Susan Froelich, the new president of the Ann Arbor-based Arts Alliance, at the March 1, 2011 meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission. She was appointed in late February and replaces former president Tamara Real, who resigned last year. (Photo by the writer.)

Froelich – who was a member and former chair of AAPAC’s predecessor group, the commission for art in public places – told commissioners she was just there to say hello, and that the alliance looked forward to working with AAPAC. She passed out bookmarks promoting the A3Arts web portal, which launched last year and features profiles of artists and institutions in the area, along with an events calendar and other information. Finally, Froelich thanked commissioners for their work.

During the meeting, commissioners approved spending up to $2,000 to get an evaluation of the damaged Sun Dragon at Fuller Pool, and to secure a cost estimate for repair or replacement. Margaret Parker, an AAPAC member and the artist who originally designed the colored-plexiglas sculpture, recused herself from that discussion.

Commissioners also discussed a draft of an artist evaluation rubric and interview protocol, and debated whether local artists should be given extra points in the process. Also debated was the definition of local – they plan to continue the discussion at their next meeting.

Nomination forms for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards are now available from AAPAC’s website, with a May 2 deadline for submission. The awards are given to individuals and institutions for their contributions to public art in Ann Arbor.

Scheduling came up in several different ways. A special meeting has been called to vote on site recommendations from AAPAC’s mural task force. That meeting is set for Friday, March 11 at 11 a.m. on the seventh floor of the City Center building at Fifth and Huron. Commissioners also discussed possibly changing their monthly meeting day. It’s now set for the first Tuesday of each month at 4:30 p.m., but two commissioners have scheduling conflicts at that time. AAPAC’s newest member, Malverne Winborne, reported that he’d told mayor John Hieftje prior to his nomination that the meeting day would be difficult for him, but that had not been communicated to the rest of the commission.

Updates: Arts Administrator, Golden Paintbrush, CTN

The meeting included updates on a range of topics. Marsha Chamberlin reported that the city had received about 20 applications for the part-time public art administrator job. They’ll be setting up an interview panel, and meeting in mid-March to review applications and select candidates to interview.

Margaret Parker pointed out that nominations are being solicited for the city’s Golden Paintbrush awards, given annually to recognizing contributions to art in public places. Winners in 2010 were Abracadabra Jewelry on East Liberty, the University of Michigan Health System, and Tamara Real, former president of the Arts Alliance. Nomination forms are available on AAPAC’s website. [.pdf of the two-page nomination form] The deadline for applications is May 2, and winners are announced in June.

Commissioners also discussed an interview that was set to be taped the following day for “Other Perspectives,” a local talk show hosted by Nancy Kaplan and aired on Community Television Network’s Channel 17. [The show does not have a regular time slot – schedules are available on CTN's website.]

“This was dropped in our laps rather unexpectedly after the last commission meeting,” Chamberlin said. She indicated that Kaplan had asked for two commissioners, and the consensus was that Jeff Meyers and Cheryl Zuellig would be interviewed – Meyers because of the mural program he’s leading, and Zuellig because of her background in landscape architecture, allowing her to speak about the role of public art in different environments.

Zuellig said her only concern is that she and Meyers are relatively new commissioners – she joined in 2008, and Meyers was appointed last year. She wondered whether Chamberlin or Parker, who’ve both been involved with the commission since its early days, would be better suited to field questions about AAPAC’s history, given their institutional knowledge.

Parker replied that Zuellig and Meyers would be well-suited to discuss recent projects, indicating that the focus should be on that, including the tree sculptures at West Park and the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture being installed at the new municipal center building. Parker offered to be the backup, if either Zuellig or Meyers couldn’t make it.

[In response to a follow-up email from The Chronicle on March 7, Kaplan said the interview took place with Meyers and Zuellig, but that the air times haven't yet been scheduled.]

Projects: Fuller Road Station, Artist Selection, Sun Dragon

As chair of the projects committee, Connie Brown gave updates on three items: (1) a task force for public art at the proposed Fuller Road Station; (2) protocols for artist selection and interviews; and (3) repair of the Sun Dragon sculpture at Fuller Pool.

Projects: Fuller Road Station

Brown reported that the public art task force for Fuller Road Station held its first meeting on Feb. 17. The project is a large parking structure and bus depot jointly funded by the University of Michigan/city of Ann Arbor, and located on Fuller Road, near the UM medical complex. Eventually, it might include a rail station as well. Ann Arbor city council has not yet officially approved the project, though it has awarded funding for a preliminary design phase.

The task force got a project overview at their meeting, Brown said, and looked at architectural drawings to see how the public art component fits in with the project’s different phases. Brown said that at their next task force meeting they’ll discuss a process for how to proceed with the public art component, which has a budget of $250,000. The project’s architects have already identified locations for public art within the structure, as well as the kind of art they’d like. [Originally, they had indicated the art would be large fritted glass panels with images imprinted on them of bikes, buses and trains. That was later altered to have the images inserted between two panels of laminated glass.]

Brown said that part of the task force’s conversation was whether the artwork identified for the project met AAPAC’s criteria.

Projects: Protocols for Artist Selection, Interviews

Malverne Winborne, a member of the projects committee, told commissioners he had drafted an artist evaluation rubric and interview protocol with the intent to “objectify our subjectivity.” He asked for their feedback – in particular, he wanted to know whether any preference should be given to local artists.

The artist selection criteria consisted of 10 items, each evaluated on a scale of 0 (did not meet the requirement) to 2 (exceeded the requirement):

1. Quality of presentation and artistic merit.
2. Technical abilities.
3. Strength of past artworks.
4. Proven ability to work effectively with the community.
5. Proven ability to work effectively as a team member within an architectural context.
6. Experience working in public settings.
7. Experience fabricating and installing permanent artwork working in public settings.
8. Reflects the city’s commitment to diversity and cultural richness.
9. Suitable for the site policies.
10. Local artist.

The category of local artist would be scored with yes (2 points) or no (0 points) in the selection criteria.

