There was some discussion about whether funds for the city’s public art program, given by donors and being held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, could be used. It might also be possible to set up a new fund to accept donations for this kind of project. Commissioners reached consensus that Seagraves would look into it further, consulting with the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, as well as with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator who oversees the Percent for Art program.

Looking at the southwest corner of the Ann Arbor justice center lobby, facing Fifth Avenue – the old fire station, now the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum, is visible across the street. A public art installation is being commissioned for that corner of the lobby. (Links to larger image)

Artwork for Justice Center Lobby

Margaret Parker is leading a committee to select art for the lobby of the justice center, a new building next to city hall at Huron and Fifth that houses the 15th District Court and Ann Arbor police department. At Wednesday’s AAPAC meeting, Parker reported that the committee received 96 responses to the most recent request for artist statement of qualifications (SOQ). [The deadline for submissions had been extended, because few responses to the initial SOQ had been received.]

The 10-member committee has winnowed down the finalists to four, Parker said. The artists’ recommendations will be checked, and they’ll be invited to attend a walk-through of the lobby on Oct. 7. Proposals will be due on Dec. 1, after which the committee will review the proposals and interview finalists before making a recommendation. That recommendation will then be forwarded to AAPAC for a vote.

The budget for this project is $250,000, with funds coming from the municipal center building project.

New Projects: East Stadium Bridges, Rain Garden, DIA

Commissioners discussed two projects that are in the initial phases of planning, as well as a potential partnership with the Detroit Institute of Arts.

New Projects: East Stadium Bridges

Cheryl Zuellig reported that she and Wiltrud Simbuerger had met last month with Michael Nearing, project manager for the East Stadium bridges replacement. They discussed the feasibility of including public art in the project.

Nearing is enthusiastic and willing to participate, Zuellig reported, though he’ll likely be too busy to serve as project manager for the public art component after construction of the bridges gets underway. There are lots of details to be worked out, she said, including identifying a funding source. But it’s a project that’s in AAPAC’s 2012 annual art plan and is consistent with AAPAC’s mission, so the planning committee – which Zuellig chairs – is recommending that the project move forward by forming a task force.

Tony Derezinski asked about the project’s timetable, and Zuellig said the bids for reconstruction of the bridges are expected to go out later this year, with work to start after the University of Michigan football season ends. The project would likely be completed in late 2012 or early 2013.

Derezinski noted that it’s a high-impact location, especially with many of the 100,000-plus UM football fans passing through that stretch.

In a written report prepared by the planning committee, several possible locations for public art were identified:

• walls under the South State Street bridge
• staircases from South State Street up to the bridge
• a rock wall between Rose and White streets (with the possibility of connecting Rose White park to the project)
• walls along the field hockey area
• walls on the upper part of the bridges, with sidewalks
• a possible light project on the bridge
• a possible mural project

Potential task force members include a representative from the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association. Zuellig said the planning committee talked about the importance of public engagement, and noted that the East Stadium corridor “is not unknown to public involvement.”

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to create a task force for an East Stadium bridges public art project.

A vacant house on this city-owned lot at Kingsley & First will be demolished with funds from a federal grant. The city is contracting with Conservation Design Forum to build a rain garden in that corner lot, which will also incorporate public art.

New Projects: Rain Garden

Seagraves reported that a rain garden will be constructed on two city-owned parcels: 215 and 219 W. Kingsley. The city has awarded the contract for construction to Conservation Design Forum (CDF) of Ann Arbor, which has also been involved in the new municipal center project and the Dreiseitl sculpture.

The site is located in a floodplain, and a vacant house is located on one parcel. The city received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish the house and stabilize the site – as part of that, the rain garden is intended to minimize or prevent flooding.

CDF has requested a public art component for the rain garden, Seagraves said. He plans to submit a proposal to the projects committee to start the selection process. It’s likely that funding would come from the Percent for Art program’s stormwater fund, which has a current balance of $28,823. The process would entail setting up a task force to solicit proposals from artists and make a recommendation to AAPAC, which would in turn make a recommendation to the city council.

New Projects: Detroit Institute of Arts

Seagraves reported that he and Derezinski met earlier this month with representatives from the Detroit Institute of Arts. The DIA is interested in partnering with the city on the Inside|Out project, he said. The project installs reproductions from the DIA’s collection at locations on building facades or in parks. Seagraves noted that the DIA did this on a small scale in Ann Arbor previously, and it doesn’t involve any cost to the city.

[An installation on the outside wall at Zingerman's Deli – “Young Woman with a Violin” by Orazio Gentileschi – was recorded in a Chronicle Stopped.Watched. observation a year ago. Another reproduction at that time was installed on the Borders building on East Liberty.]

There may be other partnership possibilities with the DIA, Seagraves said. DIA staff will be invited to attend the Oct. 26 AAPAC meeting, he said.

Derezinski added that the DIA wants to do regional outreach, and that Ann Arbor residents are already a strong part of DIA’s membership. It seems like a natural partnership, he said.

Project Updates: Murals, River Walk, Kamrowski

Throughout Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners and staff gave updates on several ongoing projects.

Project Updates: Mural at Allmendinger

Wiltrud Simbuerger has taken over leadership of a mural pilot program, in the wake of Jeff Meyers’ resignation this summer. Meyers had initiated the program. Originally two mural locations had been selected by a mural task force – on a building at Allmendinger Park, and on a retaining wall along Huron Parkway. But the task force later decided to focus only on Allmendinger for now, following some negative feedback from residents about the retaining wall proposal.

A draft request for statements of qualifications (SOQ) to seek artists for the Allmendinger mural has been in review by the city attorney’s office. Seagraves said it’s likely to be ready for release soon. [The city's open bids and proposals are posted online.]

Project Updates: River ArtWalk

As the next step in a possible art installation along the Huron River, Parker and Winborne have met with Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council. In a brief written report, Parker indicated that Rubin was enthusiastic about the idea of placing artwork at highly used sites along the river. [The possible project was discussed in more detail at AAPAC's Aug. 24, 2011 meeting.]

There is no formal proposal at this point. Parker plans to attend the Oct. 18 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, to discuss the idea with that group.

Project Updates: Kamrowski Murals

Mosaic murals by the artist Gerome Kamrowski, which were previously located on the outside of city hall prior to the building’s renovation, have been installed in the enclosed atrium between city hall and the new justice center. The nine panels were installed by John Tucker, Kamrowski’s stepson.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Seagraves showed commissioners the plaque that had previously been mounted next to the murals, but which was now outdated – for one thing, the artist has passed away, he noted. [Kamrowski died in 2004.] The re-installation was paid for as part of the building renovation, not with Percent for Art funds.

A new plaque is needed, Seagraves said. Connie Brown volunteered to help with the design. It will likely not be paid for with Percent for Art funds.

