Aaron Seagraves, the city’s outgoing public art administrator.

One aspect of that transition is the departure of the part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. His current contract ends on June 30 – the final day of the current fiscal year. Seagraves has been working as the public art administrator on a contract basis since May of 2011.

In addition, one of the art commissioners – Ashlee Arder, who was appointed in March of 2013 – has resigned because of a move to Detroit. She did not attend the June 18 meeting.

Six of the nine commissioners who were present at the meeting approved a resolution about AAPAC’s near-term future. It states that the commission “will not initiate any new public arts projects, nor take any action to seek public or private funds for new projects, until it receives: direction on implementing a transition, a plan to support the Public Art Commission in the furtherance of public art, and guidelines for the funding and management of public art projects…” The resolution also states that AAPAC won’t meet until feedback is needed on the transition plan or for ongoing projects.

AAPAC chair Bob Miller, who introduced the resolution, described it as a way “to tie things up in a neat package for us, until the city has a clear direction for us to move forward.”

In other action, the commission authorized using $10,981 for a project called “PowerArt,” to be administered by the nonprofit Arts Alliance in response to a request by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA is contributing $20,000 to the first phase of the project, which involves wrapping eight traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The expenditure from the city is not from Percent for Art funds, but rather from money donated to the city for public art, and held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Discussion among commissioners focused on the fact that the Arts Alliance is proposing a roughly 40% project management fee for the first cycle – $9,100 on top of the $23,000 budget for the project expenses. The fee, as a percentage of the project’s later cycles, is expected to decrease in subsequent cycles. If the entire project is completed, an additional 34 boxes would be wrapped.

Commissioners also were updated on several ongoing projects that have been previously undertaken by AAPAC: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; (3) artwork for East Stadium bridges; and (4) Canoe Imagine Art.

Another effort that’s being developed by commissioner KT Tomey – maps for walking, cycling or running self-guided tours of public art – is also moving ahead, though it’s not an official city project. Commissioners intend to continue work on these projects to some degree, despite their decision to hold off on meetings and new initiatives.

Future of Art Commission

AAPAC chair Bob Miller added a resolution at the start of the June 18 meeting regarding the commission’s future. [.pdf of resolution] The item included these three resolved clauses:

RESOLVED, That the public art projects now in progress will be carried through to completion under the oversight of the Public Art Commission working in conjunction with the City of Ann Arbor staff and appointed personnel;

RESOLVED, That the Public Art Commission will not initiate any new public arts projects, nor take any action to seek public or private funds for new projects, until it receives: direction on implementing a transition, a plan to support the Public Art Commission in the furtherance of public art, and guidelines for the funding and management of public art projects; and,

RESOLVED, That the Public Art Commission will not meet until feedback on the transition plan is needed, unless there is required oversight on ongoing public art projects.

By way of background, the former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. A new approach to public art was established last year on June 3, 2013, when the council eliminated the Percent for Art mechanism from the city’s public art ordinance. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed with council approval as an integral part of a capital project. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair.

This approach was part of a set of recommendations made by a council committee more than a year ago. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations] The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who subsequently declared their candidacy for mayor in the 2014 Democratic primary: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). That committee work came in the wake of a failed public art millage that was on the ballot in November 2012 – which would have provided an alternative to the Percent for Art funding mechanism. The millage had been put forward by Taylor, over objections from leaders of the arts community, who wanted more time to prepare for a public vote.

More recently, on March 3, 2014 the city council took three actions: (1) directed the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for the next two years; (2) transferred $943,005 out of the public art fund; and (3) extended the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through June 30, 2014. The direction in (1) is reflected in the budget that was approved by the city council for FY 2015 – in the form of an $80,000 one-time expense for art administration.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program, has been tasked with delivering a public art transition plan to the council in October.

Uncertainty about the public art program has already affected AAPAC’s work. During the current fiscal year – from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 – AAPAC has canceled five of its monthly meetings: in July, November and December of 2013, and in February and May of 2014.

At AAPAC’s June 18 meeting, Miller noted that the issue of a transition is something he’d spoken to commissioners about in the past. He described the resolution as a way “to tie things up in a neat package for us, until the city has a clear direction for us to move forward.” The city staff is working on a transition plan, he said. And although AAPAC isn’t the entity that will be creating a new plan, he added, they can give advice.

Future of Art Commission: Discussion

KT Tomey asked about the final resolved clause: “That the Public Art commission will not meet until feedback on the transition plan is needed, unless there is required oversight on ongoing public art projects.” She wondered how that might play out in practice.

AAPAC member Connie Brown.

Bob Miller said the intent is to indicate that AAPAC would meet only when requested. The idea is that the city would come to AAPAC if any initiative needed input from the commission.

Connie Brown supported the resolution, but wanted to know what will happen to projects that commissioners are working on now. For example: Who will be publicizing projects like the East Stadium bridges artwork, or the sculptures at the Kingsley and First rain garden?

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said that project management staff have been assigned to these ongoing projects. The communications staff will also be a resource, he said. Specifically, Robert Keller of the communications staff will be helping to publicize these projects and handle the dedication events.

For the rain garden, Jerry Hancock will be handling project management. For East Stadium bridges, the point person is Mike Nearing, the engineer who oversaw the bridge reconstruction. Staff will be identified for other projects as they move forward, including the Coleman Jewett memorial and Canoe Imagine Art.

Miller said that AAPAC would be kept informed and could remain involved in these projects. Hupy told commissioners that he’d serve as the point person between the project management staff and AAPAC.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, who oversees the public art program.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested the possibility of meeting every-other month, as a way to keep commissioners informed.

Brown thought the intent of this resolution is to make clear that AAPAC is available for feedback, but that it’s not leading the administrative effort during this transition. Miller replied that until there’s a new plan in place for AAPAC’s work, “we’re not going to satisfy council, we’re not going to satisfy ourselves, and we’re not going to move forward in a progressive way.” It’s very difficult to keep moving forward on smaller projects in the current environment, he added. “We’re not going down a clear path right now – it’s muddy waters, and I would like to try to define our role.”

Brown said she understood the intent, but because commissioners will still be involved in ongoing projects, “we’re still in that no-man’s land.” Maybe that’s OK, she added, but unless they stopped working on everything, their role would still be a little “muddy.”

John Kotarski said he supported the intent of the resolution. He didn’t think it changed any of the projects that are underway. If a vote is needed on anything, they can reconvene.

Kotarski thought that commissioners who are working on projects should continue their efforts – like Chamberlin’s fundraising efforts for the Coleman Jewett memorial, or Tomey’s work on maps for walking or running routes that highlight public art in Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. Kotarski felt that the resolution clears the path, rather than muddies it.

Tomey noted that her mapping project is much simpler than the Coleman Jewett memorial. There’s no budget, and very little administrative demand, she said, so it would be more flexible to continue working on it compared to other projects that are underway.

Hupy observed that that Tomey’s mapping project isn’t officially a city project at this point – it hasn’t been funded or “officially sanctioned.” It was not on the list of projects that the city council had supported for FY 2015, he added. However, “we can make the mapping happen,” he said.

AAPAC member Devon Akmon.

Chamberlin clarified with Miller that this resolution in effect puts the commission’s business on hold, except for ongoing projects. Hupy added that he’ll be coming back to AAPAC for input as the city staff develops ideas for the future of the public art program.

Devon Akmon asked about the timeline for this transition. Hupy explained that the city council gave a directive to his boss, city administrator Steve Powers, to have staff develop a transition plan that would be delivered to council in October. It’s not that the transition will be complete, Hupy noted, but there will be a plan for moving forward with the city’s public art efforts. “I can’t tell you if [the transition] will be one year or two years, because we haven’t developed fully yet as to which direction we’re going and how we’ll get there,” Hupy said. “But there will be some change. That’s the only thing I can guarantee you – it will change.”

Responding to a query from Miller, Hupy said $80,000 is budgeted in fiscal 2015 for arts administration. Miller noted that the $80,000 will be allocated as Powers and Hupy see fit. Kotarski clarified with Hupy that part of the transition plan will discuss the role of AAPAC.

Hupy said he anticipates that AAPAC will have the opportunity to review the transition plan before it’s presented to city council. “It will not be a surprise,” Hupy said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution regarding future action by AAPAC.

Future of Art Commission: Other Transitions

The June 18 meeting was the last one for Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator. His current contract ends on June 30 – the final day of the current fiscal year. The FY 2015 budget includes $80,000 for public art administration, starting July 1, but Seagraves’ contract is not being renewed. Seagraves has been working on a contract basis since May of 2011.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program – indicated that it had not yet been determined how that $80,000 will be allocated.

After the June 18 meeting, Hupy and commissioners took Seagraves out to dinner at Grizzly Peak to say farewell.

In another transition for AAPAC, one of the commissioners – Ashlee Arder, who was appointed in March of 2013 – has resigned because of a move to Detroit. She did not attend the June 18 meeting. Another commissioner, Nick Zagar, hasn’t attended an AAPAC meeting since January – though during that time two meetings have been canceled (in February and May). Like Arder, Zagar was also appointed in March of 2013.

From the bylaws:

Section 8. Members are expected to attend regularly scheduled meetings and to notify the Chair and the Public Art Administrator or other person designated by the Public Services Area Administrator in advance if they expect to be tardy or absent. If a member misses more than three (3) regularly scheduled meetings in a twelve (12) month period, the Chair shall notify the Mayor and may recommend removal of the member.

The nine members of AAPAC are appointed to the city council and serve three-year terms, without compensation. There are no term limits. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

PowerArt

The June 18 agenda included a resolution to grant $10,981 to a project called “PowerArt,” to be administered by the nonprofit Arts Alliance in response to a request by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [.pdf of resolution] [.pdf of PowerArt proposal]

Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance.

These funds represent the entire amount of the balance in a special project fund managed by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, on behalf of the city. However, it’s significantly less than the $20,500 that was originally requested from the city when this project was presented to AAPAC on Sept. 25, 2013.

At that time, Deb Polich – the Arts Alliance’s executive director – described a proposal in which the city would partner with the Ann Arbor DDA to wrap about 40 traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The city of Boise, Idaho was a case study for this project.

The initial pilot phase was originally intended to focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. That cost included a 30% administrative fee paid to the Arts Alliance, which is based in Ann Arbor. Another $80,000 was anticipated for the final phases.

At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the DDA board voted to commit $20,500 to the project. Although AAPAC also agreed on Sept. 25 to participate in the PowerArt project, that decision was contingent on the city’s legal review of potential funding sources. The city’s public art program is undergoing a transition to its approach to funding, following the city council’s decision last year to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism. Ultimately, the city council did not authorize funding for this project.

So the budget and scope of the project was scaled back to $30,981 – $20,000 from the DDA, and a proposed $10,981 from the city’s account with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The funds in the account had been a donation made several years ago to the city for public art.

The total amount from the city and DDA will fund the wrapping of 8 traffic signal boxes.

Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance was on hand to answer questions at the June 18 AAPAC meeting.

PowerArt: Commission Discussion

Marsha Chamberlin said she thought the proposal was very thorough, and that the project was terrific. She asked how the project management fees were calculated. She confirmed with Buck that the Arts Alliance was proposing a roughly 40% project management cost for the first cycle – $9,100 on top of the $23,000 budget for the project expenses.

AAPAC member Marsha Chamberlin.

Buck said that the percentage cost would decrease in later cycles, because much of the legwork would be done initially. She also noted that the project management fee had initially been a lower percentage in the original proposal, because the overall budget had been higher. The project management fee wasn’t scaled back, she said, so the percentage is higher now.

Some of the other costs are fixed, Buck noted. Those include the artist license fee ($1,450 per box), the vinyl printing and installation ($950 per box), box preparation ($50 per box), the “unveiling celebration” ($500 per cycle) and map printing ($1,000 per cycle).

Chamberlin asked about the “jury hosting” line item, which is listed twice, at $300 each. Buck explained that there will be two juries – a jury panel, and a community jury. The panel will be a group of seven individuals who’ll select artwork for six of the boxes. Artwork for the remaining two boxes will be selected by a public vote (the community jury).

After the first pilot cycle of 8 boxes, additional cycles could cover another 34 boxes. If the additional 34 boxes are completed in these later cycles, the estimated cost for those would be $91,000-$94,000 with an additional management fee of between $16,200-$24,300.

Chamberlin said a 40% management fee is “very high.” Bob Miller noted that this was an issue AAPAC had addressed with the original proposal. Part of the issue is that some of the work for the project manager is the same, no matter how many boxes are completed, he said.

John Kotarski said he appreciated that Chamberlin was “drilling into these numbers.” He thought it was a great project, and it’s admirable that the Arts Alliance stepped up and is willing to do it. It’s something new that’s never been done before in Ann Arbor, he said.

Kotarski thought the costs were reasonable, “and frankly no one else has been willing to take on the administration of this.” He was sure that the DDA board and the Arts Alliance board have “challenged these kinds of numbers” and found them to be reasonable. [At the Oct. 2, 2013 DDA board meeting when this project was approved, there was no board discussion of the management fee. Deb Polich, executive director for the Arts Alliance, is married to Russ Collins, a member of the DDA board. Collins did not attend that Oct. 2 DDA board meeting.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously supported funding the PowerArt project with $10,981 in funds held by the AAACF.

Public Art Maps

At AAPAC’s April 23, 2014 meeting, KT Tomey had brought forward a proposal to develop maps for walking, cycling or running self-guided tours of public art.

AAPAC member KT Tomey.

The idea is to develop routes that would be posted online or printed out and distributed through organizations like the Ann Arbor Visitors and Convention Bureau. A later phase might include developing a mobile app and eventually include clips with artists explaining their work.

As a first step, she’s developed three routes – two downtown and one on the University of Michigan’s north campus – and she’s tested them out with some running groups.

Tomey reported that the wife of AAPAC chair Bob Miller – Debbie Miller, a graphic designer – has volunteered to develop a visual presentation for the maps. When that’s finished, Tomey would bring the maps to AAPAC for feedback.

Tomey said she’s met with city staff members to discuss this project and how it might use the city’s GIS system. She’s also met with Deb Polich and Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance, trying to understand how their existing map resources might be helpful. Both the city staff and Arts Alliance have agreed to incorporate these guided-tour maps into existing mapping resources, Tomey said.

Fellow commissioner John Kotarski had connected Tomey with Anna Ercoli Schnitzer, a disability issues and outreach librarian at the Taubman Health Sciences Library. In turn, Schnitzer connected Tomey to a professor at UM’s School of Information, who might take on the mobile app portion of this effort as a student project in the fall, Tomey said.

Tomey reported that she’s been compiling a database of public and private art in the city and on the UM campus, using internet resources. She hopes to use it as these various materials are developed. [.pdf of updated public/private art database]

Other commissioners recommended existing resources that might help. Miller noted that the university has a database of its public art. Marsha Chamberlin reported that several years ago, an intern for the city put together a list of artwork that the city owns. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, added that the database is part of the city’s GIS system.

Chamberlin also offered to loan Tomey a book by Martha Keller: “Public art in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.”

Connie Brown noted that the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects has developed videos that describe some of the architecture and public art around Ann Arbor. Brown also mentioned a “sound garden” tour of Nichols Arboretum that was developed by the UM Mott Children’s Hospital, narrated by children.

Tomey indicated that she had already included some of these resources in the database she’s compiled. She noted that she’d also discussed with Schnitzer how to make these tours as accessible as possible to people with disabilities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on several projects that have been previously undertaken by AAPAC: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; and (3) artwork for East Stadium bridges. Written updates were provided for Canoe Imagine art and a possible project at Arbor Oaks Park.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

AAPAC chair Bob Miller reported that he and vice chair John Kotarski had attended the city council’s June 16 meeting, when Kotarski gave a presentation about the proposed artwork at East Stadium bridges. [Kotarski's roughly 10-minute presentation came at 11 p.m. during a six-hour meeting that lasted until 1 a.m.]

Miller said there were just a few questions from councilmembers, but the council “didn’t really bat an eye” and approved the final funding.

By way of background, a selection panel, and then AAPAC itself, had recommended choosing a proposal from Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery for artwork at East Stadium bridges. At its June 16 meeting, the council was being asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. On June 16, councilmembers were asked to amend the contract, adding art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services.

The design for the bridge features stand-alone, louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels are lit, so that the etchings stand out at night.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

Fabrication will begin later this year, but installation will likely occur in the spring of 2015.

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

The foundations for sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First were installed in early June. The rain garden itself is already in place, with the sculptures to be installed in late July.

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget] The Denver artist has been working with landscapers to incorporate public art into the new rain garden, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

Wiener’s sculptures show the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. “Pretty soon, there’s going to be a lot of big fish on the site,” Connie Brown told commissioners. She’s spearheading communications about this installation, including an event tied to the completed project, with the artist attending.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 in city funds to the project, which has a total project budget of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.

Logo for the Coleman Jewett memorial.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that as of June 18, the project had raised $26,972 in contributions, including the $5,000 that has been committed by the city. Estimates from three foundries came in at about $25,000, so there’s enough money at this point for the project to move ahead, she said. To raise additional funds, a party was being planned later this month at Bill’s Beer Garden for alums from Tappan Middle School, where Jewett was assistant principal.

Chamberlin and Bob Miller also attended the Juneteenth event at Wheeler Park on June 14, and talked to people there about the project. Solicitations for the project will also be made outside of Kerrytown Market & Shops, next to the farmers market. And Chamberlin is planning to do a spot on Community Television Network to promote the memorial.

The city issued an RFP (request for proposals) on June 11 to select the artist or art foundry that will cast the memorial. Bids are due on Aug. 7. [.pdf of RFP]

Chamberlin said the goal is to raise about $40,000 to cover the cost of the fabrication and installation. There’s been one major gift of $10,000, but most of the contributions have been in the $100 range. “This is not like the money’s just rolling in, in big numbers,” she said. “But we’re diligently working away at it.”

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Canoe Imagine Art, a community art project, is intended as a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation of an estimated 25-30 canoes was expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.

AAPAC originally approved $10,000 in funding for the project, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. It was to be used as a portion of matching funds for the state grant, with the remaining $11,000 in matching funds to be raised through donations. However, the city council voted to allocate the entire $21,000 in city funds to match the state grant. That action came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

A written report – part of the June 18 meeting packet – gave an update. The city has asked the Arts Alliance to administer this project. The Arts Alliance plans to seek an extension of the MCACA grant, to redefine the scope of the project.