Winborne proposed six categories for the artist interview protocol, each ranked from 1 (poor) to 4 (superior). In addition, each category was given a weighted percentage:

1. Statement of understanding of the site and its constraints (10%)
2. Ability to translate and create (50%)
3. Willingness/ability to work collaboratively (15%)
4. Effective work style/plan (15%)
5. Previous experience (10%)
6. Local artist (10% bonus points)

Winborne said it’s set up so that it wouldn’t exclude local artists, but that you’d get extra points if you are from this area. Margaret Parker pointed out that the preference for a local artist also could be incorporated into the call for art – either the request for qualifications (RFQ) or request for proposals (RFP).

Elaine Sims asked what “local” means – just Ann Arbor? Or would it indicate someone from the region or state? Winborne said that’s something for AAPAC to define. Given that AAPAC projects are funded through the city’s Percent for Art program, which is funded by Ann Arbor taxpayers, then defining “local” as “Ann Arbor” might make sense, he said.

Connie Brown was concerned that limiting it to Ann Arbor residents was too narrow. There’s a difference between appreciating local artists and being insular, she said. A lot of artists live only 15-20 minutes away, but are outside of Washtenaw County.

Cheryl Zuellig said that for her, considering the funding source was compelling. She suggested either going with Ann Arbor, or broadening the definition to include the entire state.

Winborne said another possibility would be to decrease the weighted percentage to 5% or 2% – or even “1% for public art!” he joked. That way, if a local artist isn’t superior, it won’t make much of a difference in the selection process. But if there are two artists of equal quality, he said, “I think we should give it to the local person.”

Commissioners also discussed the importance of assessing an artist’s technical abilities. Parker noted that in the past, they’ve selected artists who later changed their designs – in some cases, those design changes weren’t within the artist’s capability to execute, resulting in things like improper welds that later rusted. Zuellig suggested adding something specifically to the interview protocol that would allow an artist to talk about their technical skills – that could be illuminating, she said.

Winborne wondered how they’d handle the situation in which an artist doesn’t actually fabricate the work. [This is the case for the artwork designed by Herbert Dreiseitl for the municipal center – the city is hiring other contractors to build the sculpture.] Sims thought that even if the artist doesn’t build the artwork themselves, they’d have a relationship with a fabricator. “If someone’s pretty iffy on that kind of stuff, that’s a red flag,” she said.

Winborne said the topic seemed important, and offered to work with Parker to modify the interview protocol, incoporating an item on technical skills. He suggested that commissioners email him with other suggestions, and he’d deliver a new draft to them before their April meeting.

Projects: Sun Dragon

As she has in the past, Margaret Parker recused herself from deliberations regarding the Sun Dragon – a work of hers that was commissioned by the city and installed at Fuller Pool. She left the room for the duration of the discussion.

By way of background, the Sun Dragon – a sculpture made of colored plexiglas that’s attached to a beam holding Fuller Pool’s solar-heated shower – has been a topic of discussion for several months. It had been damaged last spring by workers during repair of a beam that supported the piece. In July 2010, AAPAC voted to allocate nearly $7,000 in funds to repair the piece, to be taken out of an endowed maintenance fund for public art. [Because the Sun Dragon was created prior to the 2007 city council resolution that established the Percent for Art program, the Percent for Art funds can't be used to repair it.]

Commissioners later learned that only about $2,000 from the endowed fund was available for use, and wouldn’t cover the cost of repair. Subsequently, at AAPAC’s November 2010 meeting, another option was offered by Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

McCormick had suggested that the Sun Dragon be considered as an “asset renewal” – that is, it could come to AAPAC as a new project. That way, AAPAC could fund it under the Percent for Art program, treating it just like any other proposal. McCormick had said it could be paid for out of the parks or water funds. According to a budget summary distributed to commissioners, there is $16,408 available for public art from the parks millage, and $115,164 from the water fund.

One commissioner jokingly referred to it as “creative financing,” and another quipped that they shouldn’t ask too many questions about it. Cheryl Zuellig clarified that as a new project, they would start by creating an intake form for it – it would then be handled by the projects committee. Jeff Meyers expressed concern about opening the door for other projects like this.

There was some discussion about what exactly the Percent for Art program could pay for – could it also cover the cost of the structural beam at Fuller Pool, even though that beam would need to be in place regardless of the public art installed on it? Parker said she would check with McCormick about that.

At AAPAC’s March 2011 meeting, Brown reported that Parker had filled out a project intake form, and they’d be treating it like a new project. She said it was worth noting that the Sun Dragon is an important piece of art and that people have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it.

Brown presented a proposal to allocate $1,500 to pay a structural engineer and fabricator, who would evaluate the piece and the structure that supports it, and make a recommendation to AAPAC about what should be done to repair it. After that, she said, they can get a quote from the fabricator, and figure out which city unit should pay for it – likely, it would be paid for out of the city’s parks and recreation budget.

Brown said she took a guess at the $1,500 cost – it might cost more for this initial step, she said.

Elaine Sims asked whether they’d already made the decision that the Sun Dragon is an asset worth repairing or replacing. [The other alternative would be to decommission the piece.] Brown said that the decision was make last year, when they voted to approve endowment funds for repair.

Sim said she had no problem approving funds for an evaluation, as long as they’d later have the chance to vote again, after a quote came back for the cost of repairs.

Venita Harrison, who works for McCormick, pointed out that the city employs structural engineers who might be available to evaluate the piece, rather than hiring an outside consultant. She offered to check on that possibility.

Brown again suggested that they might want to increase the amount earmarked for evaluating the project. It would make sense for a structural engineer, fabricator and the artist to work together to come up with a solution, she said. That way, they might also be able to come up with an estimated cost for repair or replacement.

Cheryl Zuellig noted that Parker’s intake form already included an estimate for replacing it: $9,306.80. [That amount includes a $500 artist fee, $4,000 for labor, $2,780 for materials and $2,360 for installation, plus a 6% tax of $166.80.] This project has already gone on too long, Zuellig said – they need some options so that they can make a final decision about it.

Sims expressed concern about moving ahead without a better idea of what the final cost would be. Brown pointed out that they couldn’t do that without an evaluation – and that wasn’t free.

Chamberlin proposed increasing the upper limit for the cost of getting an evaluation to $2,000, and requesting that the structural engineer, fabricator and artist deliver recommendations on how to repair or replace the Sun Dragon, along with a cost estimate for the work.