When Malverne Winborne asked for more information about Kamrowski, Margaret Parker explained that the artist had been part of the abstract expressionist movement in New York City, but had later taught at the University of Michigan school of art & design. He’s one of the artists that Ann Arbor should be bragging about, she said.

Project Updates: Annual ArtWalk

Seagraves reminded commissioners that the 2011 ArtWalk, which is organized by the Arts Alliance, is set for Oct. 21-23. The Dreiseitl sculpture in front of city hall will be one of the featured pieces. Seagraves passed out postcards promoting the event, and urged commissioners to take additional ones to distribute.

Public Commentary

Three members of the public attended Wednesday’s meeting, but only one – Bob Miller – spoke during public commentary at the end of the meeting. He has previously expressed interest in volunteering for the public art program. He said that as a citizen, he’s interested in seeing more public art at the gateway entrances to Ann Arbor. He was curious about whether there could be a permanent outdoor space in which different two-dimensional artwork could be rotated.

Regarding the possible DIA partnership, Miller said he hoped it would evolve into more than just a one-time project.

Responding to Miller’s comments, Malverne Winborne said that from a marketing perspective, having a rotating display of artwork at the city’s entrances would give visitors something to look forward to and anticipate when they come to town.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Tony Derezinski, Margaret Parker, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 26 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

View from the sixth floor of Ann Arbor's city hall, facing south and overlooking East Huron Street. Workers are installing tile in the plaza. The long trough, at a right angle to the street, will be the location for Herbert Dreiseitl's water sculpture. A dedication of the piece is planned for early October, after installation. (Photo by the writer.)

The working session has been discussed as potentially taking place on Sept. 12. But Tony Derezinski – a city councilmember who is AAPAC’s newest commissioner and who attended his first meeting on Wednesday – said he hoped to push back the commission’s presentation to the city council until a later date. [As of late Aug. 29, no city council working session has been scheduled on the city's Legistar system.]

Derezinski characterized it as an extremely important opportunity for AAPAC to convince the council of the value of the Percent for Art program, noting that he has defended it twice when other councilmembers previously proposed cutting it.

Margaret Parker, a local artist who’s served on AAPAC since its inception, suggested making the working session presentation after the formal dedication of Herbert Dreiseitl’s water sculpture in front of city hall – so councilmembers will first have the chance to “bask in some glory” of the program’s efforts, she said. The dedication is being planned for early October, to coincide with Dreiseitl’s next trip to Ann Arbor to oversee the sculpture’s installation.

The Dreiseitl work, costing more than $750,000, will be the second completed piece under the Percent for Art program, which was created in 2007. During Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners also discussed the possibility of using public art funds to buy existing artwork, rather than only commissioning pieces, as they’ve done to date. Although Parker expressed some concerns, they agreed to explore this approach as a way to quicken the pace of public art acquisition.

Commissioners also discussed several projects that are in the formative stages, including artwork for the proposed Fuller Road Station, a mural for Allmendinger Park, and a possible artwalk along the Huron River. A previous recommendation for a mural along the Huron Parkway, near Huron Hills Golf Course, has been postponed, based on negative feedback from residents.

Future of AAPAC, Percent for Art

The city’s Percent for Art ordinance creates a mechanism for funding public art by allocating 1% of all capital improvement projects – with a cap of $250,000 per project – to be spent on public art. The ordinance stipulates that a nine-member public art commission oversees the program. Cheryl Zuellig, who chairs AAPAC’s planning committee, noted that AAPAC has previously discussed the possibility of adding more commissioners, motivated by having more manpower to do the commission’s work. She said that Sue McCormick – the city’s public services administrator – brought up the idea again at a recent meeting with the planning committee, and that McCormick asked AAPAC to consider it.

When commissioners discussed the idea in the past, commissioner Elaine Sims said, they were reluctant to pursue it, because they feared that if they drew attention to the program, it might result in attempts to curtail it instead. But McCormick had indicated that shouldn’t be a concern, Sims said.

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, suggested that it could be an item to bring up at the possible Sept. 12 city council working session. AAPAC has been asked to give an overview of the Percent for Art budget and current projects, she said, and to answer questions or make suggestions for improvement.

Tony Derezinski told commissioners that as part of his efforts to get up to speed on AAPAC’s work, he’d talked with McCormick and Connie Pulcipher, a member of the city’s systems planning staff who has facilitated planning meetings for the commission. When he learned about the working session, he strongly suggested that AAPAC’s presentation be rescheduled, in part because he didn’t feel like he’d be ready to contribute to the discussion by Sept. 12.

In addition, he felt like ”things need to simmer down a little bit, to be very blunt.” This was likely an allusion to comments made by mayor John Hieftje at the Aug. 4, 2011 city council meeting. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

In the early part of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje effectively headed off a debate that might have otherwise unfolded among councilmembers on the relationship between the taxes collected for street and sidewalk repair and the city’s public art program. The mayor announced that he’d be nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) to serve on the public art commission as a replacement for recently resigned commissioner Jeff Meyers. And Hieftje went on to say that in September he wanted to take a longer look at the city’s public art program.

That assurance was enough for now to hold off a council discussion of an explicit restriction on the street/sidewalk repair tax – a restriction that would prevent those tax monies from being used to pay for public art under the city’s Percent for Art program.

…

Hieftje said he’d been looking into the art commission, and had met and talked with various people. The feedback he’d heard is that people support the public art program, but want to know where the art is. A profusion of art in the city hasn’t happened as a result of the program, he said. This is not the same situation as with the housing commission, he added. [In March 2010, the city council undertook the wholesale replacement of the city's housing commission. Derezinski was the city council liaison to the housing commission.] Hieftje said that Derezinski was willing to be appointed to the public art commission, if someone else would step forward to become the liaison to the housing commission.

The mayor continued by saying he wants to pause in September to take a look at why there isn’t more art in the city. He acknowledged that there’d been a proposal by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) [in connection with the past year's budget discussion] to reduce the percentage allocation to art. The council might decide to do that, he said, but he wanted to bring that discussion forward for September.

At AAPAC’s Aug. 24 meeting, Derezinski told commissioners that whenever they do make a presentation to city council, people will be watching it very carefully. The fact that other councilmembers have on two occasions proposed to cut back the program shows that AAPAC needs to make a strong case for it, he said. A working session is not to be feared, he added, it’s to be taken advantage of – but they need to be prepared. McCormick would likely be the staff person to make the actual presentation, he said, and commissioners should “orchestrate” what they want their message to be. They should provide examples of the program’s value, and why it should continue, he said.

Derezinski said he hoped the “powers that be” would agree to postpone the presentation, at least until the new city administrator, Steve Powers, arrives. Powers is due to start his job in mid-September.

Based on that, Zuellig said, it made sense to table a discussion about adding commissioners.

Future of AAPAC, Percent for Art: Procurement?