The project was not discussed by commissioners on June 18.

Project Updates: Arbor Oaks Park

This project is being undertaken in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of artwork. The scope of the work will depend on the availability of funds.

The city applied for a grant from the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation, but it was not awarded to the project. Another grant application was submitted by the Community Action Network to the NEA Challenge America Fast-Track program, but those grants won’t be announced until December. No city public art funds have been allocated.

AAPAC member Nick Zagar is working with the project’s task force, but he has not attended an AAPAC meeting since January.

Donation of Public Art

At AAPAC’s April 23, 2014 meeting, John Kotarski had proposed that the city accept three pieces of donated art from Jim Pallas, an established Michigan artist and friend of Kotarski’s.

AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski.

The pieces were proposed to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center, in the atrium of city hall, and outside of city hall. Other commissioners had seemed supportive of the idea, but some expressed concern that the proposal wasn’t following AAPAC’s guidelines for accepting gifts of art, which include setting up a review committee.

Kotarski had reported that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has offered a $500 honorarium to Pallas for each donated piece. Kotarski said the three pieces have a total estimated value of $100,000. He also mentioned that Pallas’ daughter, a law professor, knows city attorney Stephen Postema and that they had “made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.”

After discussing it at length on April 23, commissioners had agreed that AAPAC chair Bob Miller would work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to set up a gift selection committee to review this proposal and make a recommendation to AAPAC. Commissioners did not officially vote on the item, however.

The May meeting for AAPAC was subsequently canceled. There was no mention of the donation at the June 18 meeting.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – indicated that no further action would be taken regarding the proposal.

Public Commentary

The only speaker during both opportunities for public commentary was Changming Fan, who in recent months has been attending meetings of many city boards and commissions. He spoke about his company, TiniLite World Inc., which is based in Ann Arbor. The firm is the innovator, producer and supplier of new technology called TiniLite, he said. It’s a lighting display using LED lights, cell phones, and wireless Internet. He called it the light of art, and the art of light, and hoped that the city would use the technology for the public’s benefit. He encouraged the city to pursue the strategy of funding public art through public, private and crowdfunding sources.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Kristin “KT” Tomey. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator and Craig Hupy, public services area administrator.

Absent: Jim Simpson, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: No additional meetings are scheduled at this time.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

KT Tomey is working on a project to develop maps for walking or running tours of public art in Ann Arbor. (Photos by the writer.)

“Arbor Winds” by Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery features elevated, stand-alone louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees – three on each end of the bridges, on the north side of Stadium Boulevard. The same type of louvered glass panels will also be used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass – five sets on each side of South State Street. The overall project has a budget of $400,000 and has been in the works since 2011. If approved by council, it will likely be installed in 2015.

Commissioners also expressed enthusiasm for a new effort proposed by KT Tomey, who hopes to develop a mobile app for walking or running routes that highlight public art in Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. As a runner herself, she noted that people look for running routes when they visit new towns. So the app could be used to promote public art both to visitors and residents alike. Her first step is putting together .pdf maps that will be downloadable from AAPAC’s website.

Another new proposal prompted concerns about process. On the day of the meeting, John Kotarski – AAPAC’s vice chair – circulated an email to commissioners proposing that the city accept three pieces of donated art from Jim Pallas, an established Michigan artist and friend of Kotarski’s. The pieces are proposed to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center, in the atrium of city hall, and outside of city hall. Although commissioners seemed supportive of the idea, some expressed concern that the proposal wasn’t following AAPAC’s guidelines for accepting gifts of art, which include setting up a review committee.

Kotarski pointed out that Pallas is 75 years old. He noted that if artists donate artwork before they die, they can deduct the cost of materials from their taxes. But after they die, their estate is taxed on the market value of that artwork. “So these artists, at this point in their lives, have a financial incentive to find a good place for their artwork,” he said. “If we can make that process simple and easy for Jim – and pleasant – then I’m sure he’s willing to go to his friends” and encourage them to donate too.

He reported that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has offered a $500 honorarium to Pallas for each donated piece. Kotarski said the three pieces have a total estimated value of $100,000. He also mentioned that Pallas’ daughter, a law professor, knows city attorney Stephen Postema and that they’ve “made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.”

Kotarski told commissioners that he’s tried to assure Pallas that this will work out, but “that’s why I’m a little nervous giving him these assurances, only to have this fall through at the last minute. That’s not going to be pleasant.”

Marsha Chamberlin said she recognized the benefits of encouraging Michigan artists to donate their work. “But we are a public body, and we have procedures. I just think it’s important that we observe those rules because we don’t want to make an exception for one thing, then hold someone’s feet to the fire for something else.”

Commissioners agreed that AAPAC chair Bob Miller would work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to set up a gift selection committee to review this proposal and make a recommendation to AAPAC.

In other action, the commission approved its annual art plan for fiscal 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. The plan includes projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial. The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. The city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward.

Commissioners also approved applying for a $10,000 National Endowment for the Arts Challenge America Fast Track grant. The money, if awarded, would require matching funds in an equivalent amount from other sources for a public art project at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, located near Bryant Elementary School and the Bryant Community Center.

Fundraising continues for the Coleman Jewett memorial at the Ann Arbor farmers market, but Canoe Imagine Art has stalled. The community art project is intended as a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The city had hoped that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau would take administrative responsibility for the project, but the CVB has declined. Chamberlin, who’s taking the lead on this effort, said that if workarounds can’t be found for some of the administrative issues, “we have to kiss this project good-bye.”

East Stadium Bridges Artwork

The April 23 agenda included a resolution recommending approval of “Arbor Winds” artwork for East Stadium bridges, designed by Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery. [.pdf of proposal]

Catherine Widgery’s rendering of her proposed public artwork for East Stadium bridges. (Image provided in the April 23, 2014 AAPAC meeting packet.)

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this project. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Over the past few weeks, AAPAC chair Bob Miller and vice chair John Kotarski have been presenting her revised proposed to several local public entities, including the city’s park advisory commission, planning commission, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. They also presented to the Cultural Leaders Forum, and a public forum was held on April 21 at the downtown library to get additional feedback. [More details on the presentation by Kotarski and Miller are included in The Chronicle’s report of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s April 1, 2014 meeting.]

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features elevated, stand-alone louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees – three on each end of the bridge, on the north side of Stadium Boulevard. The metal support structures are 7 feet tall, with the glass columns rising above that for a total height of 22 feet. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass – five sets on each side of South State Street. The panels will be lit from below, so that the etchings stand out at night. The glass is tempered and laminated for strength.

The artwork is meant to evoke the strength and fragility of this community. From the artist’s statement:

As one drives around Ann Arbor, the gracious stands of trees stand out as a clear expression of the town’s identity so trees have symbolized this arbor town from the beginning.

On a deeper level, the trees as portrayed in the artwork Arbor Winds are a metaphor for our own paradoxical fragility and strength in the context of our life cycles. We speak of having “deep roots” or of “branching out” or of how someone is “blooming”. After a long winter, the return to life of spring is expressed above all through the return of leaves to trees. We all feel the sense of being reborn in the spring with the blossoms and leaves and, in the autumn, the somewhat wistful sadness as the leaves reach their glory of color and then fall.

Arbor Winds evokes not just trees but wind and light as expressions of the energy that surrounds us. In each panel we see the ghostly afterimage as if the wind has blown the tree; we see both moments in time simultaneously. These images etched in glass are like those etched in our memories. We walk through a forest and it is our mental “snapshots” of the branches against the sky or the texture of the thick trunk, or the dense layers of the many trunks silhouetted against the forest underbrush that remain in our memories. Indeed each of these etched images is more the memory of moments rather than a physical reality: a subtle expression of our own ephemeral existence and the light traces we leave behind.

During the April 23 meeting, Kotarski made the same presentation that he and Miller have given to other groups over the past few weeks. He explained the process that’s been undertaken, starting in 2011. “It’s been well-vetted,” he said.

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Kotarski noted that the question of “why not a local artist?” comes up in almost every discussion. The reason is that the city attorney has said it’s not legal to limit the proposals to local artists, Kotarski stated. There are world-class artists living in the Ann Arbor area, he noted, so outreach was done to make as many people as possible aware of the opportunity. Seven Michigan artists submitted proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Miller noted that Widgery will be providing the LED light fixtures, and the city will be paying for the electricity. He reported that a city councilmember had asked whether the lighting will draw on solar power. That’s not a decision that’s within the purview of AAPAC, Miller said, but he liked the suggestion.

Jim Simpson asked what the general reaction has been from people who’ve seen the presentations by Kotarski and Miller. “Everyone loved it,” Kotarski replied. “I have not heard any negative comments – have you, Bob?”

“I have,” Miller said, adding that he’s only heard a couple of criticisms. One person had complained that it was an exorbitant amount to spend on artwork, and that you could buy potentially two homes for that amount. “That was his perspective, and I respected that,” Miller said. And some people just had aesthetic differences, he added. “Everybody has an opinion, and that’s really wonderful about people.”

Kotarski stressed, as he has during other presentations, that “not one single dollar of the money that goes to this artwork could possibly be used to fill potholes.” Although the money comes from the former Percent for Art program’s street millage funds, he contended that potholes are filled by funds from the state’s gas tax. “This is not a war of public art versus potholes,” he said.

Devon Akmon asked about possible glare from the lights. Miller replied that since the lights will be pointing up, they won’t be shining into traffic or nearby homes. Jokes were made about the difference between that and the University of Michigan’s large electronic billboard in the same area.

Simpson asked what happens if a panel is damaged. Would the artist fabricate a new one? Kotarski replied that Widgery will be providing a maintenance schedule, telling the city how to clean the work. She’ll also be giving the city a digital file with the images that are etched on each panel, he said, so that any damaged panel could be re-fabricated. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said he’d already asked Seagraves to look into possible replacement costs, and “it’s reasonable.”

The recommendation will be placed on the council’s agenda for its first meeting in June – on June 2. If approved, the art would likely be installed sometime in 2015.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the project for East Stadium bridges. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Donated Artwork

At the beginning of the April 23 meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – noted that an item had been added to the agenda since it was first published the previous Friday. Under new business, the item was listed as a presentation of donated artworks. Marsha Chamberlin clarified with Seagraves that it related to an email sent to commissioners earlier in the day on April 23 from John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair. [.pdf of Kotarski's email]

John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair.

Kotarski told commissioners that a friend of his, the artist Jim Pallas, is leaving the state and had asked Kotarski to help place his artwork. [Pallas is based in Applegate, Michigan, on the east side of the state.] Pallas had intended to sell the work, but Kotarski said he persuaded Pallas to consider donating some pieces to the city of Ann Arbor. Kotarski said this idea appealed to Pallas, particularly because Pallas thought his work featuring moons was appropriate for Ann Arbor. “To him, moons are metaphors for dreams and dreamers, and he thought: What better place to situate these moons than Ann Arbor?” Kotarski said. Pallas imagines the city is a place of “dreamers dreaming world-class dreams,” Kotarski said.

The Ann Arbor District Library has agreed to accept a piece, Kotarski reported, as has the University of Michigan North Campus Research Center. [Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, AADL director Josie Parker reported that the Ladies' Library Association has agreed to pay the costs of installing the artwork in the downtown library's garden, near the entry to the children's room.]

Kotarski described Pallas as a world-class artist, and noted that he had emailed commissioners more information on Pallas’ background, including professional references. [.pdf of references and reviews] [.pdf of Pallas resume] He said the work was valued at about $100,000.

Kotarski said he had hoped to bring forward a completed proposal, but hadn’t had time to do that. He’d made the same point in his email, which was provided to The Chronicle after the meeting by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. The email had included a list of people that he’s already talked with about this donation. From Kotarski’s April 23 email to commissioners:

I had hoped to bring you a donation proposal with proposed locations for artwork which was completely vetted by all stakeholders, however municipal government moves slow and Jim plans to leave the state in four weeks. Hence, the last minute addition to our agenda. I think your knowledge of the process to date and my plans moving forward is appropriate now rather than waiting for a completely vetted proposal.

…

I have kept Craig [Hupy] and Bob [Miller, AAPAC's chair] in the loop as I met with Susan Pollay, Jim Curtis, Colin Smith, and Ken Clein. My plan is to review safety, maintenance, and traffic flow with appropriate Justice Center and City Hall staff to insure all stakeholders are in acceptance of the artwork in the proposed locations. Jim’s daughter, Lydia Loren, is a law professor and international scholar in intellectual property rights who happens to have worked closely with our City Attorney, Steve Postema. Lydia and Mr. Postema have made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.

Kotarski said the challenge now is how to proceed. He mentioned that commissioner Marsha Chamberlin had circulated AAPAC’s donation policy in response to his email, but indicated that he had not been aware it had existed. [The policy and process for accepting donated gifts of art, including detailed selection criteria, is included in AAPAC's guidelines, which are posted on the commission's website as a .pdf file.]

The process includes completion of a gift disclosure form and review of the proposed donation by a gift committee. Kotarski suggested that AAPAC could act as that committee, or that he could make recommendations for who would serve on the committee. He said he’s already worked to identify where the three donated pieces could be placed, and to work through any legal issues that the city might have.

Kotarski said the city staff haven’t agreed to yet to the proposed locations, which are in or near city hall and the Justice Center. Here are images of the work, provided in Kotarski’s email:

Fallen Moon by Jim Pallas is proposed to be located outside of city hall.

Luna Maggiore by Jim Pallas is proposed to hang in the atrium of city hall.

This piece by artist Jim Pallas, titled LAW, is proposed to be installed in the lobby of the Justice Center.

Kotarski said he wanted to inform AAPAC about this opportunity. The city won’t accept these pieces without a recommendation from AAPAC, he noted. He wanted to know if commissioners thought they could make that recommendation within four to six weeks. If not, he’d help Pallas place the artwork elsewhere.

Kotarski thought the work would “bring cachet to the city.” He said he’d toured the Justice Center with the building’s architect [Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects], and that several spots had been identified as appropriate. “He feels it’s consistent with and would enhance the building,” Kotarski said.

Marsha Chamberlin.

If the city agrees to place the artwork in the proposed locations, and agrees to pay for installation and maintenance, Kotarski said, he hoped that AAPAC would agree to recommend to council that the city accept these donations. Installation and maintenance costs haven’t yet been determined.

Chamberlin noted that much of the information needed for the gift disclosure form is already available. A gift committee would need to be appointed, she said, and that group would make a recommendation to AAPAC. Chamberlin advocated for following this process. “I just think it’s important to be consistent,” she said.

Kotarski said that UM and AADL each have a “committee of one” who makes a recommendation. “If this [AAPAC process] doesn’t mirror that, you might want to think of revising it,” he said.

The proposed locations aren’t debatable, Kotarski added. Chamberlin said that AAPAC’s role is to evaluate the artwork, not to recommend the locations.

Kotarski stressed that “I don’t want to lead Jim on. I want to be upfront with him.”

Bob Miller stated that most of the work has been done, and he thought it would be reasonable to follow the process within the timeframe of four to six weeks. When he suggested that Kotarski could appoint the gift committee, Chamberlin indicated that Kotarski had a conflict of interest. “I would feel that I had one, if I was bringing the artist forward and representing the artist,” she said. Miller replied that he didn’t think so, because Kotarski wasn’t benefiting from it.

Devon Akmon suggested that Miller, as AAPAC’s chair, and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, should determine the committee members. Seagraves pointed out that the guidelines outline how the committee should be formed. From the guidelines:

Upon receipt of a Gift of Art Disclosure Form, AAPAC will establish a Gift Committee as a subcommittee of AAPAC. The Committee will consist of a minimum of four (4) AAPAC members including: a member of the Committee who will act as chair, an appropriate community representative, an appropriate City representative, an appropriate artist dependent upon the scope of the proposed gift. Members of the Gift Committee will serve two (2) year terms.

Kotarski wasn’t sure there was time to do this, but Miller assured him that it would be possible.

Jim Simpson indicated support for the donation. He noted that it would be a way for the city to highlight Michigan artists. “If you can move quickly and people see that, they tend to get excited about the process as well,” Simpson said. “I think it’s worth it, myself.”

City councilmember Jane Lumm attended AAPAC’s April 23 meeting but did not formally address the group.

Kotarski pointed out that Pallas is 75 years old. He noted that if artists donate artwork before they die, they can deduct the cost of materials from their taxes. But after they die, their estate is taxed on the market value of that artwork. “So these artists, at this point in their lives, have a financial incentive to find a good place for their artwork,” he said. “If we can make that process simple and easy for Jim – and pleasant – then I’m sure he’s willing to go to his friends” and encourage them to donate too.

Kotarski said he’s tried to assure Pallas that this will work out, but “that’s why I’m a little nervous giving him these assurances, only to have this fall through at the last minute. That’s not going to be pleasant.”

Again, Kotarski stressed that AAPAC has the opportunity to get artwork donated by major Michigan artists. He said the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is willing to give Pallas a $500 honorarium for each of the three donated pieces – “which is only reasonable, to recognize this value,” Kotarski said.

Chamberlin said she recognized the benefits of encouraging Michigan artists to donate their work. “But we are a public body, and we have procedures. I just think it’s important that we observe those rules because we don’t want to make an exception for one thing, then hold someone’s feet to the fire for something else.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Art Maps

One of the newest art commissioners, KT Tomey, brought forward a proposal for feedback: Maps for walking or running tours of public art.

Detail of a draft map of public art in downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan’s central campus. Links to .pdf of full map.

She’d been inspired by an “art run” that AAPAC chair Bob Miller had put together, which she had used for her running group. “It was wildly popular – people are still talking about it, wanting to do it again this summer,” she said.

In doing research to add to the next run, Tomey said she was surprised that there wasn’t one coherent map of art in Ann Arbor that people could easily access online. There’s a resource for art on the University of Michigan’s north campus, she noted, but it’s not easy to use to find out about the artwork.

Tomey first laid out what she called her “grand vision” for this project. There could be online .pdf maps with links to more information about each piece of art. But she also envisions a mobile app that people could load onto their phones, so that they could look at the map and information about public art as they’re walking or running. Eventually, she’d like to do a video tour that could be self-directed or used to train people who’d give tours in person.