After further discussion and some collaborative wordsmithing, commissioners crafted a resolution to approve up to $2,000 to hire a city engineer to: (1) perform a structural evaluation of the Sun Dragon’s support system and the piece itself; (2) to determine if design alternations or changes in fabrication are needed for ease of maintenance; and (3) to provide design and fabrication cost estimates. A fabricator and the artist would be included in performing this evaluation.

Outcome: An initial vote resulted in approval from four commissioners – Sims did not vote, saying she still had reservations. When it was pointed out that four votes were insufficient to pass the resolution, Sims said she’d vote in favor of it.

Special Meeting, Monthly Meetings, Retreat

Three meeting-related items were on the March agenda: (1) Scheduling a special meeting to discuss AAPAC’s mural program; (2) scheduling a retreat, and (3) revisiting the monthly meeting schedule.

Jeff Meyers, who did not attend last week’s meeting, had been trying to schedule a special meeting for the mural program he’s leading, so that commissioners could vote to approve sites for the murals that have been recommended by a task force. But commissioners have been unable to reach a consensus about when to hold the special meeting. Elaine Sims expressed the sentiment that daytime meetings are difficult to attend, and requested that any meeting be held at the end of a business day.

[In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Meyers said the special meeting has been scheduled for Friday, March 11 at 11 a.m. on the seventh floor of the City Center building at Fifth and Huron.]

Also problematic for some commissioners is the regular monthly meeting time – the first Tuesday of the month, at 4:30 p.m. Meetings often begin late, as many commissioners have difficulty getting there by 4:30. And for two in particular – Meyers and Malverne Winborne, the newest commissioner who joined AAPAC late last year – the day of the week is an issue. Late last year, AAPAC moved its regular meetings from the second Tuesday to the first Tuesday of the month, hoping that it would be more convenient. But that day is actually more difficult for Meyers’ work schedule.

As for Winborne, he reported that before he accepted the appointment, he communicated to mayor John Hieftje that Tuesdays in general are difficult because he often has evening meetings scheduled with charter schools on that day. [Winborne is director of Eastern Michigan University’s Charter Schools Office. The mayor is responsible for nominating members to most city boards and commissions, with city council voting to approve those nominations.] Margaret Parker said no one communicated that information to AAPAC before Winborne was appointed.

When Winborne said that if it can’t be changed, one option would be for him to step down, other commissioners suggested it might be possible to find an alternative day. They decided to poll all members and try to find a better time for everyone.

Cheryl Zuellig pointed out that in general, it’s better to find a date that works for the regular monthly meetings than to schedule additional special meetings.

Commissioners also nailed down a date for a retreat: Thursday, March 31 at 5:30 p.m. Zuellig offered the conference room of her employer – JJR, at 110 Miller – as a location for the retreat. Until mid-2009, AAPAC held its regular monthly meetings at that spot, until concerns about public accessibility prompted them to move to the seventh floor of the City Center building at Fifth and Huron, where the city rents office space.

There was some discussion about whether Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit could facilitate the retreat, as she’s done in the past. Venita Harrison, a city management assistant who serves as a liaison for AAPAC to the city’s administration, said she would ask if Pulcipher is available.

Connie Brown asked if AAPAC would have access to the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which identifies major projects that the city intends to pursue. [At its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved the CIP for fiscal years 2012-2017.] Harrison pointed out that the council hasn’t approved the budget for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2011 – so it’s unclear which capital projects will be funded. [This is relevent to AAPAC because its projects are funded through the city's Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of the cost of any city-funded capital project to be used for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per project.]

Brown said that at some point, AAPAC needs to be able to identify upcoming projects so that they can get involved earlier in the process, rather than being on the tail end. Harrison replied that another difficulty is AAPAC’s timeline – the Percent for Art ordinance specifies that by April 1 the commission must submit to city council  ”a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year.” Harrison noted that this date doesn’t correspond to the city’s budget cycle. City council generally approves its budget in May.

Community Foundation Funds

Marsha Chamberlin reported that AAPAC had received a letter from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, notifying them about earnings that are available to spend from an endowment for public art maintenance that’s managed by the foundation. For the most recent year, earnings were $602. An additional $2,127 has previously accumulated and is also available for AAPAC’s use. The money is restricted to maintenance projects. Examples of past projects that have tapped those funds include repair of ceramic tile artwork at the Fourth & Washington parking structure.

When Chamberlin indicated that according to the letter they needed to respond by March 7, Margaret Parker said that in the past, the deadline has been flexible. She said that in past years, they simply haven’t responded to the letter.

Connie Brown, chair of the projects committee, reported that there are no maintenance projects in the pipeline so far this year. After some discussion, commissioners reached consensus for Chamberlin to contact the foundation and ask for some flexibility on the deadline.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Venita Harrison, city management assistant; Susan Froelich, Arts Alliance.

Absent: Cathy Gendron, Jeff Meyers.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 5 Wednesday, April 27 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date] Update: At a special meeting on Friday, March 11, AAPAC members decided to move their regular monthly meetings to the fourth Wednesday of each month, beginning April 27.

Before the meeting of the DDA board: Russ Collins and Keith Orr. Collins is not demonstrating to Orr how to snag a foul ball at a baseball game. (Photo by the writer.)

The program is currently in a transition year as the four-way partnership that supports it was reduced to three partners when the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce dropped out last year, citing financial pressures. That leaves the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor DDA as getDowntown funding partners.

In other business, the board approved the application of LEED certification for its underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue, currently under construction.

The board began a discussion on a payment-in-lieu program for required onsite parking (PILOP) for downtown developments.

The board also heard a pitch from Tamara Real for additional support for a web portal currently under development by the Arts Alliance.

getDowntown Funding

The main item reported out of the transportation committee from John Mouat was a resolution on the board’s agenda that called for three years of funding for getDowntown and the go!pass program – $445,672 for FY 2011; $488,054 for FY 2012; and $540,060 for FY 2013. The two-person getDowntown program staff consists of director Nancy Shore and employee services coordinator Moira Brannigan.

The go!pass is a bus pass, administered by the getDowntown program, that downtown employers can purchase for their employees for $5 a year. The go!pass allows the holder of the pass to ride all AATA buses without paying a fare upon boarding. The DDA pays the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority the cost of the rides. The bulk of the three-year funding request approved on Wednesday goes to the bus passes:

Request          2010-2011  2011-2012  2012-2013
DDA go!pass      $378,684   $438,566   $475,572
DDA getDowntown   $66,988    $49,488    $64,488
Total Request    $445,672   $488,054   $540,060

-
Mouat noted that the getDowntown program was now a decade old, and was thus well-established. There were plans to implement a swipeable go!pass, he said.