Zuellig reported another item from the planning committee’s meeting with McCormick. McCormick had suggested that AAPAC consider procurement of artwork – buying pieces that are already made, rather than commissioning new art – as a way to add more quickly to the city’s collection of public art. If AAPAC decides to take that approach, Zuellig said, they’d need to determine how to manage it.

Chamberlin said there are several positive things about that approach, particularly for certain sites. It would certainly reduce the timeline considerably.

But Margaret Parker expressed caution. When you buy art that’s already made, she said, it might not fit the site for which it’s intended. Elaine Sims disagreed – sometimes, an existing piece can fit beautifully on a site. AAPAC could look for opportunities where this approach might work, Sims added. One way to start would be to create a database of artists and their portfolios.

Sims said she had a piece on display at the University of Michigan Hospital by a Chicago artist that was available for sale. [Sims is director of the UM Health System Gifts of Art program.] She also suggested that they consider buying work from artists at the annual Ann Arbor art fairs.

After further discussion, commissioners agreed that the planning committee would explore this approach. It was decided that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, would research what other communities are doing, and develop a proposal for how to proceed. The planning committee will give that proposal an initial review before bringing it to the full commission.

Current Projects: Dreiseitl, Murals, Fuller Road Station

The commission discussed several ongoing projects at their August meeting, ranging from one that is near completion – the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture at the new municipal center – to some that are in much earlier stages.

Current Projects: Dreiseitl Sculpture

Marsha Chamberlin reported that Herbert Dreiseitl will be in Ann Arbor from Sept. 25 through Oct. 5, to oversee the final testing of lighting in the water sculpture he designed for the city. The piece, commissioned by the city at AAPAC’s recommendation, is being installed this month in front of the new municipal center at Fifth & Huron. Blue bulbs will be embedded in the elongated bronze piece, over which water will flow.

By way of background, in 2010 the city council approved a budget of $737,820 for the Dreiseitl piece. The city had previously paid Dreiseitl $77,000 in preliminary design fees. Funding comes in part from the Percent for Art stormwater funds, because the sculpture is designed as part of the site’s stormwater management.

Previously, AAPAC had discussed coordinating a dedication ceremony for the sculpture with whatever event the city planned for the dedication of the municipal center – the complex that includes the new police/courts building plus the renovated city hall and plaza in front of those two buildings, where the sculpture will be located. But Chamberlin said city officials have decided not to have a dedication for the municipal center, so AAPAC is free to choose a date and time for the sculpture dedication alone.

Commissioners discussed possible dates and times, noting that holding the ceremony at dusk would allow for a more dramatic presentation of the lit sculpture. Other factors included holding it later during Dreiseitl’s visit, to ensure that the sculpture would be completely installed, and to avoid a conflict with the Oct. 3 city council meeting and with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year celebration that begins at sunset on Sept. 28. They settled on a tentative date of Tuesday, Oct. 4 for the dedication, with a backup date of Oct. 3. The public relations committee will handle details, including putting together a VIP list of invitees. The dedication will be open to the public.

Current Projects: Mural Program

Jeff Meyers, who had championed a pilot mural program, resigned from AAPAC in July 2011. Wiltrud Simbuerger, one of the newest AAPAC commissioners, agreed to take over leadership of that effort. A task force had previously recommended two sites for the first murals: A building at Allmendinger Park, and a retaining wall along Huron Parkway. Simbuerger reported that, based on positive feedback from residents regarding a mural at Allmendinger, and some negative feedback regarding the Huron Parkway project, the task force has decided to put the Huron Parkway mural on the back burner.

The task force is moving forward with the Allmendinger project, Simbuerger said. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that $8,000 from a Richard T. Whitaker foundation grant will be allocated to the mural – $7,200 for the artist, and $800 set aside for future maintenance. Another $5,000 will come from Percent for Art funds, for a total budget of $12,200, excluding maintenance. The grant funds need to be spent this year, he said.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that AAPAC had originally passed a resolution recommending $10,000 for a mural at Allmendinger and another $10,000 for one along Huron Parkway. Cheryl Zuellig suggested that they vote again, and simply vote to accept the current recommendations of the mural task force report. [.pdf of task force report] In addition to Simbuerger and Seagraves, task force members include Connie Pulcipher, Mariah Cherem and Hannah Smotrich.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to accept the recommendations of the mural task force.

Simbuerger said the city’s legal staff needs to review a statement of qualifications (SOQ) to elicit potential artists for the mural project, and she wasn’t sure how long that would take. The SOQ will be issued as soon as the city attorney’s office signs off on it, she said, with a tentative Oct. 24 deadline for submissions. A selection panel would meet in early November to pick finalists, who would then have until Dec. 30 to submit proposals. Interviews with finalists would take place in early January, and a recommendation would be made at AAPAC’s Jan. 25 meeting.

Based on this timeline, the mural could be completed in the spring of 2012.

There was some debate among commissioners about whether more time should be allowed for artists to respond to the SOQ. Simbuerger noted that the timeline depended in part on when the city attorney’s staff completed their review, and it’s difficult to anticipate how long that will take. Several commissioners observed that historically, review by the legal staff takes a long time.

Another concern was that the grant money, which is administered by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, needs to be spent this year. Seagraves indicated there could be some flexibility on that.

Connie Rizzolo-Brown noted that for the West Park artist selection, the task force allowed just three weeks and received 13 responses. However, the current SOQ deadline for art in the lobby of the city’s new justice center had to be extended, because few responses were received. She felt the decision on a timeline should be made by the mural task force.

Current Projects: Fuller Road Station

The city council hasn’t formally approved the Fuller Road Station (FRS), a joint project of the city and the University of Michigan to build a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station on city-owned land near the UM medical complex. But a task force has been formed to incorporate public art into the building’s design, which is already underway. Task force members are: Dave Dykman, the city’s project manager; Doug Koepsell, UM’s project design manager; Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit; Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator; AAPAC members Cathy Gendron and Connie Rizzolo-Brown; Larry Cressman, a faculty member with the UM School of Art & Design; and Angela Pierro, a representative of the public.

At the Aug. 24 AAPAC meeting, Gendron and Rizzolo-Brown reported on the latest meeting of the FRS public art task force. [.pdf of task force report]

Of the $250,000 allocated to the project, $200,000 will be available to the selected artist. The remaining funds are earmarked for project management costs ($20,000); contingency costs ($25,000); stipends for the five artists selected as finalists whether their project is selected or not ($5,000 – that is, $1,000 per artist). Dykman is planning to spend 1% of his time on the project devoted to the public art project management, Gendron said.

Gendron noted that the city will be contributing only a portion of the $250,000 – $55,000, based on the 22% share of construction costs that the city is expected to shoulder for FRS. [Details of an agreement between the city and UM have not been made public, but based on a memorandum of understanding previously signed by the two entities, it's anticipated that UM will pay for 78% of the project, and have control over that percentage of the parking spots in the structure.]