The tours would serve multiple purposes, Tomey said, such as promoting art and increasing connections with the community.

As an initial modest step, Tomey said, she’d made two drafts of maps – one showing public art around downtown Ann Arbor and UM’s central campus, and another for UM’s north campus. [.pdf of Ann Arbor public art map] [.pdf of north campus public art map]

Tomey asked commissioners for feedback on the overall idea, as well as changes that might be made to the draft maps.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, offered to provide support from the city’s GIS staff in designing the maps. He also said the city’s communications staff can help promote the project, when it’s ready.

Commissioners Devon Akmon and Marsha Chamberlin.

Commissioners expressed enthusiasm for the project. Devon Akmon suggested looking for partnerships with the UM business school or computer science department to help with the mobile app. Regarding map templates, he noted that D:hive in Detroit has developed brochures and maps that might be helpful.

Akmon also wondered whether Google might be a potential partner, as the company has an office in Ann Arbor. Public art would be a good fit for the Google Cultural Institute project, for example. Finally, he said it’s simple and inexpensive to create an audio tour mobile app, similar to ones that are used by museums. [Akmon is director of the Arab American National Museum.] You can also create .mp3 files that are easily downloadable and could be posted online. It would be amazing to hear artists or people from the community describing the public art in Ann Arbor, he said. “What it always comes down to for me is how do you make it beautiful, and how do you make a big splash.”

John Kotarski suggested contacting UM’s Council for Disability Concerns, which is interesting in making public art accessible for people with disabilities.

Marsha Chamberlin said there might be grants available to support this project from the Michigan Council for Arts & Cultural Affairs. She also thought the project might be of interest to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, which is funded in large part by a local accommodation tax.

Tomey said she’d thought about identifying routes of different lengths for runners – both for local residents as well as visitors. “When you visit a city, you look up the running routes,” she said, and that could be another way to promote public art to visitors.

Jim Simpson suggested taking a phased approach, starting with maps that could be put up quickly. He offered to help with implementing the project. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said .pdf maps could be posted on AAPAC’s website.

Seagraves also recommended that the commission add this project to its list of ongoing work. Chamberlin pointed out that AAPAC no longer has available funding and that staff support is unclear after Seagraves’ contract ends on June 30. She wondered whether AAPAC would be able to get any support from the city for projects like this.

Hupy indicated that there would be some kind of ongoing support for this project.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Annual Public Art Plan

Approval of the annual public art plan for fiscal 2015 had been on the March 26, 2014 agenda for approval, but was postponed because it included some items that several commissioners had not previously seen. The March 26 discussion also resulted in some changes to the plan, so a revised version was on the April 23 agenda for approval. [.pdf of annual public art plan]

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Commissioners had initially voted to approve a draft annual plan at their Jan. 29, 2014 meeting. They also directed AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski to work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to make final revisions to the plan, based on feedback from their Jan. 29 discussion. [.pdf of draft plan discussed on Jan. 29]

The plan includes projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial.

The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. The city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward. City staff would be involved in developing guidelines for these installations to “ensure the artwork will meet all applicable codes, are safe for all pedestrians and are compatible with the maintenance of the infrastructure,” according to the plan.

The document also lists four objectives that the commission will work on in the coming fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014:

1. Make plans to use gifts, grants, crowd funding and other non-local government funds for public art in Ann Arbor, as the amended Public Art Ordinance allows.
2. Increase public outreach for long-term public art program goals, artwork selection, and artwork education and thus better carry out the duties of the Public Art Commission established by the Ordinance amendment of June, 2013.
3. Refine the selection of potential public art projects by using a project evaluation and prioritization model and base the initiation of projects on the evaluation of primary criteria.
4. Establish an open and regular channel of communication regarding public art program updates with city administration and City Council.

In addition, the plan lists three recommendations from the city council’s task force on public art, noting that the commission will support city staff in achieving these recommendations in the coming fiscal year:

1. Review the location of the arts program within the City of Ann Arbor government and evaluate the possibility of relocating the public art program.
2. Fulfill the Public Art Task Force’s recommendation of creating a position for a full-time public art staff person.
3. Review and revise the Public Art Commission’s Bylaws and Guidelines.

Discussion was brief. Kotarski thanked Seagraves for his work on this plan, saying it shows the work that AAPAC has been doing “even though juggling public criticism.” It tells the council that AAPAC has heard the city council’s charge for the commission, he said.

Seagraves noted that the plan will be sent to the council in time for their deliberations on the FY 2015 budget. City administrator Steve Powers presented a draft budget at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting. The council will discuss and approve the budget, with possible amendments, at its May 19 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the FY 2015 annual public art plan. It will be forwarded to the city council.

Grant for Arbor Oaks Project

The April 23 agenda included an item to approve applying for a $10,000 National Endowment for the Arts Challenge America Fast Track grant. The money, if awarded, would require matching funds in an equivalent amount from other sources for a public art project at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, located near Bryant Elementary School and the Bryant Community Center.

The effort is in partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network, which runs the Bryant Community Center under contract with the city. The idea is to create concrete and mosaic sculptures near the five entrances to the park, to help link the school and different streets in the neighborhood. The artwork would involve residents and students at Bryant Elementary.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, described the small- to medium-sized sculptures as wayfinders. The grant application is due on May 8. Nick Zagar is the commissioner who’s taking the lead on this project. He did not attend AAPAC’s April 23 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the application for this NEA grant.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on projects that are currently underway: (1) Canoe Imagine Art; (2) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (3) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; and (4) a possible mural at Bach Elementary.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin, who’s been leading the Canoe Imagine Art project for AAPAC, reported that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau has declined to be the project’s administrative “home.”

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

The community art project is intended as a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation of an estimated 25-30 canoes was to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.

AAPAC originally approved $10,000 in funding for the project, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. It was to be used as a portion of matching funds for the state grant, with the remaining $11,000 in matching funds to be raised through donations. However, the city council voted to allocate the entire $21,000 in city funds to match the state grant. That action came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

At AAPAC’s April 23 meeting, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – reported that the project was intended as a three-party effort involving the city, the CVB, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. “We are struggling with the other partners not wanting to administer the contract,” Hupy said. As of July 1, which is the start of the city’s next fiscal year, there won’t necessarily be funds for art administration, he noted.

Chamberlin said it wasn’t until December of 2013 that the city attorney’s office informed her that the project couldn’t use a website that was separate from the city’s website, and that an RFP process must be used for seeking artists. Also, she learned that this effort would be required to hire a project manager. At the time, they were hoping to move the project forward more quickly, and so the idea of a “triumvirate” partnership was explored. Now, however, the timeline has been pushed back, but it’s unclear who will lead the project, she said.

Jim Simpson, AAPAC’s newest commissioner.

Hupy added that if another organization takes the lead, then the city’s procurement process – including issuing an RFP – wouldn’t be required. He also noted that the state grant must be spent by the end of September 2014, and it wasn’t clear if that would be possible. And because all the funding hasn’t yet been raised, the city won’t take on responsibility for a project that it doesn’t have the ability to fund completely. “We’re trying to make it work, but I can’t even say that I’m cautiously optimistic at the moment,” he said.

Another issue, Chamberlin noted, is that the city attorney’s staff has said the artwork can’t be sold, because the city’s purchasing policies don’t allow that. The idea had been to sell the pieces after they’d been on display, as a fundraiser. The city’s purchasing policies are perfectly reasonable for typical uses, like buying a truck or generator, she said, “but public art functions differently.”

If they can’t find a workaround for some of these issues, Chamberlin said, “we have to kiss this project good-bye.”

Hupy said that city staff will continue to work to find a solution. “We understand the direness of it,” he said. “I would say as a medical metaphor, it’s on life support at the moment.”

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that a request for proposals (RFP) has been drafted to solicit bids for the Coleman Jewett memorial. The RFP is being reviewed by legal staff.

The memorial will be a bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Jewett, to be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 in city funds to the project, which now has a total project budget of $50,000 – up from its original estimate of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association. So far, $18,795 has been raised, not including the city’s $5,000 contribution.

Marsha Chamberlin, who’s spearheading the project, gave an update on fundraising efforts. A second mailing to solicit donations is being sent out this month. An alumni party for Tappan Middle School – where Jewett served as assistant principal – is being planned as a fundraiser, possibly at the Old German. Information will be passed out at the farmers market, although no solicitation is allowed there.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

The installation of sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First will start in May. The entire project, including the rain garden, will be completed by the end of June. The artist, Joshua Wiener, will be coming to Ann Arbor during the first week in June. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that Wiener will be available for a public event, likely on June 3.

Promotion for the project is being planned. As part of that, one idea is to ask the public to name the artwork, Seagraves said. The rain garden is already named after Ruth Williams. It’s considered by the city to be a “stormwater feature,” not a park.

The Denver artist is working with landscapers to incorporate public art into the new rain garden, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract is for $23,380. Wiener’s sculptures show the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River.

Seagraves reported that the original proposal called for some of the fish to appear submerged into the ground. For structural and aesthetic reasons, Wiener has altered that original design somewhat. Although some fish will appear to be diving down, they will be above ground. He provided a revised rendering:

Josh Wiener’s rendering of fish sculptures for the rain garden at First & Ashley.

Project Updates: Bach Elementary Mural

Bob Miller reported that not much progress has been made on a public art project at Bach Elementary School, on the city’s Old West Side. He’s been working with the school principal Hyeuo Min Park, the school’s art department, local artist David Zinn, the AAPS maintenance staff and others to paint a mural on a concrete wall at Bach’s playground. It’s a place that gets tagged with graffiti, he noted. Miller said it could be a pilot for other projects, if it moves forward.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, quipped: “There’s a lot of retaining walls in the city that could be painted.”

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Jim Simpson, Kristin “KT” Tomey. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator and Craig Hupy, public services area administrator.

Absent: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Catherine Widgery’s rendering of her proposed public artwork for East Stadium bridges. (Image provided in the April 23, 2014 AAPAC meeting packet.)

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this project. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Over the past few weeks, AAPAC chair Bob Miller and vice chair John Kotarski have been presenting her revised proposed to several local public entities, including the city’s park advisory commission, planning commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. A public forum to get additional feedback also was held on April 21 at the downtown library. [More details on the presentation by Kotarski and Miller are included in The Chronicle’s report of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s April 1, 2014 meeting.]

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features elevated, stand-alone louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels will be lit from below, so that the etchings stand out at night. The glass is tempered and laminated for strength.

The artwork is meant to evoke the strength and fragility of this community. From the artist’s statement:

As one drives around Ann Arbor, the gracious stands of trees stand out as a clear expression of the town’s identity so trees have symbolized this arbor town from the beginning.

On a deeper level, the trees as portrayed in the artwork Arbor Winds are a metaphor for our own paradoxical fragility and strength in the context of our life cycles. We speak of having “deep roots” or of “branching out” or of how someone is “blooming”. After a long winter, the return to life of spring is expressed above all through the return of leaves to trees. We all feel the sense of being reborn in the spring with the blossoms and leaves and, in the autumn, the somewhat wistful sadness as the leaves reach their glory of color and then fall.

Arbor Winds evokes not just trees but wind and light as expressions of the energy that surrounds us. In each panel we see the ghostly afterimage as if the wind has blown the tree; we see both moments in time simultaneously. These images etched in glass are like those etched in our memories. We walk through a forest and it is our mental “snapshots” of the branches against the sky or the texture of the thick trunk, or the dense layers of the many trunks silhouetted against the forest underbrush that remain in our memories. Indeed each of these etched images is more the memory of moments rather than a physical reality: a subtle expression of our own ephemeral existence and the light traces we leave behind.

The recommendation will be placed on the council’s agenda for its first meeting in June. If approved, the art would likely be installed sometime in 2015.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

This brief was filed from the basement of city hall, 301 E. Huron, where AAPAC holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Jim Simpson, the newest member of the Ann Arbor public art commission, attended his first AAPAC meeting on March 26. (Photos by the writer.)

Before the council’s action on March 3, about $943,000 had been available for future public art projects. The council had halted the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year, and subsequently directed city staff to develop a transition plan for public art. The plan will be delivered to the council in October, and will likely include an emphasis on partners in the private sector and fundraising from the community. Meanwhile, future city public art will be “baked in” to selected capital projects and approved by council on a case-by-case basis.

The proposed 2015 budget – for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 – includes $80,000 to cover transitional costs for public art administration. The contract for the current part-time public arts administrator, Aaron Seagraves, runs through June 30, 2014. At AAPAC’s March 26 meeting, Craig Hupy – a senior city staff member who’s drafting the transition plan – mentioned the need for a consultant to help guide this process.

Commissioners questioned what their role might be during this interim period, now that former Percent for Art funding is unavailable for future public art projects. After the discussion, AAPAC chair Bob Miller said he had initially considered suggesting that they just shut down the commission, but he’d heard input to the contrary from other commissioners. The consensus was to move forward with meetings, at least for now. AAPAC’s next meeting is on April 23 at city hall.

In other action, commissioners postponed adopting an annual public art plan, and directed Seagraves to make revisions to the draft he had proposed. They’ll consider a new version at their April meeting.

Updates about ongoing projects focused on efforts that had started before the city council pulled funding. The funds for those projects were not affected. Sculptures for a rain garden at Kingsley & First will be installed in May, and more contributions are being sought for a Coleman Jewett memorial at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A public forum to seek input on the final design for artwork at East Stadium bridges will be held on Monday, April 21 at 7 p.m. at the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth. And work on Canoe Imagine Art – a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art – continues to move forward.

It was the first meeting for Jim Simpson, who was appointed to AAPAC in February. He works for the Ann Arbor start-up Duo Security, and is an assistant at Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

Future of Public Art in Ann Arbor

At the start of the March 26 meeting, AAPAC chair Bob Miller gave an update on the status of the city’s public art program. The city council had voted not to fund new projects, although current projects can be completed, he said. That includes artwork for East Stadium bridges, the rain garden at First and Kingsley, and two projects that involve partnerships between the city and other entities – Canoe Imagine Art, and a memorial for long-time educator Coleman Jewett, who died last year.

By way of background, the former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. A new approach to public art was established on June 3, 2013, when the council eliminated the Percent for Art mechanism from the ordinance. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed with council approval as an integral part of a capital project. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

This approach was part of a set of recommendations made by a council committee about a year ago. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations] The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who subsequently declared their candidacy for mayor in the 2014 Democratic primary: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). That committee work came in the wake of a failed public art millage that was on the ballot in November 2012 – which would have provided an alternative to the Percent for Art funding mechanism.

More recently, on March 3, 2014 the city council took three actions. The council (1) directed the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for the next two years; (2) transferred $943,005 out of the public art fund; and (3) extended the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through June 30, 2014. The direction in (1) is reflected in the budget that the city administrator will propose on April 21 to the city council – in the form of an $80,000 one-time expense for art administration.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair.

Miller and John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair, have been meeting regularly with Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program, to talk about how to move forward. They’ve talked about how to implement changes that the council would like to see, Miller reported, such as moving toward more of a public-private hybrid program. Because neither he nor Kotarski have a background in art management, Miller said, they’ve been talking about possibly finding someone to help guide the city through this transition.

Miller wanted to talk with other commissioners about the role of AAPAC.

Hupy weighed in, saying he wished he could present a sharper vision of what the future would hold. He said he’d been charged with delivering a transition plan to the council in October. There’s clearly an expectation for more public-private partnerships, he said, but also the expectation that public art will be incorporated into capital projects on a case-by-case basis. He’s been wrestling with how to designate projects in the capital improvements plan (CIP) that will be enhanced with public art. That’s a topic that he’s talked with Miller and Kotarski about, Hupy said.

When a transition plan is presented in October, Hupy said, “that doesn’t mean that it’s finished. It’s just a plan to get wherever we’re going.” The expectation is that a transition could take several years.

Hupy didn’t think there was a “doom-and-gloom picture that the public art program within the city is dead. I look at it as transforming.”

Marsha Chamberlin wondered what kinds of topics will be addressed in the transition plan. Hupy said he wasn’t sure yet, adding that his vision at this point would include both public-private partnerships as well as enhanced CIP projects. “I’m very malleable at this time,” he said. The public art program might be housed within the city or with an entity outside the city government. “We’ve got to start with a clean slate, and I’m not presupposing that because something is here today it would be here tomorrow.”

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program.

Connie Brown asked whether the city council had a strong vision or goal for the public art program, or whether councilmembers simply had a desire to move away from the Percent for Art funding. Miller said his impression is that the council has primarily stated what it doesn’t want.

Hupy offered to provide a copy of the council’s committee report on the public art program. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations] He said that although the council removed some aspects of the program, “it left us a pretty blank palette to paint.” AAPAC can recommend what comes next, he said.

Kotarski thought the goal was to transition away from larger, taxpayer-funded public art. Instead, the council wants to move toward “baked-in” art that’s recommended as part of capital projects. The rest of the funding would be raised through a variety of other mechanisms, he said. “Transitioning is not the art commission’s task,” Kotarski added. “It is Craig’s task.”

Miller noted that there are four projects underway: East Stadium bridges, the rain garden at First & Kingsley, Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial. “Other than that, we really don’t have a whole lot on the table,” he said. Miller questioned what the role of AAPAC should be during this transitional period.

Miller said commissioners could “choose to wind things up and wait for a recommendation from the city.” He floated the idea of recommending approval for the East Stadium bridges artwork via email, and not holding any more meetings until given direction by the city. The other alternative is to keep meeting every month and talking about public art in general. He asked for feedback from other commissioners.

From left: Public art commissioners KT Tomey and Connie Brown.

KT Tomey suggested meeting at least occasionally. Commissioners could talk about public art that’s happening in other cities, for example, to inspire ideas that might be used in Ann Arbor. “We’re so busy with the process that a lot of times we don’t get the chance to talk about different art projects,” she said.

Chamberlin asked whether any of the city’s staff is compiling information about other cities that have public-private art programs. AAPAC is a recommending body, she noted, and understanding more about how those public-private partnerships work would be useful.

Hupy said that it’s been strongly suggested to him to do a survey of “community appetite” for public art and options for how to manage a public art program. He sees this as something that would happen after a transition plan is presented to council, however. If the city hires someone to help guide this transition, he added, that person likely would be responsible for benchmarking with other communities, among other things.