[Last year, the AATA installed fare boxes that are capable of processing swipeable cards. The University of Michigan MCards, which allow UM affiliates to ride AATA buses without paying a fare on boarding, already make use of the technology. Rides taken with go!pass cards are tracked as the MCards were previously – bus drivers manually record the ride in a particular category with a manual button press. Swiping cards allows the ride to be associated with a particular rider. It would eliminate the need to re-issue cards every year.]

Mouat drew the board’s attention to the graph showing go!pass usage over the years, which he quipped showed that their use had literally gone “off the charts”:

go!pass usage graph. (Image links to higher resolution graph)

The number of passes issued this year stands at 6,333, with 467 companies participating. Last year there were a total of 456,547 rides taken with the go!pass.

During deliberations, Jennifer S. Hall said she was glad to see the getDowntown program put on a three-year funding plan, because it added stability to the program.

Russ Collins noted that the 10 years of the program’s existence was actually something of concern to him. “We have a transportation authority [AATA],” he said, and he wondered why there was such reliance on the DDA. Leah Gunn’s explanation was that the program had started as a federal grant and that when it ran out, the DDA had taken up the slack. When Nancy Shore had come on board, Gunn said, the program had really taken off. Gunn stated that she did not think they were going to get money from the AATA for the program.

In terms of the overall budget, Mouat said, the dollar amounts were not all that large:

Allocation of the parking fund, which pays for the getDowntown program funding provided by the DDA – getDowntown and the go!pass come from the green slice.

Roger Hewitt called getDowntown a “great program” and said he supported it. But he wondered how many go!pass users would ride the bus anyway. He raised the question of whether the go!pass was shifting habits or if it amounted to a subsidy. He said he was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of a three-year commitment without some idea of the numbers.

Hewitt was making a familiar point. Back on Nov. 26, 2008 at the innaugural meeting of the DDA’s newly formed transportation committee, Hewitt had asked the same question. From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Those two programs (a bus pass program for downtown workers and downtown circulator buses) had been identified at the DDA annual retreat as part of an outcomes analysis of current transportation investments that needed to be undertaken. At the committee meeting, Hewitt said he wanted to know what the DDA’s funding of the go!pass program was actually accomplishing: subsidizing people who would ride the bus anyway (something he said he was not necessarily against), or causing people to ride the bus instead of driving their cars.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Nancy Shore told Hewitt that more than half of go!pass users had indicated in a survey that they thought they used the bus more as a result of the pass.

Hewitt came back around to the idea that he did not think it was necessarily bad if they were subsidizing bus use, but he thought the DDA needed to understand how much the subsidy was.

Hall observed that the amount of money for getDowntown is relatively small. The AATA, she said, is the transit authority and their job is to provide the buses and the drivers. The job of the DDA, she said, is to help market transportation – the DDA was not taking the place of the transportation authority, she said.

Keith Orr commented that it was not just a matter of how many people used the cards – there were some people who couldn’t get to work without the go!pass, he said.

Collins noted that the $5 charge to employers for each card had never been increased. He said it could be doubled and the cost would still be nominal. He’d like to see some strategies explored to start the program towards sustainability.

John Splitt suggested it would be possible to gather more data once the swipeable card was put in place.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that the AATA was investing in the downtown area by using federal funds to help rebuild the Blake Transit Center.

Outcome: The three-year funding plan for getDowntown and the go!pass was unanimously approved.

LEED Certification for Parking Structure

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program. Before the board at its June 2 meeting was a resolution authorizing the Christman Company, which is the construction manager for the underground Fifth Avenue parking garage, to apply to the U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) for LEED certification at the Silver level. Among the elements to be cited in the application:

• Reuse of mass excavation materials as part of the structural concrete mix
• Concrete and reinforcing steel will have substantial recycled material content
• Recharging stations for electric vehicles – as well as extensive conduit runs to accommodate future electric car demand increases
• LED lighting, including use of motion-detector technology for low demand time periods
• Natural ventilation (where possible)
• 100% of storm water from the site will have total dissolved solids removed, far exceeding requirements

John Mouat, an architect, said he thought it was great for the parking garage to be constructed as sustainably as possible, but that he did not feel the LEED program was designed to accommodate parking structures. His concern, he said, was from the technical perspective of the LEED program.

Jennifer S. Hall indicated that if a parking structure was going to be built, then it might as well be built sustainably.

Outcome: The resolution to authorize application for LEED certification for the underground parking structure was approved, with dissent from Mouat and Collins.

Parking

Parking as a topic took up a fair chunk of the June 2 meeting. It followed board members out of the offices at the conclusion of the meeting as well, as this vignette illustrates.

After the regular meeting of the DDA board, Joan Lowenstein was standing on the sidewalk outside the Fifth Avenue office building where the DDA is housed, when a car traveling south braked to a halt, earning the driver an angry honk from the trailing traffic: “Excuse me, is there a car park around here?”came the question from the British-accented female passenger.

Lowenstein did not explain that here in America we don’t call them “car parks.” Instead, mindful of the waiting cars behind, Lowenstein gave super-efficient directions: At that intersection, turn right, you’ll see it.

Parking: Monthly Parking Report

In reviewing the monthly parking report from April 2010 compared to April 2009, Roger Hewitt noted that revenue was up 9.5%, which he attributed largely to the rate increases. Hourly patrons were down a “minuscule” amount, he said. Jennifer S. Hall was curious to know if future reports could include the revenue numbers with the average ticket price for hourly patrons separated out, to get some idea of what was going on with that.

Parking: ParkingCarma

At the board’s April 2010 meeting, representatives from a startup company, ParkingCarma, had pitched the idea of an online reservation system for the city’s parking system. They’d been invited back to a subsequent operations committee meeting. However, at Wednesday’s board meeting, Roger Hewitt indicated that the committee had opted not to go forward with that system at this time. He cited the company’s lack of experience in implementing their program in a municipal parking system for use with daily operations.

Hewitt said there was a potential public relations issue as well, with a system possibly indicated as full, but with visible empty spaces due to the fact that they were reserved.