Even though there’s no formal agreement yet on FRS, Gendron reported that Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, indicated that planning for the public art component can move ahead.

The other issue raised by commissioners related to maintenance costs. Gendron said McCormick had clarified that regular maintenance costs would be paid for by the unit where the artwork is located. For example, the city’s parks and recreation department will pay for maintenance of the metal tree sculpture in West Park. Extraordinary maintenance – like the repair for the Sun Dragon sculpture (see below) – will be treated as new projects, and must go through AAPAC’s selection process.

Gendron noted that the Percent for Art ordinance doesn’t stipulate that projects include set-asides for future maintenance costs. Yet AAPAC’s guidelines do include a provision for maintenance. From the guidelines:

Every public art project funded with Public Art Funds will reserve (10%) of the proposed budget for long term maintenance and conservation of the work(s) of art unless a different amount is required for a particular work of art.

After consulting with McCormick, Gendron said the planning committee will work to revise the guidelines to be consistent with the ordinance. That way, it would not require review by the city’s legal staff. She noted that approval of AAPAC’s bylaws by the legal staff had taken over a year.

The city attorney’s office is also involved in reviewing the statement of qualifications (SOQ) to seek artists for the FRS project. The office has been reviewing the document since May, Gendron said, and the task force wondered if the delay could be tied to the lack of a formal agreement with UM. McCormick believes an agreement with UM won’t be completed until at least September, Gendron said, but that the SOQ will likely be approved by legal staff by the end of August.

Current Projects: Sun Dragon

Connie Rizzolo-Brown reported that the city has received a proposal for the design and preparation of construction documents for repairing the Sun Dragon, a sculpture by Margaret Parker made of colored plexiglas that’s attached to a beam holding Fuller Pool’s solar-heated shower. [Parker, a local artist, is a member of AAPAC.] The sculpture was damaged in the spring of 2010 by workers who were repairing a beam that supported the piece.

Rizzolo-Brown said the city doesn’t yet have a full cost estimate for labor to repair the sculpture, and for the structure that will hold it.

Parker expressed frustration that the project has taken so long. [It has been a topic discussed at several AAPAC meetings for more than a year. In March 2011 AAPAC voted to approve up to $2,000 to hire a city engineer to assess the repair and make cost recommendations.] Parker urged Rizzolo-Brown to reconvene the task force that’s handling the repair project, and to include the city’s structural engineer at the meeting. Rizzolo-Brown agreed that it was taking a long time, but said the city has assigned a project manager to deal with it and she didn’t want to act outside of that person’s authority.

Future Projects: Riverwalk, Stadium Bridges, Washtenaw Avenue

Margaret Parker gave a report on steps that she and Malverne Winborne have taken to explore a possible art riverwalk along the Huron River. [.pdf of Parker's report] AAPAC’s annual plan for FY 2012 calls for possibly adding public art at two locations on the river.

Parker said she met with three members of the city’s parks staff: Colin Smith, head of parks and recreation; park planner Amy Kuras; and Cheryl Saam, head of the city’s canoe liveries. The staff had three recommendations for possible public art at Gallup Park:

• A memorial wall that combines art with donor names on the north side of the livery building – this was the staff’s preference, Parker said.
• Artwork on the far shore, across the river from the livery.
• Decorative elements on a walkway that will be built between the livery and new docks, as part of a renovation project at the park.

Funding would likely come from a $300,000 state grant that the city has applied for, to complete the renovation work at the Gallup Park livery. Update: Smith later clarified for The Chronicle that no state funds would be used for public art. Funding for artwork would likely come from city matching funds.

For the second site – at the Argo headrace, near Argo Pond – parks staff cited four possibilities for public art locations:

• At the end of the headrace near Broadway, where a public area with an amphitheater is planned.
• On top of the embankment: A way-finding system could feature the area’s history – its use as an Indian path, for example, or the location of mills.
• Along the river: A way-finding system could mark a water trail.
• At the area connecting Argo Dam with the headrace.

Maintenance and graffiti were mentioned by the parks staff as issues that need to be considered, Parker said. She also felt that the staff wanted to put limits on what artists could do, and said she couldn’t find a way to describe to the parks staff why artists should be allowed to “think big and amaze us.”

Elaine Sims drew an analogy to putting art in your living room. If you do it, you might just put something above your sofa. But an interior designer might come up with a vision that you’d never consider. Cheryl Zuellig noted that it’s also true that no one knows your living room as well as you do – it made sense to collaborate with the parks staff, she said. Cathy Gendron said she didn’t think projects could be successful unless artists were involved in the very earliest stages.

Parker suggested that perhaps the city’s river art project could be part of a larger riverwalk. She was meeting later in the week with representatives from the Huron River Watershed Council and Andy Buchsbaum, head of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Natural Resources Center in Ann Arbor. Both groups are involved in RiverUp!, an effort to improve a 104-mile stretch of the Huron River, starting from the north at Milford through Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and downstream to Flat Rock. [See Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Zuellig noted that it wasn’t necessary for AAPAC to be the champions of a riverwalk – the watershed council or another group could do it, and take a more holistic approach beyond the boundaries of Ann Arbor. AAPAC could participate, but not necessarily take the lead, she said. There was further discussion about AAPAC’s role in this effort, and whether they were the appropriate group to develop a vision for the riverwalk. Tony Derezinski said they shouldn’t be too concerned if their role is ambiguous at this point. He likened it to initial talks about the Reimagine Washtenaw project, with representatives from multiple jurisdictions sorting out their roles in revitalizing Washtenaw Avenue.

Marsha Chamberlin reminded commissioners that Peter Allen had attended an AAPAC meeting in January to advocate for an Argo Pond artwalk. Where does he fit in? she asked. Parker noted that Allen owned property on the west side of Argo Pond, off of North Main Street. [AAPAC recently awarded Allen's development company a Golden Paintbrush award for rock cairns on its North Main property.] He might be willing to contribute to the broader riverwalk effort, she said.

Derezinski said that others in the city are looking at ways to improve North Main as an entrance to the city. He and fellow councilmember Sandi Smith had taken a walk along that stretch earlier this year with Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city’s project management unit, to talk about what could be done as part of a resurfacing project scheduled for next year, he said. The Near North affordable housing project will be built in that area, he noted. Other related projects include the Allen Creek greenway, and making Bandemer Park more accessible, he said.

Parker said she’s been asked to loop in the city’s park advisory commission regarding possible artwork along the river, and will make a presentation at one of PAC’s future meetings, then report back to AAPAC with feedback.

Future Projects: Washtenaw Avenue, Stadium Bridges

Aaron Seagraves reported that city staff had suggested the non-motorized path being built along Washtenaw Avenue might be a good place for public art, and he asked for feedback from commissioners. A wide path is being built on the north side of Washtenaw, between Toumy and Glenwood. Construction will likely be finished in September.