Hupy said that any funding that might be available for this type of consultant wouldn’t be available until July 1, 2014 – the start of the FY 2015 fiscal year. [The proposed 2015 budget – for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 – includes $80,000 to cover transitional costs for art administration.]

Kotarski reported that Sue McCormick, the administrator who previously held Hupy’s position, had done a benchmarking survey to look at how other communities handled their public art programs. Hupy clarified that McCormick had looked only at communities that had a Percent for Art funding mechanism, or something similar. Kotarski noted that almost every community had some supplemental funding approach to the Percent for Art, and didn’t rely exclusively on that funding mechanism. “Ann Arbor was one of the few that put all its eggs into the Percent for Art basket,” Kotarski said.

Chamberlin suggested that Americans for the Arts would be a good resource for benchmarking.

John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair.

Brown was in favor of AAPAC meeting during this transition. Outreach and education are important functions that commissioners can continue to undertake, she said. Brown hoped that AAPAC and the council would create a common vision for public art, rather than simply things to avoid.

Hupy said that Robert Keller, a communications specialist for the city, could be enlisted to help promote the public art projects, including the completion of the First & Kingsley rain garden later this year.

Miller asked Hupy how he envisioned AAPAC working during the transition. Hupy replied that AAPAC shouldn’t “meet just to meet.” However, as he works on a transition plan, Hupy said, there will be times when he’ll need feedback from AAPAC.

Chamberlin said she could use help with the Canoe Imagine Art and Coleman Jewett memorial as well. “I’m in favor of meeting because it keeps us engaged and informed,” she said.

Jim Simpson suggested continuing to meet monthly, until it’s clear that there’s nothing valuable coming out of the meetings. There’s an opportunity for leadership as well, he said.

Kotarski agreed that no matter what Hupy and the council ultimately decide, AAPAC will likely be asked “to be the community’s eyes and ears about whatever the public art program ends up being. So the more we function as a team, the better.”

Miller said he had originally envisioned just shutting down the commission, and he was glad to hear input to the contrary. The consensus he was hearing was to move forward with meetings.

The other issue is the contract for the public art administrator, Miller said. The current contract with Seagraves runs through June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year. Miller wondered what happens next.

Seagraves replied that there will be a recommendation for public art administration in the FY 2015 budget, which the council will be asked to approve in May. He thought AAPAC should plan to meet in April.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Art Annual Plan

The March 26 agenda included final approval of the public art annual plan, which AAPAC had initially reviewed at its Jan. 29, 2014 meeting. AAPAC did not meet in February. [.pdf of draft annual plan for FY 2015, as presented on March 26]

In previous years, a public art annual plan was required to be submitted to the city council by April 1. But at AAPAC’s April 24, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to recommend shifting that date to Feb. 1 – a move intended to allow the council to make budget decisions based on recommendations from AAPAC. Shifting the date of the annual plan was linked to a major restructuring of the city’s public art program, which is still underway. The city council subsequently made revisions to the public art ordinance – Chapter 24 of the city code – that included the Feb. 1 deadline for submitting the annual plan.

This year, commissioners voted to approve a draft annual plan at their Jan. 29, 2014 meeting. They also directed AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski to work with public art administrator Aaron Seagraves to make final revisions to the plan, based on feedback from their Jan. 29 discussion. [.pdf of draft plan discussed on Jan. 29]

The plan considered on March 26 listed seven goals for the upcoming fiscal year, from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015:

1. Maximize the ability to use gifts, grants, crowd funding and other non-local government funds for public art in Ann Arbor, as the amended Public Art Ordinance allows.
2. Review the location of the arts program within Ann Arbor city government and review the possibility of containing the public art program within a nonprofit organization.
3. Fulfill the Public Art Task Force’s recommendation of creating a position for a full-time public art staff person.
4. Increase public outreach for long-term public art program goals, artwork selection, and artwork education and thus better carry out the duties of the Public Art Commission established by the Ordinance amendment.
5. Refine the selection of potential public art projects by using the project evaluation and prioritization model and base the initiation of projects on primary criteria.
6. Revise the Public Art Commission’s Bylaws and Guidelines.
7. Establish an open and regular channel of communication regarding public art program updates with city administration and City Council.

The plan included projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, stressed that the city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward. City staff would be involved in developing guidelines for these installations to “ensure the artwork will meet all applicable codes, are safe for all pedestrians and are compatible with the maintenance of the infrastructure,” according to the plan.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether the commission had previously seen and formally approved these goals. [Chamberlin had been absent from the Jan. 29 meeting, and AAPAC did not meet in February.] Kotarski replied that these are based on the goals of the city council committee that had recommended changes to the public art program last year.

Chamberlin objected to the first goal: “Maximize the ability to use gifts, grants, crowd funding and other non-local government funds for public art in Ann Arbor, as the amended Public Art Ordinance allows.” The commission might explore the feasibility of doing this, she said, but it’s not clear that it should be a goal. She also noted that the goal of revising the bylaws is really just a management function.

Kotarski replied that the council’s public art ordinance revisions incorporated aspects of these goals, and the commission is governed by the ordinance. “So we really can’t function outside that ordinance,” he said. It’s important that the council knows that AAPAC “gets it,” he added, and that commissioners will work to achieve the changes in the ordinance.

Seagraves, who drafted the annual plan, said these aren’t just annual goals. It’s an indication that the commission will address these issues. In that case, Chamberlin urged that the goals be moved within the document so that it’s clear the goals don’t apply just to FY 2015. She also wanted to change the wording on the first goal, to indicate it would be something the commission would work toward.

Chamberlin also questioned the second goal: “Review the location of the arts program within Ann Arbor city government and review the possibility of containing the public art program within a nonprofit organization.” She said she hadn’t ever been in a meeting when this idea had been discussed. “I didn’t realize that was really a goal of the public art program,” she said.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, said these ideas had been discussed in meetings that he and Kotarski have had with Hupy. Chamberlin replied: “But you’re asking us to approve a public art plan that has things in it we haven’t discussed.”

Connie Brown suggested clarifying the discrepancy between what AAPAC does, what the council committee recommended, and what the staff responsibilities are. Specifically, she thought clarity was needed for goals 2, 3 and 6.

Hupy noted that although there’s a deadline for submitting the annual plan to council, “the deadline has long passed.” He thought it warranted more discussion and revisions, until the commission felt comfortable with the document.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone a vote on the annual plan until its April 23 meeting.

Community Foundation

The commission considered a resolution requesting that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation seek variances from donors who had previously contributed funding for: (1) a project at the Fourth and Washington parking structure; and (2) a project in the South University area that was never completed. Remaining money from those projects is being held in special funds by the AAACF. [.pdf of resolution]

Marsha Chamberlin, the longest-serving current AAPAC member.

The variance, if granted by donors, would allow those remaining funds to be used for other public art projects, or to be put into an endowment for public art. The endowment is for maintenance of public art. Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, reported that the community foundation has asked that AAPAC pass this resolution. The purpose is to free up the money, though there isn’t a specific project that it would be used for at this point, Miller said.

There’s $13,200 remaining in the Fourth & Washington parking structure fund, and $1,100 in the South University fund.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, noted that a variance has already been granted for remaining money in a third public art fund held by AAACF. That money had originally been donated for public art on Fourth Avenue, and has now been designated to “support the creation of a future work of public art in the Ann Arbor downtown area.” The amount in that fund is $10,930.

So in total, the community foundation is holding $25,230 designated for public art, in addition to a maintenance endowment. Seagraves didn’t have information at the meeting about the amount of funds in the endowment.

Marsha Chamberlin advocated for limiting the variance to freeing up money for other public art projects – that is, not to provide donors with the option of putting it into an endowment. She noted that the city’s public art projects each include a 10% set-aside for future maintenance costs.

Hupy replied that for current public art projects, the routine maintenance is the responsibility of the city facility that’s “hosting” the artwork. For example, a sculpture in the parks is the responsibility of the parks and recreation unit. However, non-routine work would be funded through the endowment. A few years ago, the sculpture in Sculpture Plaza at Fourth and Catherine used the endowment in part to pay for significant repairs.

Chamberlin noted that after money is put into a maintenance endowment, it’s locked up – it can’t be pulled out later for other purposes.

Chamberlin suggested wording the final resolved clause to state: ”RESOLVED, To request donors use their donations to support future art projects as reviewed and selected by AAPAC.” The amendment was accepted as friendly.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to pass the resolution, as amended.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on projects that are currently underway: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) Canoe Imagine art; (3) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & first; (4) artwork for East Stadium bridges; and (5) a possible project at Arbor Oaks Park. [.pdf of project report memo]

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 in city funds to the project, which has a total project budget of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.

Logo for the Coleman Jewett memorial.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that as of March 26, the project had raised $17,833 in contributions. It doesn’t include the $5,000 that has been committed by the city. Estimates from three foundries came in at about $25,000, so there’s enough money at this point for the project to move ahead, she said. To raise additional funds, a party was being planned with alums from Tappan Middle School, where Jewett was assistant principal.

A request for proposals is being developed to solicit firm bids for the work. Depending on how quickly the RFP is issued, it might be possible to get the memorial installed by late fall, Chamberlin said.

She cautioned that the ability to raise funds for this project is tied to the affection that people in the community had for Jewett. Even at that, many of the gifts are small, she noted. Her point, Chamberlin said, is that “it’s not a slam dunk to raise money for something like this.”

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Canoe Imagine Art, a community art project, will entail a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation of an estimated 25-30 canoes is expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.

AAPAC originally approved $10,000 in funding for the project, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. It was to be used as a portion of matching funds for the state grant, with the remaining $11,000 in matching funds to be raised through donations. However, the city council voted to allocate the entire $21,000 in city funds to match the state grant. That action came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that she’s been talking to community partners – including the Ann Arbor District Library, Leslie Science & Nature Center, and the Ann Arbor Civic Band – who’ll be putting on ancillary events tied to the art installation. The project also is seeking a grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Chamberlin said that the city attorney’s office has suggested trying to get another organization other than the city to be the administrator of this effort, in order to simplify things. She hoped that it would be sorted out in April so the project could move forward.

In a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Chamberlin reported that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau is being asked to serve as an umbrella organization for this project, which could entail handling the finances and hiring a project manager. No decision has yet been made, however, and another meeting is planned on April 22 with city staff, AAPAC members, the CVB and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The nonprofit Arts Alliance, which might seem like a better fit, charges a 30% fee for project management, Chamberlin noted. The Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, which has provided a grant for the project, would not allow for a management fee of that size.

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

The installation of sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First is planned for May. The rain garden itself will be constructed in mid-May, with the artwork installed later that month.

One of the sculptures being fabricated for the Kingsley & First rain garden. This photo was provided in AAPAC’s March 26 meeting packet.

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget]

The Denver artist is working with landscapers to incorporate public art into the new rain garden, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

Wiener’s sculptures show the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. The largest sculpture will be just under 8 feet tall, 20 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. Two of the fish will be large enough to serve as benches.

Connie Brown will be spearheading communications about this installation, including an event tied to the completed project, with the artist attending.

Project Updates: Arbor Oaks Park

This project is being undertaken in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of the artwork.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the project applied for a grant from the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation, but did not receive it. No city public art funds have been allocated, and additional funding is expected to be raised through community donations.

Seagraves reported that AAPAC member Nick Zagar is coming up with a proposal to discuss with the project’s task force. [Zagar did not attend AAPAC's March 26 meeting.] Seagraves also will be talking with the city’s parks staff about possible options, as the city plans to install new playground equipment there.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that Bob Miller and John Kotarski were making presentations about the final design for artwork at East Stadium bridges, attending meetings of local public entities like the city’s park advisory commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

The intent is to get feedback on the proposed design before bringing it back to AAPAC for a recommendation of approval. The city council will be asked to give final authorization to the project.

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this project. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it’s presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

A public forum to get additional feedback will be held on Monday, April 21 at 7 p.m. at the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

More details on the presentation by Kotarski and Miller are included in The Chronicle’s report of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s April 1, 2014 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights from March 26.

Communications & Commentary: New Commissioner

Jim Simpson was attending his first meeting since being appointed to AAPAC on Feb. 3, 2014. The commission did not hold a meeting in February. He told the group that he watched the city council meeting when his appointment was confirmed, noting that it was the same meeting when the future of public art had been debated – “so I had mixed feelings.”

In addition to his job at Duo Security, Jim Simpson is an assistant at Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

He reported that he watches city council meetings because he’s interested in seeing how the city grows and develops, and he wants to become more invested in the city. His family is from California, and he attended the University of Michigan as an undergraduate. When he graduated, he decided to stay here. “A lot of my California family doesn’t understand this,” he joked, “but we do have water here and they don’t, so that’s a plus in my opinion.”

His background is in computer science and Japanese, and he works for a start-up company called Duo Security, which focuses on network security. His job is product manager, interacting between sales, marketing and development.

As far as an artistic background, Simpson told commissioners that he blows glass. He’s been an assistant at Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti for the past five years. He decided to get involved in AAPAC after seeing the request for proposals for art at East Stadium bridges, so he submitted his name for consideration. He said he was excited to be there.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Changming Fan, who in recent months has been attending meetings of many city boards and commissions, spoke about his company, TiniLite World Inc., which is based in Ann Arbor. The firm is the innovator, producer and supplier of new technology called TiniLite, he said. It’s a lighting display using LED lights, cell phones, and wireless Internet. He called it the light of art, and the art of light, and hoped that the city would use the technology for the public’s benefit.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Jim Simpson, Kristin Tomey. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator and Craig Hupy, public services area administrator.

Absent: Devon Akmon, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

John Kotarski and Bob Miller of the city’s public art commission presented images of a revised design for public art on the East Stadium bridge, a $400,000 project that includes columns of louvered glass panels on the bridge as well as underneath it, along South State Street. The artist – Catherine Widgery, who’s based in Massachusetts – had changed her original proposal at the request of a selection committee. The public art commission is seeking feedback on this new design, including at a public forum on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The public art commission likely will vote on a recommendation at its April 23 meeting. The proposal would then be forwarded to the city council for approval.

Also heading to city council is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House, which planning commissioners voted to recommend on April 1. The plan involves major renovations to the existing building at 314 S. Fourth Ave., which most recently housed the Dream Nite Club that closed in 2012. The renovations include adding a second-floor mezzanine level to the front of the building.

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect, Stephen Fry, indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.”

Fry also reported that the restaurant will likely be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building. “So we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good,” he said.

Commissioners also reviewed proposed ordinance revisions related to drive-thrus, and recommended that the city council approve the changes. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require that drive-thru projects obtain a special exception use from the planning commission, and would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda included review of the site plan for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

Proposed facade of Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 314 S. Fourth Ave.

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. An open space in front of the building – about 220 square feet – would also be filled in as part of the new addition.

The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The property owner is Dean Zahn Properties in Saline. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report]

The recommendation of approval is contingent on addressing the following issues: (1) a discrepancy in the property legal description; (2) a license agreement for emergency egress across the front of the Fourth & William parking structure; and (3) construction of one bicycle parking space in the Fourth & William parking structure or payment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the space.

Because the site is within the D-1 zoning district, it’s exempt from vehicle parking requirements. No outdoor dining is proposed.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project. The planning staff recommended approval of the site plan.

This would be the first Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Ann Arbor. The chain is based in Florida, with locations nationwide.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Fire, Water

Wendy Woods asked about fire suppression, pointing to comments in the staff report:

If an automatic sprinkler system is not being required by the Building Official, there will be no fire department connection (FDC) on this building, making the location of the FDC in relation to a supporting fire hydrant null. However, should a sprinkler system be installed, according to City Standards, the FDC is required within 100 feet of a supporting hydrant. With that said, the hydrant located on the southwest corner of E. Liberty and S. Fourth Ave is approximately 135-150 feet from the proposed FDC for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. This does not meet City Standards.

If the building was to be suppressed, in the interest of public safety and welfare, and adding an additional hydrant in order to meet the 100 foot requirement negatively impacts other aspects of the street layout and accessibility of parking and pedestrian traffic, then the current distance from the E. Liberty/S. Fourth Ave. hydrant to the proposed FDC would be considered acceptable in the Fire Marshal’s review.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, the Grand Rapids firm that’s designing this building, said there was a question about whether building code required this renovation to include an automatic sprinkler system, because there isn’t going to be a change of use – it was a restaurant, and it will remain a restaurant. After talking to city building officials, Fry said, he believes a fire suppression system will be required. It will add more than $100,000 to the project, he said.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, a Grand Rapids architectural firm that’s designing the Ann Arbor Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

That requirement might also entail putting in another fire hydrant, Fry added, but he’s been working with the fire department and believed they were close to agreeing that existing fire hydrants in the area will suffice. However, he said, “if they want one, then we’ll provide it.”

Sabra Briere asked Fry to explain the emergency egress issue. Currently, Fry replied, there’s a five-foot-wide egress area on the southeast corner of the site. Because the building will have a second floor, it needs a second means of egress that goes to the public right-of-way, he explained. Fry didn’t want to put an exit along the front of the building, so he’s planning to tuck it onto the building’s south side. To do that, a revocable easement from the city needs to be obtained. If the city ever revokes the easement, he said, then the restaurant would need to install an exit door on the front. “It’s a technical issue that we need to legally take care of,” Fry said.

Bonnie Bona asked about stormwater management, saying it’s nice when an existing building can contribute to the “first flush” stormwater treatment. She asked how it would be done – would they cut through the slab and install an infiltration system? Fry responded by saying that “this building is in a significant state of disrepair.” Between 50-100% of the floors will be removed, and most of the building will be gutted. The back doors don’t open, so they’ll be putting in new doors. If they need to make the door big enough to bring in large concrete basins, “that’s what we’ll do,” he said.

The concept is that the roof water will be fed from the roof directly to two tanks buried below the floor in the rear of the building, near the alley. The tanks will slow down the runoff rate from stormwater that flows from the roof, before entering the city’s stormwater system. If the rainfall is too fast for the tanks to contain, the water will overflow into the stormwater system.