Payment in Lieu of Parking (PILOP)

The draft resolution on payments in lieu of parking arose out of a request from Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, for the DDA to weigh in on the issue. Last year’s passage of the A2D2 rezoning of the downtown area included a provision that allowed for developers to make a payment instead of actually constructing required parking on site. The relevant part of the city code comes from Chapter 59 [emphasis added]:

5:169.  Special parking districts. Lots located in the D1 or D2 downtown zoning districts are considered a special parking district and are subject to the following standards:

(1) No off-street motor vehicle parking is required in the special parking district for structures which do not exceed the normal maximum permitted usable floor area or for structures zoned PUD with usable floor area which does not exceed 300 percent of the lot area. Structures which exceed the normal maximum usable floor area by providing floor area premiums, or PUD-zoned structures that exceed 300 percent of lot area, shall provide parking spaces for the usable floor area in excess of the normal maximum permitted. This parking shall be provided at a rate of 1 off-street parking space for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area. Each parking space reserved, signed and enforced for a car-sharing service may count as four (4) required motor vehicle parking spaces.

[...]

(3) The required bicycle or motor vehicle parking shall be provided on-site, off-site as described in this section, or by the payment of a contribution in lieu of required parking consistent with the formula adopted by City Council, or any combination thereof, consistent with the requirements of this section. The per-space payment shall be that required by Council resolution at the time of payment.

Rampson had asked the DDA to provide a recommendation on the formula for the payment in lieu.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Brad Mikus cautioned board members to look seriously at the payment in lieu of parking (PILOP) draft recommendation, which suggests that a $30 surcharge be placed on monthly permits that would be purchased by developers. Mikus suggested that the $30 surcharge would not be nearly adequate to cover the actual cost of constructing parking spaces elsewhere. If the payments in lieu of parking were not adequate to allow construction of spaces, he said, the system would wind up being a subsidy for developers.

During the board discussion on the draft resolution – no decision was made on it – Roger Hewitt described the surcharge as similar to the arrangement that is already in place with Corner House Lofts, at 205 S. State St. Leah Gunn described it as a very complex issue.

Jennifer S. Hall compared the PILOP to the city’s previous experience with similar programs for affordable housing. Allowing developers to pay into a fund out of which construction would be paid for allowed the benefit of aggregation – building all of the affordable housing in one place. However, she noted that the formula for the affordable housing payments in lieu were a “good deal” for developers who chose to pay rather than build on site, and the resulting funds were not adequate to actually construct affordable housing units. What do you do if you have to build the parking? she wondered.

Russ Collins noted that developers can build anywhere outside of downtown. He shared with the board how he’d recently been standing in the Kmart parking lot out by Maple road. “It was monstrously ugly,” he said. He continued:

But it’s exactly what people want. They want parking. And they don’t care about downtown. And it’s sad. And I’m not saying everybody, but a whole bunch of people. And part of me wanted to just take pictures or film this panning across this acres and acres of asphalt, sitting outside of a 1960s mall, and saying what we’re trying to do downtown is try to create something on a human scale. And we as a DDA, we know that, but we need to think three-dimensionally.

And there’s a whole bunch of people that really just want acres of parking with no vegetation … the only way it looks halfway decent is if you’re driving past it as 40 miles an hour. But that’s how so much of our built environment exists … I think we sometimes get obsessed about what we want to do here, but we’ve got to add that third dimension that there’s a whole bunch, a majority of the population, that really only cares about where they need to park their cars – not the human space, not the walkable environment, not a convenient place for people who are a little disadvantaged to be able to live and thrive. …

It’s so easy to get focused on the narrow dynamics of an exciting downtown, but that’s not what we live in – we live in a suburban environment where we have to remember that most people really don’t care about the downtown. They care about the convenience of their automobile. And that makes it a very complicated calculus. … We need to to preach the virtue of human scale downtowns and walkable environments, of preserving a built environment that’s designed for human beings, not for machines.

Joan Lowenstein brought the discussion back down to the PILOP issue by noting that in most cases the situations they were talking about would be residential or office uses, and “not where people go to get giant bags of kitty litter.” But she said she agreed that it was important to keep that context in mind.

Lowenstein also responded to Hall’s comments about the problems with the affordable housing payment-in-lieu formula, saying that after Hall’s service on the planning commission, the formula had changed. She described it as fairly elaborate. She felt like something could be worked out for parking as well. Lowenstein suggested it was important to make it “a tiny bit punitive” so that you get meaningful dollars out of it, but not so punitive that developers prefer instead to build in the townships.

Lowenstein said she was glad that Rampson had asked the DDA to weigh in on the issue.

Mayor John Hieftje confirmed that the affordable housing payment-in-lieu formula had been changed because it was felt that the amount was not enough. He also countered Collins’ contention that what people want is parking by suggesting that “it’s what’s there for them.” Addressing that issue was why DDAs were created, he said.

Arts Alliance Web Portal

During public commentary, Tamara Real, president of the Arts Alliance, addressed the board to give them an update on the development of a website, a3arts.org, that is meant to be a one-stop online venue for all things art and culture in Washtenaw County. Real had addressed the board at its  Oct. 7, 2009 meeting asking for funding. That request was remanded to the partnerships committee, which eventually suggested that a reduced amount of funding be allocated – up to $10,000 – instead of the $25,000 the alliance had requested.

From The Chronicle’s Dec. 2, 2009 DDA board meeting report:

As for the Arts Alliance request for $25,000 to build a web portal – as part of a $50,000 total budget – [Sandi] Smith said that the partnerships committee had recommended to the alliance that it provide a clearer idea of what the portal would do. If the alliance needed some start-up money to get started so that the idea could be clearer, the committee had suggested to the alliance that the executive director of the DDA had discretionary use of amounts up to $10,000, which they might pursue.

On Wednesday, Real showed the DDA board work that had been done on the website to date, stressing that a countywide survey had revealed 1,174 working artists in Washtenaw County. The website will include examples of artists’ work, a way to purchase their work, event listings, and a platform for artists to share resources like workspaces. The plan is to populate the website’s databases over the summer and to launch it sometime in the fall, she said. That was why they were asking the DDA for additional support, Real said.