Commissioners wondered where artwork could be located, given that the project is almost done. Cheryl Zuellig noted that one possible location in that area – though not connected to the path – was the triangular traffic island at the intersection of Washtenaw and Stadium. [The location has previously been the target of an Ann Arbor Newshawk satirical news report.]

Tony Derezinski reported that the Ann Arbor Rotary might “adopt” the location, and representatives were to meet later in the week with Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city’s project management unit, to talk about the possibility. At Zuellig’s suggestion, Derezinski said he’d bring up the possibility of Rotary partnering with AAPAC on the project.

Later in the meeting, Zuellig reported that she and Wiltrud Simbuerger would be meeting with city engineer Michael Nearing later this month to talk about the East Stadium bridges reconstruction, and how public art might be a component of that project.

Administrator’s Report: Budget, Inventory, Arts Alliance

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported on several items during the meeting.

Administrator’s Report: Art Inventory

At AAPAC’s July 27, 2011 meeting, Seagraves told commissioners that CultureNOW, which runs a project called Museums Without Walls, had contacted the city about being included in a national online inventory of public art projects. Based on feedback from that meeting, he arranged to include some pieces from the city of Ann Arbor’s art inventory on the CultureNOW website. He reported that University of Michigan artwork is also on the site – UM has an extensive public art collection.

Administrator’s Report: Arts Alliance

Two items were brought up during the meeting that related to the nonprofit Arts Alliance, which is based in Ann Arbor. Seagraves said the alliance has asked the city to sponsor its Sept. 20 Arts Convergence conference, to be held at Eastern Michigan University’s student center. The sponsorship cost is $250. Commissioners discussed whether it was valuable to be a sponsor. Margaret Parker advocated for sponsorship, noting that the alliance is a countywide organization and that a sponsorship would make a statement that AAPAC plays a pivotal role in the community.

Elaine Sims, who will be one of the speakers at the event, felt AAPAC should have a policy on this kind of thing, rather than make sponsorship decisions on an ad hoc basis.

There was some discussion about whether funds were available for this purpose. Seagraves said it would likely come out of the Percent for Art administrative budget. Commissioners asked him to find out how much was available.

Parker suggested skipping the sponsorship, and using that money instead to make printed materials that could be handed out to showcase the Dreiseitl sculpture and other projects. Commissioners seemed to reach a consensus on that approach.

Later in the meeting, Cathy Gendron – during her report from the PR committee – noted that the 2011 ArtWalk, which is organized by the Arts Alliance, is set for Oct. 21-23. The Dreiseitl sculpture will be one of the featured pieces, and Gendron encouraged commissioners to volunteer for a “shift” at the sculpture, to talk to the public about the project and the city’s public art program.

Administrator’s Report: Percent for Art Budget

Seagraves included an updated summary of the Percent for Art budget in the meeting packet, showing line items for expenses as well as balances available for public art. [.pdf of budget summary] The report shows $1,142,509 available for future projects, after factoring in previously allocated funding.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 28 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Meyers resigned in June of this year mid-way through his three-year term, partly over frustration that the mural project he’d championed kept hitting bureaucratic roadblocks. In an interview with The Chronicle, Meyers had suggested that one way to improve the situation is for a city council representative to be appointed to AAPAC – it seems especially appropriate since AAPAC makes recommendations for the Percent for Art budget, he said. [Chronicle coverage: "After Resignation, Who Leads Mural Program?"]

The Percent for Art program is enabled by a city ordinance that allocates 1% of the budget for all city capital projects – up to a limit of $250,000 per project – to the city’s public art program. The Percent for Art program was also a part of the council’s discussion on the evening of Aug. 4, because there is some interest on the part of councilmembers in restricting funds generated through the street reconstruction millage from use in the Percent for Art program. The street reconstruction millage will expire this year, unless it is approved by the general electorate on Nov. 8 this year.

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

A mock-up section of the sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that's commissioned for the entrance to the Ann Arbor municipal center. The piece is made of bronze, with blue glass lights embedded. In this photo, water is flowing over the section, as it will when installed. (Photo courtesy of Quinn Evans Architects)

One issue: How to proceed with recommending a replacement for Jeff Meyers, who resigned from AAPAC in June, mid-way through his three-year term. The main concern among commissioners is who can take over leadership of a new mural program that Meyers had initiated. Margaret Parker indicated she’ll also be leaving the commission in the coming months, creating another vacancy on the nine-member commission.

The mayor, John Hieftje, is responsible for making nominations to AAPAC. Those nominations also require confirmation by the full city council. On Wednesday, AAPAC commissioners discussed the need for better communication with Hieftje, and said they hoped to find out what criteria he was using to make the selection – the most recent appointment Hieftje made to AAPAC was done without their input, after he rejected someone they’d recruited. Communication has also been lacking regarding Meyers’ resignation – in a phone interview with The Chronicle following AAPAC’s July meeting, Meyers said the mayor hasn’t acknowledged his resignation.

In other topics at Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners briefly discussed a written update they’d received about the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture being built for the entrance to the municipal center. Installation is still on track for next month.

Also in August – at city council’s Aug. 4 meeting – winners of the annual Golden Paintbrush awards will be honored. AAPAC selected the winners, who are recognized for their contributions to public art, via an online poll last month. This year, winners are: (1) Krazy Jim’s Blimpie Burger, for the Snow Bears sculptures they build each winter in front of their business at Packard and South Division; (2) Mary Thiefels and Treetown Murals for the mural outside the Alley Bar along West Liberty; and (3) Peter Allen & Associates, for rock sculptures on North Main Street.

Commissioner Resignation, Mural Program

Jeff Meyers, who was appointed to a three-year term on the Ann Arbor public art commission in early 2010, sent a formal notice of resignation to mayor John Hieftje in June. The news was discussed at the July 27, 2011 AAPAC meeting, as commissioners considered who might take over leadership of a task force for a new mural program that Meyers had initiated.

His resignation was foreshadowed at AAPAC’s June 2011 meeting, which he did not attend. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin had told other commissioners that Meyers wanted to relinquish his leadership of the mural program – she said he felt like the project had stalled. That announcement prompted some commissioners to speculate on whether Meyers was still interested in serving on AAPAC, noting that he hadn’t attended a meeting since April. [The May AAPAC meeting coincided with a public forum for the mural project, which Meyers did attend.]

At previous meetings, Meyers – managing editor of the online magazines Concentrate and MetroMode – had expressed frustration about the mural program’s progress. He developed it as a way to generate more public art in the community, and to set up a process by which similar programs could be modeled. Funded by the city’s Percent for Art program, which AAPAC guides, the mural program was unanimously approved by AAPAC in November 2010, with the intent of creating at least two murals per year in the city. It has an estimated budget of $25,000 this year.