Bona asked what the potential is for actual infiltration. Fry said he had mixed emotions about this approach, saying that he knows the city’s engineering staff really wants to locate infiltration tanks on the site. “But this is a 66-year-old building,” Fry said, “and architecturally, I’m a little bit concerned about inducing water around foundations that have been there that long, that I don’t know what condition they’re in.” There are impervious surfaces in every direction for miles, he noted. “It makes me architecturally nervous about the structure,” he said.

Fry hopes to reach a compromise with the city about how to handle the infiltration. Given the age of the building, the current proposal “is just asking for trouble,” he said. An architect typically has three problems, Fry added: “Water, water and water.” Part of the process will entail excavating that part of the building to see what’s there, he noted. Until that happens, it’s hard to know what they’re dealing with. “The commitment is there for [stormwater] detention,” he said. “We’ll do our best for infiltration.”

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Design

Woods asked if the rendering of the building would actually be what the structure looked like after it was built. Fry replied that it would be very close to that. Adding a second floor will make the building “feel more at home in a very large monumental sort of neighborhood,” he said. “This is a tough street.”

Bonnie Bona.

Fry said he had to convince investors to even look at the building. The location includes a lot of bus traffic but no other retail, he noted. So Ruth’s Chris will be a good transitional use, because it’s a destination restaurant and doesn’t rely on foot traffic as much, he said. They can control what happens inside the building, Fry added, so what’s going on outside isn’t as important.

Bona noted that the proposal is a fairly small second-floor addition to a downtown building. Current downtown zoning doesn’t allow for a one-story building if it’s new construction, she said. Is there any potential for further additions on top of the existing building? Fry replied that the existing building won’t support a second floor, so they’ll be building new support structure for the addition. The design is also nearly the maximum allowable square footage that doesn’t require an elevator, which would be a significant cost, he said.

Fry also reported that a single-floor roof allows for economical kitchen venting – that’s one reason why this building was chosen. He noted that some of the investors didn’t even want to add any second floor, but Fry thought it was the only way to make the restaurant successful. “The private dining sector in this town seems to be very strong, and Ruth’s Chris is certainly a player in that,” he said.

Bona thought the second-floor facade added a lot to the streetscape. She appreciated that it would be a real second floor, saying that there’s a restaurant nearby with a second floor “that’s just open space to the first floor. It’s basically a fake second floor.” [She was referring to Tios, at 401 E. Liberty.]

Regarding the streetscape, Bona asked Fry for his thoughts on the use of the sidewalk. Fry noted that there’s some broken concrete that needs to be repaired. He said the restaurant would be a good neighbor for that area, and would likely make seasonal changes to the planters in front of the building. The restaurant is very serious about having a valet service, Fry added, “so we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good.”

The sidewalk is only 12 feet wide, Fry noted, so there’s not a lot of room. The restaurant would likely go along with whatever improvements are proposed for that block. There’s a lot of activity on the sidewalk during the day, but the restaurant doesn’t intend to be open for lunch initially, Fry said. He added that the restaurant hopes to bring more activity at night, so lighting will be critical to make the sidewalk safe.

Paras Parekh asked about the potential for outdoor seating. There’s no restaurant policy against it, Fry replied, but “we do not think it’s appropriate for this location.” The sun never hits that east wall, he said, and it’s difficult for the restaurant to control the outdoor setting. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.” He wasn’t sure there’d be room for tables anyway, given the valet service.

Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal followed up, asking whether the design would be flexible enough to allow outdoor seating in the future, if the restaurant decided to do that. There’s nothing to preclude it, Fry replied. He noted that the Ruth’s Chris in Grand Rapids has a really nice sidewalk in front and is in a location with a nice environment, so there is outdoor dining. “If there’s a need, we will certainly evaluate that,” Fry said.

The restaurant’s biggest concern is the bus traffic on Fourth Avenue, which causes significant noise, Fry told commissioners. There’s also not a lot to look at, he added – just the wall of the federal building across the street. Westphal noted that the buses stop running at night.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architect had considered having a rooftop deck. Yes, Fry said, but again it came down to whether the restaurant could control the outside environment. There would be kitchen exhaust and other noise, he said, so it didn’t seem to make sense at this location.

Ken Clein said he’d like to see outdoor dining too, but agreed that it probably wasn’t the best location to do that. As a destination restaurant, Clein thought it was a good use of the site, especially considering that it’s been vacant for a long time. “I’m a vegetarian, and I’m still supportive of it,” Clein joked. Fry replied that there’d be options for vegetarians, too.

Clein, who is also an architect, asked about the building materials, which Fry described. There would be some tweaks to respond to recommendations from the city’s design review board regarding the colors of the facade, Fry said. “It all needs to reflect quality and craftsmanship – that’s the idea.” The company doesn’t dictate the design of the franchises, he added, so every building is unique. Fry said he designed the Ruth’s Chris restaurant in Grand Rapids too, which is located inside the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Misc.

Responding to a query from Woods, Fry said that the bicycle parking in the Fourth & William structure is visible from the sidewalk.

City planner Matt Kowalski.

Briere asked if a citizens participation meeting had been required for this project. No, Fry replied, but they did mail out some notifications to surrounding property owners. There were no responses.

Jeremy Peters asked about the staff memo regarding a discrepancy in the property line. The current legal description does not include the western 8 feet at the back of the property, adjacent to the alley. City planner Matt Kowalski explained that it appears to be a clerical error when the deed was drawn up more than 60 years ago. There’s no question about who owns it – it’s clearly part of the lot, he said.

Fry added that it can’t be changed without filing a lawsuit, and that’s being done. “I understand that our odds are extremely high that it’s going to go through,” he said, because the owner has been paying taxes on that portion of the property for decades.

Westphal asked about shielding noise from the restaurant’s mechanical systems. Fry indicated that the noise would be very similar or less than previous restaurants located in that same building. The kitchen, which was built for Maude’s restaurant, is huge, Fry said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the city’s challenge is that it’s difficult to enforce the noise standards – especially after equipment has been installed – other than sending police to respond to complaints. Fry noted that the site is surrounded by a parking structure to the south, a surface parking lot to the north, and an alley on the west. The noise would be shielded in the front by the new second floor addition, he said. Westphal suggested exploring quieter models of mechanical systems, if possible.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes

Commissioners considered several amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

In introducing the proposal, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that planning commission chair Kirk Westphal had requested that staff look into these changes. The issue has been around for a long time, she said.

Since the changes were first considered in 2007, the city’s South State Street corridor plan has been approved, Rampson noted. [It was added to the city's master plan in 2013.] There’s been discussion about how to make the city’s major commercial corridors more pedestrian friendly, she said, by bringing buildings closer to the front of properties and reducing the impact of vehicles. So it made sense to bring forward these proposed revisions related to drive-thrus, she said.

Rampson pointed out that these changes would not preclude having drive-thrus in office, C2B or C3 zoning districts. Rather, it would give planning commissioners the opportunity to look at the layout of the site, though there are some design restrictions. For example, the ordinance revisions would prevent a drive-thru window from being located between a sidewalk and the main building.

These proposed changes, coupled with revisions that the city made two years ago in the off-street parking ordinance, should help minimize the impact of a drive-thru, Rampson said.

Finally, the changes would also give the planning commission the discretion to reject a drive-thru proposal, if it’s in a location that commissioners feel isn’t appropriate, Rampson noted. The intent is to give commissioners the tools they need to make sure a drive-thru works on a particular property, she said.

The biggest impact will likely be on banks that are built in the future, Rampson said, because currently regulations related to drive-thrus haven’t applied to banks at all.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this item.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Definition, Use

Ken Clein asked whether these revisions would impact car washes. No, Rampson replied, because car washes are considered a separate use. She noted that in C2B districts, car washes, automobile service stations and filling stations are allowed as special exception uses.

Wendy Woods.

In the definition of a drive-thru, Clein wondered whether the word “motor” should be added in front of “vehicle” – in case some “intrepid entrepreneur” wanted to have a bicycle or skateboard drive-thru at some point. Rampson noted that the definition describes “customers who remain in their vehicle.” She thought it would be hard to say that someone is “in a skateboard” or “in a bike.” There are also motorized bicycles, she noted.

But Rampson agreed that Clein’s suggestion to add the word “motor” would allow more clarity. If someone proposed a different kind of drive-thru – or a walk-up window, for example – she didn’t think the city would be concerned about that.

Clein proposed an amendment to add the word “motor” to the definition. The revised definition would state: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their motor vehicle during the course of the transaction.”

Bonnie Bona agreed that there would be no problem with a walk-up or bike-up window, because those wouldn’t cause conflicts with sidewalks and pedestrians.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Wendy Woods noted that there are drive-thru funeral homes, including some in Detroit. That’s another kind of use, though she hoped it wouldn’t come to Ann Arbor. She asked whether the ordinance needed to mention that use.

Rampson replied that the advantage of the proposed approach is that the drive-thru is associated with many different uses. It’s only the drive-thru component that would trigger the special exception use requirement.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Past Projects

Bona asked Rampson to share an example that had been discussed at the ordinance revisions committee – a drive-thru on Plymouth Road, near the Holiday Inn North Campus hotel. In that project, the back doors of the building faced Plymouth Road, Bona noted. How would the proposed ordinance revisions have helped the planning commission deal with that project?

Paras Parekh.

[Bona was referring to a project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The retail development – called The Shoppes at 3600 – is located at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.]

Rampson told commissioners that if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the project would have required the commission to grant a special exception use. The drive-thru could not be located between the main building and a public right-of-way. For that project, the window was actually located on the side of the building, Rampson noted, so it wasn’t between the main building and the sidewalk. Commissioners had been more critical of the exiting driveway that led around the back of the building, between the building and the Plymouth Road sidewalk.

However, Rampson said, commissioners could have applied other standards of the special exception use to require modifications to the project.

Rampson also pointed to the drive-thru at the Tim Horton’s on Ellsworth Road, which planning commissioners recommended for approval on March 6, 2012. In that case, the drive-thru window is facing Ellsworth. So if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the city would have required that the building or the window be reoriented.

Woods noted that other drive-thru projects have created problems, like the Walgreens at the corner of Washtenaw and Huron Parkway. It’s very difficult to use the drive-thru, she said, because of traffic coming in from Huron Parkway. And pedestrians “pretty much take their life in their own hands when they want to cross the street to get over there,” she added.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Special Exception Use

Bona said the special exception use allows the developer to be creative about how to solve the problem. She indicated that she preferred this approach, rather than requiring specific design restrictions. The intent is to not prioritize cars over the pedestrian experience, she said.

Jeremy Peters agreed, saying that the standards outlined in the special exception use might yield better designs. He said he was a fan of taking this approach, instead of banning drive-thrus completely. Businesses that have the need for a drive-thru still have that option.

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, Rampson said that if existing drive-thrus need renovations that require an administrative amendment to the site plan or planning commission approval, it’s considered a pre-existing, special exception use. But if a project requires going to city council to get site plan approval, then the special exception use would need to be re-established by the planning commission.

Ken Clein agreed that the special exception use was a good tool for this purpose. It raised the bar a little, in terms of the planning commission’s expectations, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the ordinance revisions. The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Stadium Bridge Artwork

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, gave a presentation to commissioners about the proposed artwork for East Stadium bridge. Also on hand were AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. Seated in the background are AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridge in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it’s presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Kotarski reviewed the process, which started in November 2011. The goal had been to unify the East Stadium bridge overpass and the South State Street underpass, and connect to the neighborhoods. The artwork was intended to connect with different modes of transportation, to be viewed by people walking, biking or in cars. A total of 32 proposals had been originally received.

Kotarski said AAPAC “constantly” is asked the question: Why not pick a local artist? “The short answer is the city attorney said we can’t,” Kotarski told commissioners. The city can’t have an open competition and restrict artists to only ones who live in this area, he said. However, he added that AAPAC did extensive outreach to local artists, contacting local organizations and asking them to spread the word about the request for proposals. Seven Michigan artists presented proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Although Widgery’s work stood out in many ways, Kotarski said, the selection panel wanted her to refine it. For example, her original proposal called for 12 four-by-six-foot acrylic/aluminum or glass banners etched with images of trees, to be hung from existing lightpoles on the bridge. It would have required the lightpoles to be reinforced in some way. The panelists also wanted a more dramatic structure, Kotarski said.

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features stand-alone, louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels are lit, so that the etchings stand out at night, Kotarski explained.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Kotarski noted that he and Miller will be making similar presentations at a public forum and at meetings of local groups like the planning commission. The public forum will be held on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

AAPAC will review the input and likely vote on a recommendation for the project at its April 23 meeting, Kotarski said. That recommendation would then be forwarded to the city council for approval. The hope is to have the artwork installed by the fall of 2014 or early spring of 2015.

Kotarski concluded by saying that “not one penny of the money spent on this artwork could be spent on potholes. This is a completely different fund.” He said the money to fix potholes comes from state revenue, not local taxes. “So this is not art versus potholes – I want to assure you of that,” he said.

The funds for the East Stadium bridge artwork are from the city’s former Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated at its June 3, 2013 meeting. The project’s budget had been approved prior to the council’s decision to suspend funding for new projects. That decision occurred on Dec. 3, 2012.

The specific Percent for Art money for this project comes from street millage revenues. The Percent for Art funding mechanism set aside 1% for public art from the budget of each of the city’s capital projects, such as street work.

Stadium Bridge Artwork: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere confirmed with John Kotarski that the structures would be lit from below. She wondered if the lighting would be solar-powered. Bob Miller replied that the city is getting estimates from the electrician, but the structures won’t be lit with solar power. Briere asked if it would connect with the same electrical system that’s heating the stairs coming up to the bridge from South State. Miller wasn’t sure.

Sabra Briere.

When Briere expressed disappointment that the lighting wouldn’t be solar, Miller said that it would be possible, if the city wanted it.

Miller highlighted the fact that these structures will be on both the east and west ends of the bridge – along the north side.

Ken Clein said he’d seen the previous designs, and thought this version was a great improvement. The lighting makes a big difference. He thanked AAPAC for its work.

Briere noted that the structures on the bridge are adjacent to sidewalks, and thus are removed from traffic. Miller replied that a previous iteration had positioned the structures in a landscaped area on the east end. But feedback from neighbors, who didn’t want the landscaping disturbed, resulted in moving the structures out of that area, but next to the sidewalk.

Briere hoped there would be less risk of vehicular accidents in the proposed location. Miller replied: “I didn’t know there was a risk to begin with.”

Briere said there are always risks, so she wanted to make sure the structures were separated from traffic.

Kirk Westphal asked about maintenance costs, citing the example of a car hitting one of the structures. Miller replied that the artist has been asked to provide a maintenance schedule. That will be part of the final proposal.

Westphal asked if there would be a plaque identifying the artist. Aaron Seagraves indicated that there would be a plaque of some sort.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Meeting Schedule

Commissioners were asked to approve their meeting schedule for fiscal 2015, which runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of meeting schedule]

Ann Arbor planning commissioners.

The planning commission meetings are held on Tuesdays. During the week of an election, the meetings are typically rescheduled for a Thursday. However for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014, the planning staff is recommending that the planning commission meetings be moved to Wednesday after an election, rather than to Thursday.

Sabra Briere asked whether there would be any conflicts with Wednesday meetings. Briere said she was thinking about all the neighborhood and citizen meetings that occur on Wednesdays, and trying to determine “how to adjust my mental schedule.” Planning manager Wendy Rampson thought they’d encounter the same potential conflicts on Thursdays. There are only a limited number of options, she noted, and the staff tries not to conflict with other city boards and commissions.

Rampson reported that city staff hadn’t anticipated the Tuesday, May 6 election. [The election is being held for the sole purpose of voting on a transit tax, which was put on the ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] The elections staff will be using the hallways outside of council chambers on May 6, she noted. The planning staff felt that there would likely be too much noise, so they’ve scheduled the May 6 meeting to be held in the Washtenaw County boardroom, at 220 N. Main St.

That change of venue will get planning commissioners accustomed to the new location, Rampson said. Later in the calendar year, their meetings will be held at that location while asbestos abatement occurs on the second floor of city hall, where the council chambers are located.

Outcome: Commissioners approved their meeting schedule.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on April 1.

Communications & Commentary: City Council

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the city council’s April 7 agenda will include the joint resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers property, which planning commissioners passed at their March 18, 2014 meeting.

The resolution included recommendations on uses for the site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base.

Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The council will be considering the same resolution.

The council’s April 7 agenda will also include the planning commission’s resolution about the use of the Library Lane surface, which commissioners also approved on March 18, 2014. That resolution will be attached to the agenda as an item of communication, Rampson said.

Communications & Commentary: ZORO

Wendy Rampson reported that the city attorney’s office and city planner Alexis DiLeo have been working on the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project. “I just thought you’d be excited to hear that,” she joked. There’s still a lot of work to be done, but the staff is trying to move it forward, she added.

ZORO began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material. The project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff and work by an outside consultant. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald is the lead staff person for ZORO.

At a Jan. 7, 2014 planning commission work session, Rampson had reported that the project had been stalled for about six months. The slow progress has been a point of frustration for commissioners over the years.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Zoning

Bonnie Bona reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) is working on revisions to the downtown zoning ordinance. The planning commission had made recommendations about the revisions at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were subsequently approved by the city council on Jan. 21, 2014, when the council directed the planning commission to craft the corresponding zoning ordinance language to reflect the recommendations.

The ORC started with the rezoning of property at Main and William to D2, Bona said, and that will be on the planning commission’s agenda in May. The next piece is to look at the area north of Huron Street, including potentially rezoning some sites and adjusting the overlay district in that area.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA is kicking off its streetscape framework project. He’ll be representing the planning commission as part of that effort. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

Ken Clein.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, planning manager Wendy Rampson said the framework will include an economic evaluation of the use of sidewalks – whether it’s for dining, outdoor sales, or other activities. The intent is to help provide better guidance about what should be allowed on the sidewalks.

Related to downtown sidewalks, Sabra Briere said she keeps hearing from constituents about problems with handicapped accessibility. In many locations, it’s difficult or impossible for someone in a wheelchair to maneuver, she said. Many times, outdoor seating is marked off with a fence that blocks access at a handicapped parking spot, Briere noted. Any time there are barriers put in place unknowingly, “we’re making a mistake,” she said.

The city should be really sensitive to the situation, so she hoped that Clein could bring that up as the streetscape project moves forward.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

On Jan. 29, Kristin “KT” Tomey attended her first regular meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission since being appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. (Photos by the writer.)