Heritage Row, Zaragon Place 2

Ray Detter gave his report out from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, which typically meets on the Tuesday evening before the Wednesday DDA board meetings. Detter said that the council had talked about a broad range of issues, including their commitment to residential development inside the DDA tax capture district. An example of a project the DCAC supported, he said, was Zaragon Place 2.

The previous evening, Detter reported, Alex de Parry had paid a visit to the DCAC to talk about the Heritage Row project, which is proposed for South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street. William is the boundary of the tax district. Detter said that the DCAC does not take positions on projects outside the downtown tax capture district. However, individuals had expressed opinions on the Heritage Row project. Many people were in favor of those aspects of the project that involved restoring the seven houses fronting Fifth Avenue. As for the three buildings proposed for construction behind the houses, Detter noted that the proposed setbacks would not meet the D1 zoning standard for the downtown area if the project were located there.

Retreat, Mutually Beneficial City-DDA Discussions

Roger Hewitt summarized the DDA retreat of eight board members the previous Friday as a “lively discussion.” He said there was unanimous support for the DDA taking responsibility for parking enforcement and virtually no support for the DDA taking responsibility for code enforcement. There was some support, he said, for the DDA providing services in the downtown area.

Hewitt also said there was broad support for the DDA taking responsibility for the development of city-owned surface parking lots, although there was a variation of opinion on what that meant.

Hewitt also reported Village Green’s City Apartments project as a retreat topic, with discussion centering on whether to go forward or to give up on the project – the city may grant an extension for the project’s site plan approval sometime in the next month. The DDA has a $9 million commitment to the project, which Newcombe Clark argued at the retreat should be given a sunset provision. Without an extension to the site plan approval by the city council, due to expire now on June 30, the project would effectively be dead.

The issue of downtown policing and “eyes on the street,” Hewitt said, would be discussed further by the partnerships committee. Over the last month, Newcombe Clark has brought back the issue of downtown beat cops as something the DDA might be interested in seeing restored as part of any agreement between the DDA and the city.

As part of the police department reorganization for the FY 2010 budget, bicycle-mounted dedicated beat patrols were phased out in favor of a strategy of having officers use their one-hour “out of car” time to park in the downtown and walk downtown. As the discussion has evolved over the last few weeks, Clark and Hewitt have expressed a consensus for the need for “eyes on the street,” with the idea that it’s now an open question whether those eyes are most cost effectively provided by sworn police officers.

Part of the partnerships committee discussion on downtown beat patrols will be informed by a collection of broader facts about the issue, including the perception of safety downtown. The DDA has created an online downtown safety survey to collect information about how safe people feel downtown.

Hewitt also announced that the city and the DDA’s respective “mutually beneficial” committees would meet, and that there would be proper notice given.

Jennifer S. Hall asked how it would be ensured that proper notice would be given. Russ Collins assured Hall that everyone was properly informed as to the meetings and that if the meetings were not properly noticed, “I will sit in the rain in West Park with a hairshirt on my back.”

Energy Grant Program

Russ Collins reported from the partnerships committee that all except for $18,000 had been spent on the DDA’s energy grant program, with that amount also expected to be paid out as well. The program helps pay for energy audits for downtown buildings and for a portion of the improvements undertaken as a result of the audits. Collins said the basic impact of the program was that it was successful in getting small businesses as well as large buildings to get audits and to follow through on improvements.

Bike Hoops

Russ Collins reported from the partnerships committee that Jeff Irwin – currently a Washtenaw County commissioner representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, and also a candidate for the District 53 state house seat in the Democratic primary – had paid a visit to the partnerships committee to pitch the idea of a bike hoop contest. The idea would be for the DDA to commission a funky bike hoop every year by issuing some kind of request for proposals asking an artist to design a functional and aesthetically pleasing bicycle hoop. The idea, Collins said, had been referred to the DDA’s transportation committee.

Present: Jennifer S. Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat

Absent: Sandi Smith, Newcombe Clark, Gary Boren

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, July 7, 2010, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

They also acted on several budget-related items, including 1) setting a public hearing for a proposed economic development tax, 2) passing the first phase of administrator Bob Guenzel’s recommendations to address a projected $26 million deficit, and 3) briefly discussing a proposal for changing the funding process for some nonprofits. Several leaders from the local arts community also turned out for a presentation on a countywide cultural plan.

But a large portion of the meeting was devoted to deliberations on the land bank, and that’s where we’ll begin our coverage.

Land Bank

County treasurer Catherine McClary had prepped commissioners who attended the July 1 administrative briefing about her request that they authorize the formation of a land bank. She gave essentially the same presentation at Wednesday’s meeting, outlining the rationale for a land bank and the specific instances in which it could be used.

The land bank is a mechanism to take temporary ownership of tax- or mortgage-foreclosed land while the county works to put it back into productive use. “Productive use” could mean several things, like selling it to a nonprofit like Habitat for Humanity to rehab, or demolishing a blighted structure and turning the land into a community garden. Right now, there aren’t many options to deal with blighted properties. In the case of a tax foreclosure, for example, the treasurer is required to auction off the parcel to the highest bidder – often, that’s an out-of-state buyer who’s looking for cheap rental property, sight unseen. There’s a high likelihood that the cycle of foreclosure will repeat itself, McClary said.

One concern McClary said she’d heard was that there isn’t a formal plan for how the land bank will work. That’s because the entity would be governed by a land bank authority, which would be responsible for putting in place policies, procedures and a strategic plan. That authority can’t be appointed until after the land bank is formed. McClary has applied for a grant from the Genesee Institute, which would help set up the land bank.

The institute’s founder, Dan Kildee, attended Wednesday night’s meeting and helped McClary field questions from commissioners. Kildee is a kind of “rock star” among land bank enthusiasts – a group which includes commissioner Conan Smith. In addition to serving as treasurer of Genesee County, where Flint is located, Kildee founded Michigan’s first land bank and helped write the enabling legislation for these land bank entities.

McClary said she wasn’t asking the county for staff or funding – the program would initially get $300,000 from the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program. But she was asking commissioners to fast track approval – normally, they would vote on the proposal at their Ways & Means Committee meeting, which immediately precedes the board meeting, then vote on it a final time at the next board meeting. But their next board meeting isn’t until August, and the state Land Bank Fast Track Authority, which must approve the local land bank, was meeting the next day, July 9. McClary hoped commissioners would approve the land bank authorization at both the Ways & Means and regular board meeting on Wednesday. If they wanted to have the land bank in place to deal with properties this year, they needed to act now: “We really are on a tight time schedule, but I don’t believe a precipitous one,” she said.