Meyers formed a task force, which recommended two sites for the first murals: A building at Allmendinger Park, and a retaining wall along Huron Parkway. AAPAC approved those sites at a special meeting in March, but city staff later determined that the meeting hadn’t been properly noticed, so a second special meeting was called in April and the vote was retaken.

Then, city staff determined that AAPAC’s 2011 annual public art plan, which includes the mural program, hadn’t been officially approved by Ann Arbor city council. Though the plan was approved last year by AAPAC and forwarded to city staff, it was never placed on council’s agenda. [The language in AAPAC's bylaws indicate that a plan must be submitted to council, but does not state that the plan requires council approval. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage:  "What's Ahead for Public Mural Program?"] The council formally received the plan at its June 20, 2011 meeting, when it approved the clerk’s report of communications, of which the plan was a part.

City staff also determined that neighborhood meetings were needed to get input on the sites – those meetings were held earlier this summer. But the city has not yet solicited proposals from artists for the murals, and it’s doubtful that the murals will be completed before winter arrives. Meyers had originally hoped to have both murals finished by September.

Commissioner Resignation, Mural Program – Communication

The mayor is responsible for making nominations to the nine-member public art commission. Those nominations also require confirmation by the full city council.

At Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners discussed the need to communicate with Hieftje about possible nominations. Cheryl Zuellig noted that AAPAC had spun its wheels during the last nomination process – it seemed that the commission and Hieftje moved along different, parallel tracks. The commission didn’t know what Hietje was looking for, and AAPAC members had invested a lot of time into recruiting.

[This issue has been discussed at length at previous AAPAC meetings. Last year, AAPAC members had recruited Lee Doyle, a member of the UM President’s Advisory Committee for Public Art who also oversees the UM Film Office. But Hieftje subsequently conveyed that he wanted to appoint someone who resides in Ann Arbor – Doyle lives outside the city. That prompted a long discussion at AAPAC's September 2010 meeting, as commissioners speculated on how to improve the recommendation process for new commissioners. In October 2010, Hieftje nominated Malverne Winborne – an Ann Arbor resident and director of Eastern Michigan University’s Charter Schools Office – without consulting or informing AAPAC about his choice in advance. Winborne is now AAPAC's vice chair.]

On Wednesday, Margaret Parker noted that the Percent for Art ordinance doesn’t stipulate that AAPAC commissioners live in Ann Arbor, but Hieftje had felt it was important. Zuellig indicated that the main issue is for AAPAC to understand what Hieftje’s criteria are, so that AAPAC can make recommendations that are appropriate. [Most AAPAC commissioners live in Ann Arbor. Zuellig lives in Ypsilanti. The issue of her residency was raised by councilmember Marcia Higgins when Zuellig was nominated to AAPAC in late 2008.]

Winborne asked whether AAPAC had any written criteria itself. Parker indicated that she had some documentation, which she said she’d “resurrect.” Commissioners discussed the importance of centralizing these kinds of documents – that’s a project that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s art administrator, will take on.

Commissioner Resignation, Mural Program – Comments from Meyers

In a phone interview with The Chronicle following AAPAC’s July meeting, Meyers said he’d reached a point where he couldn’t justify the time he’d been investing in the mural program and AAPAC, given his job, family and other commitments. Noting that he’d started developing the program nearly a year ago, he said at nearly every turn he encountered seemingly arbitrary requirements, incomplete or contradictory information, and new layers of requirements identified by city staff.

Meyers said he’s passionate about the city’s Percent for Art program and public art in general. But since the Percent for Art program was started in 2007, only one piece – a sculpture at West Park – has been completed, he noted. [Another project – the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture at the city's new municipal center – is set to be installed in August.] There’s not yet a systematic process in place for moving projects forward, he said, and no clarity from staff or the city council about AAPAC’s role.

One way to improve the situation is for a city council representative to be appointed to AAPAC, Meyers suggested – it seems especially appropriate since AAPAC makes recommendations for the Percent for Art budget. There’s a disconnect when the taxicab commission has a council representative, but AAPAC does not, Meyers said. Having input from city council would help AAPAC understand what councilmembers want from the program. Does the council want AAPAC to initiate projects, or simply facilitate projects that the city identifies? These are the kinds of decisions that should have been made long ago, Meyers said.

Meyers said he plans to produce a written report or attend a future AAPAC meeting to make some recommendations for improving the Percent for Art program. He didn’t attend the July meeting because the status of his resignation was unclear – he said he’s gotten “zero response” from the mayor to his letter of resignation. [Update: On Aug. 1, Hieftje forwarded to The Chronicle a copy of a July 5 email he says he sent to Meyers in response to Meyers' June 21 resignation email. Meyers told The Chronicle he has no record of Hieftje's email. .pdf of emails from Meyers and Hieftje]

Commissioner Resignation, Mural Program – Next Steps

At AAPAC’s July 27 meeting, Parker recommended a next step related to leadership of the mural task force. She suggested that Seagraves contact Wiltrud Simbuerger, a commissioner who serves on the task force but who did not attend Wednesday’s meeting. Parker felt Simbuerger would be interested in championing that program.

Commissioners also discussed the general status of the program. Public meetings held for neighbors of the two proposed sites – at Allmendinger Park and along Huron Parkway, near Huron Hills golf course – were one reason the original timeline had been pushed back. Parker indicated that this was the first time that public meetings had been held prior to the start of a public art project, so it was “breaking new ground.”

Zuellig clarified that there hadn’t been public meetings prior to the city’s commissioning of the Dreiseitl sculpture. No, Parker said, there was a public presentation, but that occurred after Dreiseitl had been chosen to do the work. Parker said the mural project was also the first time that an online survey had been used by the city to get feedback on a public art project. Because parks are involved, the city has a whole process of public input, she said.

Zuellig suggested that commissioners consider whether they should use this same process for all future projects. It seemed to her that the reason these public meetings had been added was because there was negative feedback about the mural program. Parker said that wasn’t her understanding – she thought Meyers had asked to get input from neighbors.

[Public meetings with neighbors had been scheduled at the request of city parks staff, because the murals were being planned for locations at or near city parks. The issue of negative feedback was raised later, and was discussed at AAPAC's April 27, 2011 meeting. From Chronicle coverage:]

Venita Harrison – a management assistant who works for Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, and who currently serves as support staff to AAPAC – mentioned that there might be a problem with the mural program. The city council had never officially approved the 2011 public art plan, she said – until that happened, her understanding was that the project couldn’t move forward.

She said the process of getting city council approval likely fell through the cracks during the transition last year, after former public art administrator Katherine Talcott stepped down from that role. More recently, a councilmember had read media reports about the mural program and raised questions about who had authorized it, Harrison said. They tried to find a record of when the city council had approved the 2011 annual plan – which included the mural program – but the plan didn’t turn up in records of council proceedings.