Some commissioners expressed frustration that they had insufficient information on which to base their evaluation. And after about two hours of discussion – using a scoring rubric with seven criteria – commissioners had evaluated only a few projects: artist-designed street access (manhole) covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors of Main Street and Plymouth Road. Because there were still several other items on the agenda, they voted to postpone further evaluation of possible capital projects until their next meeting.

In other action, commissioners discussed and approved a draft annual public art plan that’s officially due to the city council on Feb. 1, for projects to be undertaken in the fiscal year that begins July 1. It includes projects that are underway – like artwork for East Stadium bridges and Argo Cascades – as well as a proposal to add some enhanced capital projects, like street access covers on resurfaced roads.

The draft annual plan had been prepared by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. Commissioners asked for some revisions and designated commissioner John Kotarski to work with Seagraves on a final version that will likely be presented to the council on Feb. 18. Kotarski praised the draft, saying “It has as much meat as anyone wants. It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Commissioners also discussed a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select and fund an artist who would help incorporate art into a new bike share program. They tabled action on this item, wanting additional information about the CEC’s expectations for funding.

This was AAPAC’s first regular meeting since Oct. 23, 2013, although they held a retreat in December and a planning session earlier in January. Throughout the evening, concerns were raised about the future of the public art program, in light of recent city council discussions. The council had postponed a requested six-month extension of Seagraves’ contract, and will be taking up that item on Feb. 3.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The amendment would allow the council to return about $800,000 accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn, such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. It’s the latest in an ongoing transition for the city’s public art program – a transition that’s been unsettling for public art commissioners.

The Jan. 29 meeting marked another transition for AAPAC, which has seen considerable turnover during the past year. It was the first regular monthly meeting for the newest commissioner, Kristin “KT” Tomey, who was appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. And it was the last meeting for Malverne Winborne, whose term ended on Dec. 31. He did not seek reappointment, and was serving until the position was filled. His replacement, Jim Simpson, is expected to be confirmed in a vote at the city council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Winborne has served as vice chair of AAPAC – but the group held new officer elections on Jan. 29. Bob Miller was re-elected to another one-year term as chair, and John Kotarski was elected vice chair. There were no competing nominations, and both votes were unanimous.

Noting that the Jan. 29 meeting had been especially challenging, Miller thanked commissioners for their work. “This is probably the most belabored meeting I think we’ve ever gone through, aside from maybe one of the retreats,” he said. “I’m tapped out.” He jokingly cajoled commissioners: “Please do come back.”

Miller also encouraged students to return, as about two dozen students from Skyline High School – and some parents – attended the Jan. 29 meeting. “It’s the most amount of people we’ve ever had at any of our meetings,” Miller noted. One student pointed out that they were all from the same government class, facing a Jan. 31 deadline to attend a public meeting.

Future of Public Art Program

At the beginning of the Jan. 29 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the agenda – over the dissent of John Kotarski – to add an item for discussion about the interaction between AAPAC and the city council.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, reviewed the current discussion that’s underway at city council. At their Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, councilmembers were asked to approve a six-month extension to the contract for the public art administrator – a part-time position held by Aaron Seagraves. Some councilmembers were concerned about the transition from the previous Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new approach, where public art will be “baked in” to the city’s capital projects or done with money that’s raised through other sources in the community. Also raised at that Jan. 21 city council meeting was the issue of as-yet-unallocated funding that remains from the Percent for Art program – about $800,000.

Ultimately, councilmembers postponed action on Seagraves’ contract extension – and that item is now on the Feb. 3 council agenda. The Feb. 3 agenda also includes initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The amendment would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn – such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

Miller noted that when the council made revisions to the public art ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting, the remaining funds had been intended to provide a transition for the program. [At that time, Lumm had also tried unsuccessfully to return the remaining Percent for Art money to its funds of origins, but she didn't get sufficient support on the council to make that change.]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who attended AAPAC’s Jan. 29 meeting, added that it’s within the council’s “political prerogative to revisit that decision, which is what they are doing now.” He noted that when the council made changes to the program, they made no provisions to pay for arts administration. That’s why the contract extensions for Seagraves – who reports to Hupy – have been made.

If the council decides to return the roughly $800,000 to its funds of origin, Hupy said, it means there won’t be funds available during this interim period for public art. The intent going forward to include public art funding as part of certain capital improvement projects, but those are longer-term efforts. The other funding approach is to partner with outside organizations and do fundraising from the community, but that hasn’t yet gotten off the ground in a significant way. [It's also an option for the council to allocate money from the general fund to cover the salary of a public art administrator salary, but that option has not yet been publicly floated by city councilmembers.]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Nick Zagar.

Hupy said that if the council doesn’t approve the current contract extension, then staff will be asking for a budget appropriation during the fiscal 2015 budget process for public art administration. That fiscal year runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The staff is currently developing that budget, which will be brought forward to the council in the spring. “I’m not giving you a whole lot of clarity,” Hupy added, “because this is a process that’s in council’s hands.”

Hupy noted that the city council task force that brought forward a proposal last summer to restructure the public art program had envisioned a three-year transition process. “So to think you’re going to whip this in one or two meetings – you’re not going to do it that quickly,” he told commissioners.

Miller added that it’s still “muddy” as to how AAPAC will be structured to do fundraising and partnerships with outside organizations. He noted that some projects – a Coleman Jewett memorial, and the Canoe Imagine Art project, for example – are already using this approach. “So we’ve been moving toward this new model,” Miller said, “but the council still hasn’t figured out how to house the commission in a structure that will allow for us to be fundraising.” He noted that commissioners shouldn’t be the the people who go out and raising money – they should be advising the city on how to select art projects.

Nick Zagar expressed concern about the current status of AAPAC. “We’re volunteers trying to do things we’re passionate about, but there’s never any certainty about things.” And if the city eliminates the public art administrator’s position, “everything I’m sure will grind to a dramatic halt,” Zagar said. It’s hard to want to invest a lot of energy into the program, he added, given that commissioners don’t really have a clear direction about the program’s future.

Miller agreed, and said those questions will have to be answered by the council on Feb. 3. “Public art has been a hot topic since it started,” he said. “It would be nice if [the public art program] had some consistency behind it, for sure.”

Selection of Capital Projects for Public Art

On Jan. 22, AAPAC met in a planning session focused on fine-tuning a criteria and scoring rubric for prioritizing capital projects that could possibly have a public art component. [.pdf of draft scoring rubric]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

The rubric is modeled after a similar system that’s used by city staff to score and prioritize projects in the capital improvements plan (CIP). Commissioners had been briefed on the CIP process at their Oct. 23, 2013 meeting by Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process.

The draft rubric includes seven categories, with scoring on a scale of 1-10: (1) distribution of art throughout the city; (2) locations of high use and high visibility; (3) placemaking; (4) integrated artwork (whether artwork can be integrated into a project or location); (5) partnerships; (6) funding; and (7) programming – whether a school or other organization could develop programs related to the artwork.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had selected 10 projects that are in the city’s current capital improvements plan (CIP) – three starting in fiscal 2015, and seven starting in fiscal 2016.

Those capital projects and possible public art enhancements proposed by Seagraves are:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.
• Six specific road projects (FY 2016): East Stadium Boulevard from Huchins to Kipke; Springwater subdivision (south of Packard, west of Platt); Main Street (non-motorized corridor); Plymouth Road (non-motorized corridor); Stone School Road improvements; Packard/Eisenhower, from Stone School to Platt. Artwork would be integrated into the projects.
• Ann Arbor Station (FY 2016): Art would be integrated into the project.

Seagraves noted that he focused on projects that could be included in the annual plan that AAPAC is required to submit to the city council in February. The intent is that the capital projects, when sent to the council for budgetary approval, would include funding for public art to be integrated into the work. He hoped that commissioners could reach a consensus score to prioritize these projects.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Ashlee Arder.

Commissioners spent about two hours discussing only a few projects on this list: street access covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors along Main Street and Plymouth Road.

Some commissioners expressed frustration at having to score these items without having a specific project proposal to evaluate. When Seagraves asked who would define the project at this point, John Kotarski suggested that Seagraves would do that, and it would then be evaluated by commissioners. Malverne Winborne agreed: “We need something to grasp on to, and we don’t have it.”

Seagraves noted that it would be difficult to predetermine the art projects – that would be the work of a task force, after AAPAC identifies a CIP project for enhancement. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, explained that AAPAC at this point needs to rate the location or type of project and its suitability for art, rather than the specific artwork that might be part of a capital project.

Kotarski felt there was inadequate information to do the scoring. Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, directed Seagraves in the future to include photos of the locations, and some suggestions for possible art projects that might be appropriate. But Winborne expressed concern that this would be taking away from the artist’s creativity. “We’ve had long conversations about that,” he noted. “It seems like we’re sort of discounting that now, saying ‘We’ll do it.’” Winborne noted that there’s been turnover on AAPAC, so many of the current commissioners weren’t part of those previous discussions.

Ashlee Arder urged commissioners to focus on the information that they had, rather than on the information that wasn’t available yet. “We realize there are a lot of holes,” she said. Hupy reiterated the purpose of this process – to rate a site or capital project with regard to its potential for public art. Kotarski argued that without a concrete art project in mind, “it’s going to be very difficult for us to do that, in a meaningful way.”

There also was discussion at various points about definitions in the scoring criteria, and a consensus that the rubric needs to be tweaked. It emerged that some commissioners had different understandings of what the criteria meant.

At one point, to expedite the process, Kristin Tomey suggested eliminating some of the categories – like funding, for example, since all projects incorporated into a capital project would presumably receive funding from the city. She also suggested using walkability scores as part of the scoring, using the website Walk Score. It can help identify locations that are high use, she said. Three categories – distribution of art within the city, visibility, and placemaking – seemed like those that AAPAC should focus on, she added.

Miller suggested presenting the rubric to the city council, with notes indicating that there are certain aspects of the rubric that will be modified. Hupy supported that approach, saying it was understandable that there would be changes to the process, because this was the first time that AAPAC had done it.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Devon Akmon.

Hupy told the commissioners that they are suffering from what happens to other groups that go through this process: It’s very difficult at first, but gets easier as they score more projects. “It’s a process of learning,” he said. Hupy noted that the council has asked for staff to report back about AAPAC’s selection process – the rubric that the commission has been developing to help prioritize capital projects that could possibly be enhanced with public art. “So the work you’ve been doing is following the transition as laid out in the ordinance.”

Hupy also offered to bring back more supporting materials for commissioners to help them evaluate capital projects, and pointed out that nothing is set in stone at this point – they can revisit their decisions.

Nick Zagar also requested maps showing the location of existing public art – including art on the University of Michigan campus – to make it easier to tell what neighborhoods or areas don’t have public art. Devon Akmon suggested putting that information online, as a resource for commissioners but also as a marketing tool for the public.

Tomey recommended standardizing the presentation of material to commissioners, so they could be sure they had the information they needed.

After nearly two hours, Akmon pointed out that the group hadn’t finished scoring the 10 CIP projects that Seagraves had brought forward – and they still had most of their agenda to move through, in addition to that. He suggested postponing discussion of the other CIP projects, and tackling only two or three per meeting. “It’s a little fatiguing,” he said, describing the effort as almost like urban planning, with public art as the next step.

Miller agreed, saying “we’ve been stifled by this process.”

Hupy noted that in refining this scoring rubric, it might make sense to focus on locations as a first step, then looking at a public art concept as a second step. There seemed to be some consensus about taking this approach.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone further evaluation of the possible CIP projects that might be enhanced with public art. They’ll take up the task again at a future meeting.

Public Art Annual Plan

In the past, the public art annual plan was required to be submitted to the city council by April 1. But at AAPAC’s April 24, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to recommend shifting that date to Feb. 1 – a move intended to allow the council to make budget decisions based on recommendations from AAPAC. Shifting the date of the annual plan was linked to a major restructuring of the city’s public art program, which is still underway. The city council subsequently made revisions to the public art ordinance – Chapter 24 of the city code – that included the Feb. 1 deadline for submitting the annual plan. From the city code:

(2) The oversight body shall:
…
(B) By February 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year, including enhanced projects and any proposed expenditure of donated, grant, or other funds. The plan shall also include a recommendation as to which projects from the current Capital Improvements Plan are appropriate for designation as enhanced projects; …

On Jan. 29, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, presented a draft annual plan for fiscal 2015. He hoped AAPAC would approve that night, so that it could be forwarded to the city council. [.pdf of draft FY 2015 annual plan]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski.

John Kotarski characterized the draft as one of the best plans that AAPAC has ever created. It’s thorough, covering everything that the commission has done, and has a plan for moving forward, he said.

“It has as much meat as anyone wants,” Kotarski added. “It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Bob Miller then asked about the wastewater treatment plant project that was included in the draft plan. “I don’t want to include it,” Kotarski replied, saying that the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum had withdrawn a proposal to partner on artwork at the new plant.

Six other ongoing public art projects were listed in the draft plan:

• Completion of the public art project at East Stadium bridges. Artist Catherine Widgery was recommended by a selection panel, and is completing modifications to the original design. The final design will be brought forward for additional public input, and will need approval by AAPAC and then by the city council. Installation is expected in FY 2015. The project’s total budget is $400,000.
• Completion of public art at Argo Cascades. The selection panel has tabled proposals by the previous two finalists, and is reviewing other options for that site. No recommendation has yet been made to AAPAC. The total budget is set at $150,000.
• Public art at Arbor Oaks Park. This project is in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of the artwork. A grant application to help fund this project was submitted to the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation in November 2013. No city public art funds have been allocated, and additional funding is expected to be raised through community donations.
• Canoe Imagine Art. AAPAC has approved $10,000 in funding for this community art project – a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation is expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project also has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.
• Coleman Jewett Memorial. A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 to the project, which has a total project of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.
• Graphics for Control Boxes. Called “PowerArt,” this project involves wrapping about 40 traffic signal boxes in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The initial pilot phase would focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. AAPAC approved $20,500 for the first year as a pilot project. The project is being administered by the Arts Alliance in response to a DDA request.

In addition, Seagraves hoped to include some projects from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which commissioners had discussed and started to evaluate earlier in the meeting. Kotarski suggested stating in the annual plan that AAPAC is working on a rubric and practicing the application of that rubric on potential projects – that it’s a work in progress.

Seagraves proposed including three projects from the FY 2015 CIP. Commissioners agreed, noting that there had been consensus on these projects during their earlier discussion:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.

Seagraves also recommended including dollar amounts to fund these projects – $60,000 for access covers and $60,000 for sidewalk stamping. Kotarski expressed concern that there wasn’t sufficient justification at this point for any particular amount. Seagraves said he’d research the cost so that he could include it in the plan.

Miller proposed that AAPAC approve the annual plan at that night’s meeting, contingent on revisions that Seagraves would make. Kristin Tomey asked whether commissioners could vote on the plan via email, after Seagraves made revisions. [The answer is no. Even if the public art commission were analyzed as a purely advisory body under the Michigan Open Meetings Act that would not allow the commission to ignore the OMA. That's because of a policy approved by the city council in 1991, which states that such groups are still expected to conform to the spirit of the OMA – to the best ability of that entity’s members. For more background on this issue, see "Column: A Reminder on Open Government."]

Malverne Winborne suggested that the commissioners approve the draft plan, then empower one commissioner to work with Seagraves on the final revisions. Miller asked Kotarski to take on that task.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the draft annual plan, and authorized John Kotarski to work with Aaron Seagraves in making final revisions.

The expectation at the Jan. 29 meeting was that the annual plan would be submitted to the council on Feb. 3. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on Jan. 30, Seagraves said that the plan will instead be on a future agenda, possibly on Feb. 18.

Bike Share Program

AAPAC was asked to consider a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select an artist who would work to incorporate art into a new bike share program. [.pdf of CEC proposal]

The bike share program, with a planned launch in the summer of 2014, will include 14 stations and 125 bikes at locations in downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan campus.

In part, the proposal states:

CEC seeks a local artist to join the bike share team and contribute to several areas of the Ann Arbor bike share project. Specifically, CEC proposes to work directly with the Art Commission to select a local artist to work on the program. The artist would fill an integral role within the planning and launch processes currently in motion. In addition to standard graphic design work for promotional purposes, the artist will have the opportunity to design a collection of maps to feature bike share stations and local elements. The artist would also participate in marketing meetings and other planning activities to ensure that art is a deliberate and consistent attribute of the bike share program.

The position will run from late winter through the summer launch of bike share. CEC hopes to embrace the city’s vibrant culture of artists and creativity to design a unique identity for the bike share program, and commissioning a local artist is the ideal way to build this brand. This position would likely require 10-15 hours per week to attend partner meetings and produce the desired materials. CEC requests that the Public Art Commission cover the cost of the artist’s time and materials needed to produce artwork for the program. CEC will offer office space, make connections to program partners, and serve in a project management role to provide as much guidance as needed.

Nick Zagar questioned whether AAPAC could select a local artist. Bob Miller replied that the call for artists is open to anyone, and it’s up to the task force to select an artist – local or not. Miller began to elaborate, saying, “Speaking candidly about that…” He was cut off by John Kotarski, who cautioned: “I wouldn’t speak candidly, because your candid comments might very well be published.”

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Miller replied, saying “This is not something that’s secret. Dollar amounts sometimes dictate who gets involved.” [His point was that if a budget is low, it won't likely attract applicants from outside the area.] Kotarski noted that Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had indicated it would be possible to select an artist as a “sole source provider” for a particular project. An open call for proposals, however, can’t be restricted geographically, he said. If AAPAC picked a single artist as a sole source provider, they’d have to explain why that particular artist has been selected. Kotarski said that Hupy had reviewed this process with the city attorney’s office too. [Hupy had left the meeting by this point.]

Zagar said it seemed like CEC was really looking for a graphic artist.

Commissioners also discussed where the funding might come from, if they pursued this project. In response to a suggestion from Miller, Kotarski expressed skepticism that the city council would allocate money from the city’s general fund. “Let’s bring it up at the next [council] meeting, when they’re sending the money back,” Kotarski quipped – a reference to the Feb. 3 council resolution that, if approved, would return remaining Percent for Art money to its original funding source.