This fast track approach was a source of some contention. Commissioner Jessica Ping asked why they hadn’t heard about this before, and why it was suddenly so urgent. McClary said she’d heard concerns that a land bank would cause pressure to move private property into the foreclosure process, so she wanted to make sure the county had a strong foreclosure prevention program in place before she proposed the land bank.

Commissioner Wes Prater said he was bothered by the fact that tax dollars were being used to buy property, then sell it at a loss: “If you continue to do that very long, you won’t be in operation very long.” He was also concerned that it was letting lenders off the hook – the county would be paying the lender to take it off their hands. Kildee said if you hold onto a property waiting for the value to increase, you risk having an abandoned house sitting there for a long time. McClary pointed out that mortgage foreclosures hadn’t been the focus of their discussions. And commissioner Mark Ouimet, a former bank executive, said that lenders would already be off the hook – in most cases, lenders would write off these properties as dead assets.

McClary also pointed out that even if you sell a property at a loss – say, to a nonprofit that would rehab the house and resell it – the fact that you now have a decent, occupied house instead of a blighted, vacant property means that property values for all the surrounding homes would likely increase.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson didn’t like the fact that the county board would have no control over the land bank authority, other than appointing some of its members. Kildee pointed out that the bank would have to conform to local planning and zoning laws. Peterson said he could see the need for a land bank in the Flint area, where the market was seriously distressed, but that it was different in Washtenaw. He didn’t like the government getting into the real estate business, seizing property that the free market should handle. Peterson also felt the $300,000 designated for the land bank would be better used as an emergency mortgage payment fund, helping people stay out of foreclosure.

He was also worried about maintenance costs for these properties while they were held by the land bank – who would be responsible for cutting grass or shoveling snow? [Earlier this year, the Genesee Land Bank, which owns nearly 4,000 parcels, was criticized for just that reason.] Finally, Peterson was annoyed that more people hadn’t been consulted, like the Eastern Leaders Group, and that there hadn’t been a working session on the topic for commissioners.

Ouimet suggested putting a limit on the number of properties the land bank could acquire, or the amount of money it could invest. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked if the board of commissioners could dissolve the land bank, if they felt it wasn’t working – they could.

Commissioner Jeff Irwin, saying he was enthusiastic about the land bank, offered to revise part of the resolution to address some of the control issues that had been raised, giving the board final approval over the land bank’s strategies and policies. Commissioner Leah Gunn asked whether these changes would affect state approval – McClary said they would not.

Irwin worked on the language and consulted with other commissioners during the break between the Ways & Means Committee meeting and the regular board meeting. At the board meeting, commissioners approved the resolution, with these revised clauses:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to negotiate a contract with the Washtenaw County Land Bank Authority Board to permit the Land Bank Authority to operate, in part, using County resources, provided such resources are fully reimbursed back to the County from Land Bank Authority funds, upon the review and approval of Corporation Counsel and approval of the Board of Commissioners.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the by-laws, articles of incorporation, and the strategies and policies for acquisition, maintenance and disposition of assets to be under the control of the Washtenaw County Land Bank Authority will be presented for approval to the Board of Commissioners by December 31, 2009.

Before the final vote, Peterson again stated that he didn’t like how this had been handled. He complained that discussing it at the administrative briefing wasn’t public – a complaint he’s voiced often in the past, specifically because administrative briefings aren’t held in the board room or broadcast on Community Television Network. He called the fast-track process for voting on the land bank “very unusual” and not how a program should be established. He warned county department heads that ”if this junk happens again, I’m going to rip somebody’s head off.”

Ping, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said she would have been happy to schedule a session on the land bank, but she hadn’t been asked. Smith said he apologized if his exuberance about the program had caused it to be brought forward too quickly.

The land bank resolution passed unanimously.

2010 Budget

The board passed, with little discussion, the first phase of the 2010 budget recommendations made by the administration to tackle a looming $26 million deficit in 2010 and 2011. [See previous Chronicle coverage of the budget at the June board meeting.]

The one change made at the table concerned funding for nonprofits in the areas of children’s well-being and human services. Commissioner Leah Gunn asked that the proposed funding cuts, which in aggregate reduced allocations by 20%, be removed from the rest of the budget recommendations. She has proposed an alternative resolution, to be taken up at the Aug. 5 meeting. The resolution states that some nonprofits, for which funding had previously been earmarked, must now participate in competitive grant funding through the Office of Community Development, which is jointly operated by the county and the city of Ann Arbor.

The proposal also restores the 20% cuts, and adds an additional $15,000 to the “pool” of funding that can be distributed by OCD – bringing the total funding for nonprofits to $1.015 million.

Having all nonprofits go through a competitive grant process levels the playing field, Gunn told her colleagues. It’s not fair that some groups get preferential treatment by being funded directly from the county, while others must go through the OCD grant application process. Only two nonprofits retain direct funding – the Domestic Violence Project/Safe House ($96,000) and the Shelter Association ($160,000). Gunn made these exceptions because the buildings are owned and maintained by the county. In a note attached to her proposal, she wrote that “it is in our own special interest to see that these programs continue, and that the buildings remain in good repair.”

Commissioner Barbara Bergman praised the criteria that the OCD has developed to evaluate grant applications, saying that the objective measures would make the process more fair – “it doesn’t matter how cute or pathetic or wonderful they (the nonprofits) are.” She said the decision affects some of her pet projects, but if her ox gets gored, so be it. “My ox is in the game,” Bergman said.

Saying he wasn’t against changing the allocation procedure, commissioner Ronnie Peterson asked the administration to check whether the county had any contractual obligations or commitments to the nonprofits that would be affected.

Public Hearings

Input on the Department of Justice Byrne Justice Assistance Grant

Only one person – Jim Mogensen – spoke at the public hearing for the Department of Justice Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, for which the sheriff’s department is applying. [Applications were due the following day, July 9.] The sheriff’s department is applying for $160,723 to fund the department’s community outreach program.

Here’s a description of the grant program from the DoJ website:

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)) is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. JAG funds support all components of the criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to crime prevention and domestic violence programs, courts, corrections, treatment, and justice information sharing initiatives. JAG funded projects may address crime through the provision of services directly to individuals and/or communities and by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes, and procedures.