On Wednesday, Zuellig noted that although the public meetings might have been reactionary, if the feedback was valuable, then AAPAC should consider scheduling similar meetings in a proactive way. She cautioned that AAPAC needs to be mindful about reaching out to a broad group, noting that people often tend to show up to meetings if they don’t like something.

Parker suggested that instead of selecting sites and then seeking neighborhood support, one approach would be to find community or neighborhood groups who are eager to have a public art project in their area.

Parker also asked about the results of online surveys for the two mural sites. Seagraves reported that response had been low – only about 4-5 surveys had been completed for each location. From that small sample, the responses for Allmendinger were supportive, he said, but all responses for the location along Huron Parkway were against it.

Dreiseitl Sculpture, Justice Center Art

As they had last month, commissioners received a written report on the water sculpture designed by Herbert Dreiseitl, which the city commissioned for the outside entrance to the municipal center at Fifth and Huron. The report was prepared by Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects, project manager for the municipal center construction and renovation. [.pdf of July 2011 Dreiseitl report]

A wooden mock-up of the base for the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture being built in front of the municipal center at Fifth and Huron, facing Huron. Installation of the sculpture is expected to occur in August. (Photo courtesy of Quinn Evans Architects.)

Malverne Winborne asked when a formal dedication was being planned. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s art administrator, wasn’t certain, but said that it would likely be part of an overall dedication of the municipal center.

Margaret Parker said AAPAC should be involved in planning the dedication, adding that she keeps bringing it up monthly because no one seems to be acting on it. [At AAPAC's June meeting, Marsha Chamberlin – the commission's chair who also serves on the public relations committee – said the PR committee would be working on a dedication ceremony for the Dreiseitl sculpture. Parker did not attend that meeting.]

Seagraves reported that the sculpture would be a stop on this year’s ArtWalk, which will take place Oct. 21-23. Funds from the Dreiseitl project are being used to pay for an ArtWalk sponsorship, he said. [Last year, the city council approved a budget of $737,820 for the sculpture. The city had previously paid Dreiseitl $77,000 in preliminary design fees. Funding comes in part from the Percent for Art stormwater funds, because the sculpture is designed as part of the site’s stormwater management. An ArtWalk sponsorship is about $350, according to Seagraves.]

The PR committee will handle sign-ups for volunteers to be present at the sculpture during the ArtWalk hours, Seagraves said, and to provide information about the sculpture and the city’s Percent for Art program.

Also related to art at the municipal center, Seagraves said the statement of qualifications/request for proposals was reissued in June for art in the police/courts building lobby, which along with city hall is part of the municipal center. [.pdf of justice center art SOQ/RFP] The project has an artist’s budget of up to $150,000 – the deadline for responses to the SOQ/RFP is Sept. 1. A total of $250,000 had been budgeted for that piece, plus additional artwork in an outdoor courtyard behind the municipal center, facing Ann Street.

Updates from Art Administrator

Aaron Seagraves gave several updates and communications during Wednesday’s meeting.

Updates: Meeting with the Mayor

Seagraves reported that he and AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin had met with mayor John Hieftje to give an update on AAPAC’s work and to get the mayor’s ideas about the public art program. They also toured the site of the Dreiseitl installation. In general, Hieftje encouraged AAPAC to do more projects, Seagraves said. When asked by commissioners for specific ideas that Hieftje had mentioned, Seagraves cited the River Art Trail around Argo Pond, which is in AAPAC’s annual art plan for FY2012. He added that he hadn’t brought his notes from that meeting and didn’t remember all of Hieftje’s comments.

Margaret Parker urged Seagraves to communicate more details of the meeting, saying that the mayor is one of the people that AAPAC needs to hear from.

Updates: Art Inventory

CultureNOW, which runs a project called Museums Without Walls, contacted the city about being included in a national online inventory of public art projects. Seagraves said he knows that the city had done an inventory and has a database of public art, but he hasn’t been able to access it yet – he’s working with IT staff to find where it’s located within the city’s computer system.

There was some question among commissioners about whether AAPAC has the authority to make a decision to join this national network. However, they agreed that they couldn’t make a formal recommendation at that meeting, since they did not have a quorum of members. Seagraves said he’d get more information about the project and put a resolution of recommendation on the August AAPAC agenda.

Parker cautioned that Seagraves should find out how much time would be involved in participating, before making a commitment. She also pointed out that the University of Michigan has an extensive online inventory of its public art collection, and that it would be good to have the university participate as well – that would more than double the amount of public art that would be inventoried for Ann Arbor, she said.

Updates: Mural for Avalon Housing

The nonprofit Avalon Housing, which provides affordable housing to low-income residents, recently contacted the city, Seagraves said. The nonprofit is interested in having AAPAC help oversee a mural project for some of Avalon’s properties. Although the properties aren’t owned by the city, he noted, Avalon is supported by public funding, including money from the city’s housing trust fund, the federal HOME program, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Seagraves said he’s asked the city attorney’s office for advice about how to handle a project like this. The project would likely use donations, and the murals would be on private property.

Updates: Open Meetings Act

At a previous meeting, commissioners had raised a question about whether their committee meetings needed to conform to the state’s Open Meetings Act. On Wednesday, Seagraves highlighted two relevant resolutions passed by city council:

City Resolution, passed November 1991:  “All city boards, task forces, commissions, committees and their subcommittees hold their meetings open to the public to the best of their abilities in the spirit of Section 3 of the Open Meetings Act.”

City Resolution, passed December 2000: “… all City committees commissions and authorities, when required to meet in open session, hold all of their meetings in a public building.”

Those resolutions indicate that committee meetings need to be held in a public building, he said, like city hall or the library, and not at a private business. [By way of background, until mid-2009, AAPAC held its regular monthly meetings at the conference room of JJR – a landscape architecture and urban design firm where Zuellig works – until concerns about public accessibility prompted them to move to the seventh floor of the City Center building at Fifth and Huron. The city rented office space there while renovations were underway at city hall. AAPAC now meets back at city hall.]

Updates: Budget

Seagraves briefly reviewed the current Percent for Art budget. The balance at the end of fiscal 2011, which ended June 30, stood at $1.57 million.

Ann Arbor Percent for Art budget. (Links to larger image)

Seagraves noted that the balance doesn’t reflect funding that’s anticipated to be used for the mural project or the proposed Fuller Road Station. [A task force has been formed to look at public art for the Fuller Road Station, although that project – a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan parking structure, bus depot and possible train station – hasn't been officially approved by city council.]

At the start of FY 2012 – on July 1, 2011 – $292,216 in additional revenues became available for the Percent for Art program. That includes funds from the street millage ($133,772), the parks millage ($11,714), the solid waste fund ($3,910), the water fund ($40,397), the sewer fund ($89,543) and the stormwater fund ($12,880).