Kotarski recommended that AAPAC endorse the project and help in any way they can, but without committing dollars to it.

Ashlee Arder noted that there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding the proposal, such as what kind of funding the CEC is requesting. She compared it to the much more detailed proposal that Deb Polich had provided for the PowerArt project. [.pdf of PowerArt proposal, made by Polich at AAPAC's Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.]

Miller said the commission would be hard-pressed to make a decision on this, without additional information. Kotarski added that AAPAC would be hard-pressed to spend any additional money at all, other than the projects that are in progress.

Kristin Tomey wondered about the process by which proposals like this are brought forward to AAPAC. Miller replied that in the past, most proposals haven’t provided the level of detail that AAPAC would like to see.

By way of background, the commission has previously developed a project intake form as a template for new projects. The project intake form is posted on AAPAC’s website. However, some commissioners have criticized the current process. The issue was debated at AAPAC’s Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report:

As he did during the Canoe Imagine Art discussion, John Kotarski said he’d like a more elaborate proposal for this and all projects that come to AAPAC for approval. He thought that the fundraising materials that [Marsha] Chamberlin had developed might serve that purpose.

Chamberlin pointed out that this project was approved about six months ago and has been discussed at virtually every meeting since then. “I just assumed people were up to speed on it,” she said.

Kotarski said his intent isn’t to get AAPAC up to speed. Rather, this kind of documentation will show the public that AAPAC was thorough in its work, before making decisions. He said he was critical of all the intake forms, and he’d emailed Aaron Seagraves with his comments. “I think our approach now is shoot, ready aim,” Kotarski said. “We are making decisions before we really, fully have a fleshed out concept and idea.” He’d like to change their approach, and said the Arts Alliance proposal [for PowerArt] provides a good model.

Chamberlin replied that the commission had developed the process of using project intake forms, so it should be a commission decision if they want to change that approach. These projects have been documented and presented to the commission at previous meetings, she noted.

Connie Brown felt that Kotarski was raising a broader issue, and she agreed that going forward, each project should have a more detailed packet of material. Bob Miller asked [Aaron] Seagraves to provide that type of packet in the future.

Chamberlin noted that this would dramatically change the process that AAPAC has developed. That process entails initial approval by AAPAC to move ahead on a project, followed by the formation of a task force to flesh out a more detailed proposal, on which AAPAC then votes.

After further discussion, commissioners reached consensus for Seagraves to compile more detailed proposals for AAPAC projects.

At the Jan. 29 meeting, Kotarski said he’d like to endorse the CEC bike share project, but that at this time AAPAC couldn’t commit any funding to it. Malverne Winborne reminded Kotarski about previous discussions that AAPAC has had about not endorsing projects. [The issue of endorsements arose when AAPAC was approached about endorsing a large Whirlydoodle installation. At AAPAC's July 25, 2012 meeting, Kotarski was unsuccessful in convincing other commissioners to support an endorsement policy for non-city-funded art projects. After a lengthy debate, AAPAC passed a resolution at that meeting stating that the commission would not make endorsements – and Kotarski cast the lone dissenting vote. There has been considerable turnover on the commission since that time.]

Winborne explained to new commissioners that there had been concern about “scope creep” at a time when AAPAC was trying to focus on moving forward with projects funded by the city’s Percent for Art program. Kotarski told Winborne that he’d take back his recommendation to endorse the bike share program.

Kotarski then moved to table the item until AAPAC received more information about the proposal.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to table the CEC bike share proposal.

Officer Elections

AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January, by secret ballot. From the bylaws:

Article VI Officers
Section 1. The officers of AAPAC shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The officers shall be elected by secret ballot each year from among the voting members of AAPAC. The officers shall be elected for a one-year term by a majority of the voting members currently serving on AAPAC. No member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive one-year terms in one office. The term of the officers shall run from the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January to the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January of the following year. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

Bob Miller has served as chair for the past year, and offered to serve again. There were no other competing nominations.

Malverne Winborne attended his last meeting as an Ann Arbor public art commissioner on Jan. 29.

The current vice chair, Malverne Winborne, is stepping down from AAPAC. He did not seek reappointment after serving one three-year term, and the Jan. 29 meeting was his final one. John Kotarski was nominated as vice chair, and there were no competing nominations.

Votes were taken on slips of yellow paper and tallied by Winborne.

Outcome: Bob Miller and John Kotarski were unanimously elected as chair and vice chair of AAPAC.

At the city council’s Jan. 21 meeting, Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. A confirmation vote on Simpson’s appointment is expected at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Simpson works with the software firm Duo Security in Ann Arbor, and is affiliated with Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Ashlee Arder, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Kristin Tomey, Malverne Winborne, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The budget expenditure would have needed an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council, and it did not necessarily appear to have sufficient support. That lack of support was based on dissatisfaction with the status of funds leftover from the former Percent for Art program. The proposal to postpone came from Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who wanted to delay until the council’s next meeting, by which time a clear plan could be crafted to return the Percent for Art money to its funds of origin. The only dissenting vote on the postponement came from Margie Teall (Ward 4). [Details of the council's deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the Jan. 21 meeting.]

Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded. The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle emailed query shows a current balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

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]

Rendering of “Bucket Cascade” proposal by Mags Harries and Lajos Heder. It’s one of two finalists for public art at the city’s Argo Cascades.

Commissioners were briefed about the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which will now be integral to the public art program. AAPAC and city staff will identify projects in the CIP that might be candidates for public art “enhancements” – if the council agrees and provides additional funding for that purpose. It’s a change from the previous Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated earlier this year.

Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, attended AAPAC’s meeting and described a decision-making matrix that’s used to help city staff prioritize capital projects. AAPAC plans to use that matrix as a model for developing its own method of prioritizing potential public art projects.

Commissioners also briefly discussed four possible capital projects that might include public art enhancements, including an enclosure of the farmers market, and a retaining wall to be built as part of a Stadium Boulevard reconstruction.

Some of these issues will likely be picked up during a retreat that’s set for Nov. 20. The idea of a retreat was proposed by one of the newer commissioners, Ashlee Arder, as a way to get to know each other better, as well as to discuss the creation of AAPAC’s annual plan, which is due to the council in early 2014. Arder also hopes to assemble a “curated team” from different sectors of the community, to help AAPAC develop ideas for fostering public art as well as the broader creative sector.

Also at their most recent meeting, commissioners acted on a specific project that’s already underway. They authorized applying for a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan to fund a public art project in the Arbor Oaks/Bryant neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s southeast side. But they tabled another proposal – for artwork at the roundabout on South State and Ellsworth – until their February 2014 meeting, allowing time for commissioners to see how it might fit into an overall public art plan.

Updates were provided during the meeting on several other projects, including the Coleman Jewett memorial at the farmers market, finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades, and a plan to add an artistic element to the city’s new bike share program.

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

Deb Gosselin, who manages the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), attended AAPAC’s meeting on Oct. 23 to review the CIP process. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019] She had previously briefed the commission at its Feb. 27, 2013 meeting, prior to changes in the way that the public art program is funded. Since then, the city council has eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism. That happened at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Deb Gosselin, who manages the city’s capital improvements plan, attended the Oct. 23 AAPAC meeting.

Now, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, streets and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. More than 300 projects are part of the CIP, including both projects that are funded as well as those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified.

The document must be approved by the city’s planning commission, not the city council. The planning commission approved the most recent CIP at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. The city council then uses the CIP in its budget planning process.

In her Oct. 23 briefing, Gosselin noted that the CIP schedule now affects when the city makes decisions about public art. She told commissioners that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had looked through the CIP to find projects where it might be appropriate to incorporate public art.

Gosselin reviewed the CIP process, and described the decision-making matrix that’s used to help city staff prioritize capital projects. [.pdf of CIP prioritization matrix] She said the matrix is a tool that AAPAC might want to modify and use for its own decision-making on projects that might incorporate public art. Seagraves indicated he’d work with Gosselin to draft a similar matrix for AAPAC.

In theory, virtually any of the capital projects in the CIP could incorporate public art, Gosselin said. To do that, AAPAC would first need to identify a project in the CIP and request that it be enhanced, she explained. Although the planning commission is charged with approving the CIP, the city council is the entity that approves the budget for specific projects.

For capital projects that the city council has already funded for fiscal 2014 and 2015, it’s too late to build a public art enhancement into the budget. However, Gosselin noted that AAPAC could decide to use funds from the previous Percent for Art program that are unspent, and apply those funds toward capital projects that are already underway.

Beyond that, now is the time for AAPAC to look at items in the CIP starting in fiscal 2016, as projects that could potentially be enhanced with public art. In AAPAC’s annual report that’s due to the city council in early 2014, commissioners should flag projects that commissioners would like for the city to enhance, Gosselin said. AAPAC should also identify a specific budget amount that would need to be added to the project, in order to cover the public art enhancement and maintenance. That budget enhancement requires city council approval.

The lead time also helps managers of capital projects to work with designers and artists from the very early stages, she noted.

Summary chart of projects in the 2014-2019 Ann Arbor capital improvements plan (CIP).

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP): AAPAC Discussion

Connie Brown wondered about setting a public art enhancement budget at such an early stage, when it might be difficult to know how much is required. How much flexibility would there be to increase the amount at a later date? Deb Gosselin acknowledged that since this process of incorporating public art is new, it’s a bit hard to know how it will work. She thought there will likely be some flexibility, but the public art estimated budget needs to be as close as possible to the actual amount. “You’re in essence saying ‘Give me a budget and I’ll figure out what to do with it later,’” Gosselin said.

Connie Brown.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, noted that it’s not unusual for a capital project’s budget to change dramatically, from the time it’s first entered into the CIP to the time the budget is approved by the council. If the project is slated for Year 6 of the CIP – that is, six years in the future – it’s not as critical for the budget to be as precise.

For projects in which public art is part of the design process, Gosselin explained that the public art budget would be incorporated into a project’s construction contract, which would require city council approval. But if the artwork is conceived of as a standalone piece, it might have its own separate budget, with separate council approval.

Hupy described two approval thresholds: (1) when a capital project is approved, with an estimated budget; and (2) when a specific construction contract is approved for that project. “That is where the final release of money comes from,” he said.

John Kotarski wondered whether it would be appropriate to suggest a specific genre of public art when AAPAC recommends an enhancement – like a mural or street stamping. Hupy replied that it depends on the timeframe. A more general suggestion would work for projects that are in Year 6 of the CIP, he said. But for projects that are closer to being built – in Years 1 or 2 – then AAPAC should be more specific about what it would like to do and how much it would cost.

Seagraves then presented four projects from the CIP from fiscal 2016 and beyond that he had identified as having potential for public art enhancements. The budgets in the CIP do not yet include amounts for public art:

• Farmers Market enclosure ($90,000). Possible public art incorporated into design.
• Stadium Boulevard reconstruction from Hutchins to Kipke, including sidewalks ($3.84 million). Possible artwork on new retaining wall.
• Springwater subdivision street reconstruction ($2.18 million). Possible standalone artwork.
• Annual sidewalk repair program, citywide ($9 million): Possible sidewalk stamps.

Seagraves plans to meet with managers for these projects, to get more details about what the projects will entail.

Ashlee Arder clarified with Gosselin that any public art budget would be added to these existing budgets. Gosselin noted that some capital projects might have multiple funding sources, which means that public art enhancements might also draw from multiple funding sources. Hupy cautioned that some projects have a funding “twist” in that they might be funded in part with federal, state or county dollars. “And they will say no to art – that’s not their purpose,” he said.

Gosselin noted that capital projects for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission are now being listed in the city’s CIP. The AAHC has several large projects on the horizon, and Gosselin reported that AAHC director Jennifer Hall had made a point of saying she’d welcome public art added to those, if possible. This might be a case where AAPAC could solicit private funding for a project, Gosselin said. [For background on the AAHC effort, see Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."]

South State Roundabout

On the agenda was an item to approve the budget for a public art project at the roundabout at South State Street and Ellsworth. The proposed budget was between $70,000 to $100,000 using funds that remain from the now-defunct Percent for Art program, tied to street projects. [.pdf of roundabout public art proposal]

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

This project had been previously approved but then suspended by AAPAC several months ago, because commissioners had wanted to coordinate it with the city’s South State Street corridor plan. [By way of background, both the planning commission and city council subsequently approved the South State Street corridor plan to be added to the city's master plan. The council took that action on June 15, 2013.]

Connie Brown said she didn’t feel like she could make a decision on this project right now. She wanted to evaluate it in concert with other projects that AAPAC is considering, rather than take a piecemeal approach. Because AAPAC would be looking at long-term projects in the CIP, Brown proposed holding off on a decision about the roundabout until the broader context was clearer.

John Kotarski said he tended to agree with Brown, but he thought that it might take a longer time to put together the broader context. He said he felt comfortable moving forward with this project, because the proposal contained the level of detail that he had asked for. He thought AAPAC should start moving forward with some of these projects.

Commissioners discussed whether they could reverse their decision, if they approved it now but later decided that there were other projects that should take priority.

Brown wondered what the impetus was for doing it now. Bob Miller replied that it was brought to AAPAC as a project and it was “smiled upon.” Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, pointed out that construction of the roundabout was finished, and it’s “not going to pick up and move anywhere in the next six months or six years.” He indicated that AAPAC could take some time to make a decision.

Marsha Chamberlin weighed in, saying that if AAPAC takes two or three months to develop its prioritization matrix, modeled after the CIP matrix, then they’ll have a more objective, defensible way of approaching the selection of projects.

After further discussion, Kotarski moved to table the roundabout item until AAPAC’s February 2014 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to table the item until their February 2014 meeting.

Grant for Arbor Oaks Public Art

Commissioners were asked to approve the application of a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan. It would fund a public art project in the Arbor Oaks/Bryant neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s southeast side. [.pdf of draft grant proposal]

Marsha Chamberlin.

By way of background, at AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved setting up an exploratory task force for possible artwork in the Arbor Oaks Park, located in the Bryant neighborhood on the city’s southeast side. [.pdf of Arbor Oaks intake form] Task force members include public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Nick Zagar; Derek Miller, deputy director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN); and CAN board member David Jones, as well as local residents.

The task force has met twice. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the ideas being discussed all focus on having some kind of community project with a lot of involvement from residents, similar to the approach taken for the mural in Allmendinger Park.

The problem, he noted, is funding. There is currently no clear funding source from the city, but a grant is available from the community foundation. The deadline to apply is Nov. 15.

Marsha Chamberlin expressed some concern about the time it would take to write the grant application. She noted that Seagraves was being asked to do a lot, and his position is only part-time. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, indicated that the Arbor Oaks project was a very valuable investment in a part of the community that some people view as underserved.

Chamberlin replied that she wasn’t against the project, but she wanted commissioners to be aware of how Seagraves is allocating his time. Hupy suggested that other city staff could help Seagraves complete the application.

Responding to a query from Connie Brown, Seagraves reported that no matching funds are required from AAPAC.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve application for the $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan.

AAPAC Retreat

Ashlee Arder, who was appointed to AAPAC in March of 2013, put forward a proposal to schedule a retreat. The purpose would be to create a forum for commissioners to get to know each other better, as well as to discuss the creation of AAPAC’s annual plan.

John Kotarski and Ashlee Arder.

Commissioners were supportive of this proposal. The discussion focused on whether to have a facilitator and how formal it should be. Arder said she’d conceived it to be relatively informal, but she could see the advantage of having a facilitator. This idea is to share each commissioner’s skill sets and personal interests, and tie those into the goals of AAPAC. “Let’s get together and figure out what we’re doing and who we are,” she said.

There was also discussion about a venue, with Arder advocating to hold it at a location other than AAPAC’s usual meeting spot – which is a basement conference room at city hall. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, reminded commissioners that the retreat would need to be posted and held in a place that’s accessible to the public, in order to comply with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to set a retreat for Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 4:30 p.m. at a location to be determined.

Outreach Committee

Ashlee Arder also proposed creating a community engagement committee to develop strategies for program participation, resident input and public art education.

John Kotarski contended that AAPAC already has an outreach committee that was created at AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting. Some commissioners, including Arder, Connie Brown and Marsha Chamberlin, said they didn’t realize such a committee existed. [According to both the minutes of that meeting and The Chronicle's report, commissioners on June 26 voted to appoint Kotarski to the role of community outreach and engagement, and Chamberlin to the role of media relations. From The Chronicle's report: "During the June 26 meeting, commissioners also voted on appointments related to outreach – making John Kotarski responsible for community outreach and engagement, and Marsha Chamberlin for media relations. Those roles were not defined, and do not appear to be connected to existing AAPAC committees."]

Kotarski urged Arder to join the outreach committee, and asked her to withdraw her resolution. She agreed, and talked about the kind of work she hoped to do, which in part involves bringing together a “curated team” from different sectors of the community to develop ideas for fostering public art as well as the broader creative sector. She intends to bring forward a formal proposal about this effort at a future meeting.

Outcome: Arder withdrew her resolution to create a community engagement committee.

Project Updates

Several other projects were discussed briefly during the Oct. 23 meeting, by way of updates. These projects were either already in progress when the city council temporarily halted spending on public art late last year, or don’t use Percent for Art funds. Here are some highlights.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin gave an update on a community project called Canoe Imagine Art. At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to participate in the project, but did not commit to providing any funding at that time. On Sept. 25, commissioners voted to contribute $10,000 to the project. [.pdf of project intake form]

The project will use 30 old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which 10 artists and 20 community groups will turn into artwork that will be displayed throughout the downtown in 2014. Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council.

On Oct. 23, Chamberlin reported that the city attorney’s office had requested that she stop promoting the project until a legal review is completed of the application process for artists. She expressed some frustration that the project’s momentum had come to a “screeching halt.”

As of Nov. 11, the project’s website includes this notice:

Submissions temporarily on hold
Do not use this site to submit a proposal for Canoe Imagine Art. Applications are on hold awaiting resolution by the City of Ann Arbor as to the best way to handle submissions to Canoe Imagine Art. If you plan to submit, enter your email below and we will notify you as to how to submit a proposal.