The Percent for Art program, established in 2007 by a city council resolution, captures 1% from the budget of all city capital projects, to be set aside for public art. That amount is capped at $250,000 per project. The ordinance stipulates that each public art project must relate to the source of funding – for example, public art funded from the street millage must be located near a street or have a transportation theme. [link to the Ann Arbor city code – click on Chapter 24: Public Art, which lays out the responsibilities of AAPAC.]

Updates: Annual Plan

Seagraves wanted to touch base with commissioners about the 2012 annual art plan. Though most projects that are listed in the plan identify a commissioner who will take the lead on those efforts, he said some projects didn’t yet indicate which commissioner would take that role.

Commissioners clarified that he had been looking at a draft – the final plan did assign commissioners to each project. [.pdf of 2012 annual public art art plan] However, Jeff Meyers had taken the lead on two projects: (1) the mural program, and (2) a possible public art project coordinated with painting of the Manchester Road elevated water tank, which is scheduled to occur in FY2013. Because Meyers resigned from AAPAC last month, other commissioners will need to take on those projects.

Cheryl Zuellig said it was helpful for commissioners to review the status of projects in the annual plan, and asked that Seagraves continue to do that in future meetings.

Committee Reports: PR, Projects

Every AAPAC meeting includes reports from three committees: public relations, planning and projects. The planning committee did not meet during the last month, and had no report.

Committee Reports: PR – Golden Paintbrush

No members of the public relations committee attended Wednesday’s meeting, but a written report announced the results of the annual Golden Paintbrush awards.

From a Chronicle file photo taken in January 2011: One of several rock cairns on the east side of North Main Street in Ann Arbor, near property owned by developer Peter Allen.

Since their last meeting, commissioners had voted online and selected three winners: (1) Krazy Jim’s Blimpie Burger, for the Snow Bears sculptures they build each winter in front of their business at Packard and South Division, (2) Mary Thiefels and Treetown Murals for the mural outside the Alley Bar along West Liberty, and (3) Peter Allen & Associates, for rock sculptures on the developer’s North Main Street property. [Peter Allen had attended AAPAC's January 2011 meeting to propose a sculpture park in the Argo Pond area, funded through the city's Percent for Art program. There's been no action on that proposal; however, a River Art Trail – which would include Argo and Gallup parks – is listed as a potential project in the 2012 annual art plan.]

Margaret Parker wanted to know when the awards would be presented to city council. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s art administrator, thought it would be on the council’s Aug. 4 agenda. [Golden Paintbrush awards are, in fact, included on the city council's Aug. 4 agenda.]

Parker expressed concern about whether the logistics of the presentation were being handled. It’s the responsibility of the public relations committee. Parker said the Golden Paintbrush presentation to council is one of the best ways to highlight public art. [These art projects aren't funded by the city's Percent for Art program, nor did AAPAC have any input into the projects. They are "public art" in that they are located in venues visible to the public – but on private property.]

Other commissioners indicated they were confident that the public relations committee, which has handled the presentation in the past, would be prepared for it this year, too.

Committee Reports: Projects – Sun Dragon

Connie Brown reported that the city has received estimates from an engineer and fabricator for repair of the Sun Dragon, a sculpture by Margaret Parker made of colored plexiglas that’s attached to a beam holding Fuller Pool’s solar-heated shower. It was damaged in the spring of 2010 by workers who were repairing a beam that supported the piece. Since then it’s been the topic of discussion at several AAPAC meetings, including a lengthy one at the March 2011 meeting. At that meeting, commissioners ultimately voted to approve up to $2,000 to hire a city engineer to: (1) perform a structural evaluation of the Sun Dragon’s support system and the piece itself; (2) to determine if design alternations or changes in fabrication are needed for ease of maintenance; and (3) to provide design and fabrication cost estimates.

Brown said the estimates have been forwarded to Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, for her review. Brown hoped to bring a recommendation to AAPAC at its August meeting.

Private Donation for Public Art

Neel Hajra, chief operating officer for the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), recently contacted the city about making an $8,000 donation toward public art from the Richard T. Whitaker foundation, which AAACF manages. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s art administrator, told commissioners on Wednesday that Hajra was looking for suggestions for what might be a good fit for the foundation to support. Seagraves and Marsha Chamberlin, the art commission’s chair, had suggested the public mural program.

The community foundation would like to set up a sub-fund for this donation within the existing AAPAC endowment fund that’s housed with the community foundation.

Commissioners raised several questions and concerns. Margaret Parker noted that the city can only use interest on the principal of the existing endowment fund – would the same be true for the proposed donation? If so, interest on $8,000 isn’t much, she noted. The existing endowment can also only be used for maintenance. In addition, other funds have been set up with the AAACF in the past for specific art projects – these were made by donors before the city instituted its Percent for Art program in 2007, Parker said. Even though those projects are completed, some money remains in those funds – “dribs and drabs,” Parker said. Parker added that the city needs to revisit whether that money can be pooled and spent on other projects.

Donations can be given directly to the city, Parker said. Seagraves reported that he had talked with Abigail Elias of the city attorney’s office, who told him that any donations would need to be approved by city council and would be added to the general fund.

Parker suggested the best way to handle donations would be to set up a public art fund and teach people to give to that, rather than give donations dedicated to a specific project. It’s better to let AAPAC decide how to use the donations, she said. Cheryl Zuellig countered that a lot of people want to know how their money will be spent. The city needs to make it as easy as possible to accept donations – AAPAC should make it a priority to figure out a process, and not to make it overly complicated, she said.

Malverne Winborne agreed: “Let’s find a way to streamline this process.”

Seagraves said he’d get additional information from Hajra about how the sub-fund might be structured, and would get guidance from Sue McCormick – the city’s public services area administrator, who oversees the Percent for Art program – about other issues raised by commissioners.

Communications, Public Commentary

Malverne Winborne, who chaired the meeting in the absence of Marsha Chamberlin, reported that Ann Arbor had been listed No. 6 in American Style magazine’s top 25 ranking of mid-sized cities for art. The magazine’s top five art destinations are St. Petersburg, Fla.; Savannah, Ga.; New Orleans, La.; Charleston, S.C., and Scottsdale, Ariz.

Bob Miller attended Wednesday’s meeting, after talking with some of the commissioners at the July 18 pre-art fair Townie Party, where AAPAC had an information table. During the time available for public commentary, Miller told commissioners that he was interested in learning more about the group. He has a degree from the Art Institute of Chicago, has worked in ceramic sculpture and photography, and is also a builder and realtor. He confirmed for commissioners that he lives in Ann Arbor – they joked that this could make him eligible to serve on the commission, and said they were glad he’s interested in getting involved.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Margaret Parker, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Elaine Sims.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 24 at 4:30 p.m., in the sixth floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.