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

Two finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades are Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland and Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass. came to town on Oct. 17 to present their conceptual designs to the selection task force and the public at city hall. The presentations were recorded by Community Television Network, and include feedback from the task force. [link to Rosen-Queralt CTN presentation] [link to Harries & Heder CTN presentation]

Rosen-Queralt is proposing artistic embellishments on the bridge railing, as well as a drinking fountain with similar embellishments. The proposal by Harries and Heder is called a “bucket cascade,” and would involve an interactive feature that allows people to operate pumps – using a pedal device on the bridge – that would draw up water from Argo Cascades and send it cascading back into the river.

Rendering of Bucket Cascades proposal by Mags Harries and Lajos Heder.

Rendering of proposal by Jann Rosen-Queralt for Argo Cascades bridge.

Task force members are John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Saam, Margaret Parker, Cathy Fleisher, Bonnie Greenspoon, Julie Grand, and Colin Smith. The project has a budget of $150,000.

There is currently a survey posted on A2 Open City Hall to solicit additional input.

Seagraves reported that John Kotarski and Bob Miller will be attending the meetings of other city boards and commissions to make presentations about these two proposals and to get feedback. The task force will then make a recommendation to AAPAC, which will in turn make a recommendation to the city council.

Marsha Chamberlin wondered how much difference it makes to do the kind of outreach that Kotarski and Miller are undertaking. They made a similar effort before the task force made a recommendation for the artwork at the East Stadium bridges.

Connie Brown explained that there’s a broader purpose – to help people understand the process, and to create opportunities to engage others in the city’s public art program. Kotarski recalled that when he and Miller attended a Ward 2 meeting, it started out fairly confrontational. But by the end, residents seemed to better understand the process and support it. He said the outreach will help enhance and support the task force’s decision.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

In early August, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery, who subsequently revised her proposal. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. A conference call with the artist was held on Sept. 6 with panel members to discuss the proposal. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The new design incorporates glass paneled louvers with tree images in three locations on and under the bridge, to connect the locations thematically. Widgery is still revising her design, according to Seagraves. It would need to be reviewed by AAPAC and get final approval by the city council.

Project Updates: Bike Share Program

Ashlee Arder reported that she’ll be working with the Clean Energy Coalition, the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to figure out how to incorporate an artistic element into the city’s new bike share stations. The CEC is managing the bike share program, with a targeted launch of April 2014.

Arder said she was hoping to learn more about the bike community, and to develop some partnerships for this project. In addition to bike stations on UM’s campus, potential stations in Ann Arbor could be located at: (1) Ashley & Liberty; (2) Fifth Avenue & Library Lane; (3) Liberty & Division; (4) Kerrytown, at Detroit & Fifth: and (5) South State & Hoover.

Project Updates: First & Kingsley Rain Garden

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden, to be located at the southeast corner of First & Kingsley. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget] Wiener is continuing to finalize designs, for installation in the spring.

The Denver artist is working with landscapers to incorporate public art into a new rain garden at that location, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

His proposal is for sculptures showing the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. The largest sculpture will be just under 8 feet tall, 20 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. Two of the fish will be large enough to serve as benches.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

Marsha Chamberlin gave a brief update on the memorial for Coleman Jewett. [.pdf of Jewett memorial intake form]

At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to accept developing the memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project. The original proposal was for a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs.

A memorandum of understanding has been negotiated between the Jewett family, the city, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as a fiduciary for fundraising. The plan now calls for two full-sized replicas in bronze, at an estimated cost of $15,000 each.

The total budget is estimated to be $30,000 to $35,000. At AAPAC’s Sept. 25, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to allocate $5,000 of AAPAC funds to help kick off the additional fundraising.

On Oct. 23, Chamberlin reported that she’d be going to the Ann Arbor farmers market on Saturday to meet with vendors and describe the project to them. Each stall would also be given a donation envelope, she said, in the hopes of raising funds from vendors for the project.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Devon Akmon, Malverne Winborne.

Next meeting: Instead of its regular monthly meeting, AAPAC has scheduled a retreat for Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. at a location to be determined. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The point is to review the selection of projects for the commission’s annual plan, as well as to help build rapport among commissioners. Three new commissioners have joined AAPAC this year: Devon Akmon, Ashlee Arder, and Nick Zagar. The retreat will be held in place of the commission’s regular Nov. 27 meeting, which has been canceled. Update: The Nov. 20 retreat was subsequently canceled, as was AAPAC’s Nov. 27 regular meeting.

This brief was filed from the basement conference at city hall, 301 E. Huron, where the public art commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Top: Example of a cross-lot walkway, leading from street to school. Middle: Sidewalk that was cut flush funded by the city’s sidewalk repair millage. Bottom: Recommended detention ponds in Eisenhower Park near the proposed Scio Church sidewalk.

Yet these existing and future slabs of concrete are themselves a constant topic of confusion and controversy: Who’s responsible for repairing the busted slab in front my house? Who’s supposed to shovel snow off the sidewalk in the winter?

Sidewalks also connect up to other equally important if also dull components of local governance – like stormwater management and public art.

So here’s a quick rundown of some specific sidewalk-related issues that the Ann Arbor city council will be considering.

The council’s agenda for Monday, Oct. 7, includes an item on the definition of sidewalks. If an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The Oct. 7 agenda item focuses on walkways that aren’t really on the “side” of anything – walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. If such walkways were added into the definition of “sidewalk” – as the city council is contemplating – then the city would be responsible for repair. That’s a result welcomed by property owners. But it would put the burden for snow removal on those property owners – a less welcome result. That was the sentiment that led the council to postpone final consideration of a change to the definition of “sidewalk” three months ago, on July 1, 2013.

So on Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a different approach to that definitional change – one that would allow the so-called “cross-lot” paved pathways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

The fresh look would mean that the council’s possible action on Oct. 7 would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change. Final enactment of the change would require a second vote at a subsequent council meeting. If approved, the ordinance would allow cross-lot paths to be repaired under the city’s sidewalk repair program – funded through the five-year millage approved by Ann Arbor voters in November 2011. That program is noticeable to residents in the form of pink markings that appear on sidewalk slabs – an “R” for replace and a “C” for cutting an out-of-alignment section so that it lines up flush with the next slab.

The millage can pay for repair or replacement of existing slabs of sidewalks, but not for the construction of new sidewalks. So that millage money isn’t available to build a new stretch of sidewalk along the south side of Scio Church Road (or to fill in a smaller gap on the north side) – a section of sidewalk that residents have petitioned the city to build. The petition for a sidewalk there is based on several considerations, including a desire to connect to amenities west of I-94, like the Ice Cube, Wide World of Sports and the Ann Arbor District Library’s Pittsfield branch. It’s also seen as a pedestrian safety issue, because the lack of a sidewalk on one side of the road could induce pedestrians to cross the road at places where motorists don’t expect pedestrians to cross.

The city council authorized $15,000 of general fund money for the study of alternatives along that stretch – alternatives that were presented at a meeting held on Sept. 18 at Lawton Elementary School and attended by about two dozen people. Next up for the city council, likely on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Among the alternatives that were considered, but not pursued in much detail, was construction of a pathway through Eisenhower Park. That’s where the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is now recommending that a pair of detention ponds be constructed – to help mitigate overland flooding in the area. That recommendation was presented to a group of about 80 neighbors on Sept. 30 – also held at Lawton Elementary School.

And a fence that that might need to be constructed along the proposed Scio Church sidewalk – to prevent people from falling down the steep incline – received a glancing mention at a recent meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission. A proposal to fund a public art project that would be integrated into the fence was tabled by the commission at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

Cross-lot Sidewalks

The city council had given initial consideration to the change in the definition of a sidewalk at its June 3, 2013 meeting. When the final decision came before the council on July 1, 2013, councilmembers heard from residents like John Ohanian and Miranda Wellborn Eleazar, whose properties abut cross-lot walkways.

Under the ordinance change the council considered that evening, the city’s sidewalk repair millage could be used to fix any defects in the slabs – but Ohanian and Wellborn Eleazar would have to shovel the walkway during the winter. That concern led to a postponement by the council until Oct. 7.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

This is the cross-lot path that the Eleazars would become responsible for shoveling, if the change to the definition of sidewalk is adopted.

The cross-lot path that leads from Roon the Ben in the Turnberry neighborhood to the ballfields for Scarlett-Mitchell schools. A pending ordinance change could eventually place responsibility for capital repairs on the city, but give adjacent property owners the responsibility of shoveling snow.

On Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a revised approach to these cross-lot walkways. The ordinance would still be changed to include them in the definition of a “sidewalk” – so repairs could be paid for with sidewalk millage money. But the ordinance change would not assign responsibility for snow clearance to the adjacent property owners. The staff memo accompanying the Oct. 7 ordinance proposal estimates that the total city cost for repairs and snow clearance for 34 cross-lot walkways would be $7,000 – $5,100 for plowing and $1,900 for repair.

The 34 cross-lot walkways that would be affected by the ordinance change would need to be accepted by the city for public use, in order for the ordinance language to apply. That’s a companion resolution the council will also need to approve.

Because the change to the ordinance is substantively different from the approach the council had previously given initial approval, any action taken on Oct. 7 by the council would be considered another initial approval, according to the staff memo. For the ordinance change to be enacted, it would need a second, final vote by the council at a subsequent meeting.

Construction of New Sidewalks

As part of the current fiscal year 2014 budget approved on May 20, 2013, the city council included $75,000 for a sidewalk gap prioritization study.

But before and after the adoption of the budget, the city council approved money related to specific gaps – for an alternative study or actual design work. The council has made such allocations on three occasions in the last year, starting on Nov. 19, 2012. That’s when the council approved $15,000 for an alternatives analysis of a stretch along Scio Church Road, west of Seventh Street and east of I-94.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Residents who live on and near Scio Church had submitted a petition asking for the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of the road. That petition prompted the city council allocation of money for an alternatives analysis.

For some of the other specific sidewalk projects, the council allocated a design budget. For Scio Church Road, the alternatives analysis comes first, because the design won’t be straightforward – due to the physical challenges involved, related to the sloping terrain.

In fact, those physical challenges were cited by city senior project manager Liz Rolla at the Sept. 18 Lawton Elementary School meeting as one possible reason why the sidewalk gaps exist along that stretch. One resident, who described herself as new to the area, asked for a nutshell explanation of why, on the south side of the road, there’s a sidewalk heading west until halfway between Delaware and Churchill, “and then there’s nothing.”

In addition to the physical challenges, Rolla ventured that when the sidewalks were constructed, the perceived need for pedestrians to go west all the way to I-94 and beyond was not as great. Facilities like the Ann Arbor Ice Cube, Wide World Sports Center and the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, she said, were from her perspective relatively new – but for her kids, they seem like they’d been there forever. Those facilities create a need for pedestrian travel westward.

One resident at the meeting traced the problem to the city’s failure to install proper sidewalks when the land was annexed from Pittsfield Township, citing the city’s requirements that regulate how public sidewalks and driveway entrances are constructed. He was reluctant to see just the gap on the south side of Scio Church addressed, reasoning that the city should provide sidewalks on both sides of the street.

An outcome of the Sept. 18 meeting is that the staff will request that the city council provide money for a design budget – for both sides of Scio Church, including the shorter gap on the north side of the street. That request is supposed to be on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda, according to the staff summary of the meeting. [.pdf of Sept. 18, 2013 staff summary of Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting]

The sentiment of the attendees at the Sept. 18 meeting was that – while they very much wanted to see sidewalks constructed to eliminate the gap – they were reluctant to see what they viewed as unreasonable costs imposed on adjacent property owners, who would bear some of the project’s cost. That cost is typically imposed by the city through a special assessment of properties that front the sidewalk. Because much of the south side of Scio Church, where the proposed sidewalk would be constructed, is adjacent to city parkland or the rear of cul-de-sacs, few property owners would be special assessed.

Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting on Sept. 18, 2013.

One resident who attended the Sept. 18 meeting, and whose property would be special assessed, indicated he had not signed the petition, nor had he known about it: “The funding of this is a very, very big deal to me,” he said. “This is money that I’m hoping that my son can use to go to college. A portion of that would have to go to this project if this property is assessed.”

Rolla and city engineer Nick Hutchinson, who also attended the meeting, stressed throughout the discussion that the numbers they’d provided should not be seen as the amounts that residents would have to pay – because the estimates were only very rough, and not all elements of the project would be subject to special assessment. Retaining walls, for example, would likely not be assessed, Hutchison indicated.

Another factor reducing the potential burden to local property owners is the possibility that federal surface transportation funds could be used to offset part of the cost. But Hutchinson stressed that even if the city was successful in obtaining such federal funds – which are administered through the state of Michigan – a 20% local match would still be required.

Residents at the meeting appeared sensitive to the potential financial burden that just a few residents might have to bear. The resident who had organized the petition to the city reported that he got the feeling from talking to the neighborhood that there are ways to share the burden of the assessment – either formal or informal ways among those who wouldn’t ordinarily be special-assessed. Speaking for himself, he said, “I’m eager to do it.” Another resident chimed in, quickly: “I was just going say the same thing. I am perfectly willing to chip in,” she said. “I definitely want sidewalks,” she continued. “Me, too!” added another. “Yes, I am in favor of that as well,” another resident said.

Rolla told attendees that the preliminary conversation with the city attorney’s office had indicated that a formal arrangement of those neighbors – people contributing to the sidewalk who wouldn’t ordinarily be specially assessed – would best be done through a single point of contact for a group of property owners, like a neighborhood association.

The dollar figures that residents reacted to were the following for the three numbered alternatives – as the option of building a pathway through Eisenhower Park wasn’t pursued in any detail. Even the staff’s preliminary consideration led to the conclusion that the park path option would be cost prohibitive.

0. Build Path through Park
   Challenges: Slope issues (Americans with Disabilities Act); it would require removal of many
   trees; it’s isolated with no streetlights; requires crossing of creek.
   Cost: Cost prohibitive. Not pursued.
1. Pedestrian Crossing Island near Churchill
   Estimated cost: $56,000
   Funding mechanism: In the past, pedestrian islands have been funded in conjunction with major road reconstruction projects, safety funds, street millage, MDOT. Not specially assessed to residents.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: City of Ann Arbor
2. Fill-in North Side Gap
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 370 feet long, with estimated cost of $90,000, which means about $245 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, this type of project is funded by special assessment to fronting properties or installed by the property owner.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property that fronts the sidewalk.
3. Extend South Sidewalk to Maple
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal, replacement of guardrail, addition of curb and gutter and fence.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 2,000 feet long, with estimated cost of $360,000, which is about $180 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, special assessment has been used, but only a few of the properties along the stretch could be special assessed, as the rear of cul-de-sacs would not be subject to the assessment. Federal surface transportation funds could be used, requiring a 20% local match.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property fronting the sidewalk (corner lots). This does not include cul-de-sac lots with no connection to the sidewalk. The city would plow the sidewalk where no other adjacent property owner is responsible

Next up for the city council, on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Detention Ponds, Art

The project extending the Scio Church sidewalk to Maple Road includes a fence – to keep pedestrians from falling down the embankment. That fence was the subject of deliberations by the Ann Arbor public art commission at its  Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

The art commission tabled the proposal. [.pdf of AAPAC's intake form for the Scio Church fence] Typically the city would, at this kind of site, install a standard kind of chain link fence. But Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – had previously told the public art commission that there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wanted to explore that possibility. The AAPAC budget for the tabled fence enhancement was recommended to be between $40,000 and $80,000 from the remaining Percent for Art street funds.

Those funds won’t be replenished after they’re spent, because the city has ended the Percent for Art approach to funding public art. In the future, public art funding will come from partnerships, fundraising and any money that the city council allocates to “enhance” capital projects. The remaining Percent for Art funds are supposed to be spent on projects that are tied thematically or physically to the funds of origin.

Although the Scio Church fence art project was tabled on Sept. 25, the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, told art commissioners he could put together a more detailed proposal for AAPAC’s October meeting.

The end of the sidewalk near Maple, where the fence and a guardrail would need to be reconstructed, received comment at the Lawton Elementary School meeting of Sept. 18 – in connection with a pair of potential detention ponds in the adjacent Eisenhower Park. The Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is recommending that the ponds be constructed there as part of recommendations for mitigating flooding in the area.

At the Sept. 18 meeting, one resident suggested that the earth that would need to be excavated to create the detention ponds could be used to help soften the angle of the slope from Scio Church Road down into the park, possibly helping to meet the challenge of sidewalk construction there. The same resident expressed desire for the sidewalk construction to be coordinated with the detention pond construction, so that the city does not construct a new sidewalk, fence and guardrail, and then tear it out to gain access to Eisenhower Park for the detention pond project.

While the sidewalk construction project could be undertaken in late 2014, the detention pond probably entails a longer timeline. The final report from the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study isn’t due until early 2014. And from that point, the recommendations would need to be adopted into the city’s capital improvements plan, which is the purview of the city planning commission. And after that, the city council would need to decide whether to approve funding allocations for any or all of the recommended projects. [For previous coverage of that project, see: "County Gets Info on Flooding, Shares Options"]

Those recommendations, however, have been developed and modeled. They were unveiled at a meeting on Sept. 30, 2013 – also held at Lawton Elementary School. Although the three proposed stormwater facilities were described as “alternatives,” project manager Harry Sheehan, who’s managing the project in the water resources commissioner’s office, indicated that all three projects are being recommended:

Proposed Pioneer High School detention pond. Cost estimate: $1.2 million. Surface area: 2.8 acres. Total volume: 400,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Lawton detention pond. Cost estimate: $5.15 million. Surface area: 1.1 acres. Total volume: 280,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Eisenhower Park detention ponds. Cost estimate: $2.1 million. Surface area: 2.5 acres. Total volume: 470,000 cubic feet.

At the Sept. 30 meeting, the effect of each project on the mitigation of flooding was presented as modeled for the March 15, 2012 storm, which had resulted in significant overland flooding in the Landsdowne neighborhood.

In the animated .gif below, which loops continuously, the first frame indicates the March 15, 2012 flooded areas in black. The next three frames show the modeled cumulative effect of adding each of the proposed stormwater detention facilities. That is, the maps show what the flooding would have been like, if the proposed stormwater detention facilities had been in place on March 15, 2012.

Maps by Spicer Group, the engineering consultant for the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study. Scans and animation by The Chronicle.

The Chronicle is like a sidewalk – because we can’t survive without concrete (financial) support. The kind of support we hope you’ll provide is through voluntary subscriptions. Those voluntary subscriptions support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!