Mogensen said he had contacted Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s department, to obtain a copy of the grant application, but that he hadn’t heard back from Jackson. Mogensen said that several years ago he began noticing homeland security and Department of Justice grants coming in locally, and he started asking what strings were attached to this federal money. No one will confirm or deny whether there are strings attached, he said, and even if there were, no one would say what those strings are.

It’s important to know what might be required in exchange for accepting these grants, he said, so that local governments can have the option of saying “no.” For example, if the federal government decided it wanted help enforcing immigration regulations, one way to do that might be to force local governments that have accepted homeland security grants to help with enforcement.

Mogensen said he realized this was a pro-forma hearing, but that he would like some follow up so that he could get a copy of the grant application for his files. The board unanimously passed the resolution authorizing the grant application.

Setting a Public Hearing for a Proposed Tax

The board approved a resolution setting a public hearing at the Aug. 5, 2009 board meeting to get input on a proposed economic development tax. The administration has proposed levying 0.017 mills – or about $1.70 per year for every $100,000 in a property’s taxable value – to raise $200,000 for the local economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK and $50,000 for SPARK East, the group’s Ypsilanti-based office. The proposed budget has funding for those entities coming from the general fund. If the millage is passed, these new tax dollars would replace the $250,000 in general fund dollars currently earmarked for SPARK. This millage can be approved by commissioners, rather than getting voter approval, because the enabling legislation – Act 88 – predates the state’s Headley Amendment. If approved, the tax would be levied in December 2009.

Appointments

The board unanimously approved appointments to five county boards and commissions, with Kristin Judge dissenting on Paul Seelbach’s appointment to the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee. Judge objected to appointing someone who had missed the application deadline – an issue she had raised at the July 1 administrative briefing. Seelbach was endorsed by the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission, but his application had been turned in to the clerk’s office on June 1 – after a May 29 deadline. Bob Tetens, the county’s parks and recreation director, said that Seelbach had sent his application to the Parks & Rec Commission before the deadline. Judge wasn’t persuaded, saying that it was important to be professional and transparent in the process, and that the other candidate had managed to follow the rules.

In addition to Seelbach, the board approved these appointments:

• Daniel Brady, Danielle Choi and Mary Smith to the community action board.
• Danielle Choi, Shoshana DeMaria and Geoffrey Fowler to the emergency medical services commission.
• Debra Adams, Daniel Brady, Shoshana DeMaria and Paul Ganz to the workforce development board.
• Pat Ivey, David McMahon and Jolea Mull to the local emergency planning committee.

Washtenaw Cultural Plan

A resolution on Wednesday’s agenda gave the Arts Alliance the ability to apply for National Endowment for the Arts grants on behalf of the county. Tamara Real, the nonprofit’s executive director,  gave a presentation to the board about a countywide cultural plan that’s been developed over the past two years. [Details about the plan are on the alliance's website.]

Real summed up the role of the alliance this way: “We do what they hate, so they can create.”  The “they” in this case are artists and others in the creative economy, who rely on the Arts Alliance for the “non-sexy” side of art, Real said – research, advocacy, being a liaison between the arts, business and government.

The alliance’s first step was to do an economic impact study, trying to gauge contributions that the arts make in Washtenaw County. The study, based on data from 2002, found that nonprofit cultural organizations contributed $165 million to the local economy, and were responsible for 2,600 jobs and nearly $57 million in household income, Real said.

Working with groups and individuals countywide, the alliance then developed a cultural master plan to create a strategic vision for the next five years. The plan dovetails with the Ann Arbor Region Success effort, Real said – the 34 recommendations of the cultural plan feed into the goals for the Region Success initiative. The final steps have been to customize the plan for each of the county’s seven population centers, she said – that work is almost complete. With a plan in place, they can work toward specific goals that will bolster the arts community. It’s not a plan that will sit on the shelf and gather dust, Real said.

Several people involved in developing the cultural plan – and representing various geographic regions of the county – attended Wednesday’s meeting. Two of them spoke to commissioners following Real’s presentation. Artist David Austin, who owns the What Is That Gallery in Ypsilanti, said there’s a renaissance happening in Ypsilanti, but that they’re poised at the precipice and need the county’s help to do their small part reviving Michigan’s economy. Paul Cousins of Dexter also spoke to commissioners, saying he wasn’t an artist – the only thing he plays is the radio, he joked – but that he recognized the economic benefits of the arts. In Dexter, one recent example was the opening of The Encore, a new musical theater downtown which has drawn people to local restaurants, too. The fact is, it does work, he said.

Several commissioners voiced support for the arts. Jeff Irwin encouraged Real to return at some point and talk about additional resources the alliance might need to pursue its goals.

Other Presentations and Recognitions

Area Agency on Aging 1-B

Tina Abbate Marzolf, CEO for the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, made a presentation to the board about her organization, which receives funding from the county. The roughly $24,000 that the county spends each year on the agency is used to leverage $5 million in state and federal dollars, Marzolf said. Their mission is to support older adults in southeast Michigan, as well as people with disabilities. And like most social service agencies, they face funding cuts. About 30% of their funding comes from the state, which is cutting its support by 15% in 2010, Marzolf said. The main services that might be affected by those cuts include meal delivery, in-home services, daycare programs and volunteer respite programs. Federal stimulus funding will help offset the state losses, but that funding is temporary, she noted.

Marzolf said they are exploring partnerships and other strategies to deal with dwindling resources. Pilot food delivery programs, for example, include working with UPS drivers, or delivering more meals at a time on fewer days, rather than delivering meals each day. One of the challenges for meal delivery is that the service entails more than just food – it’s also a time for socialization that’s important for people who can’t leave their homes. She said they are always looking for ways to find efficiencies – locally, for example, they partner with the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living.

Commissioner Barbara Bergman noted that she’d served on the Area Agency on Aging 1-B board of directors for 12 years: “I’ve been aging with the agency.”

National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee

Commissioner Mark Ouimet, vice chair of the board, presented a proclamation to Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, declaring Aug. 1-7 as National Training Institute Week. During that week, the National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee is, for the first time, bringing its annual training institute to Ann Arbor. Kerr was instrumental in helping bring that group of about 2,000 electrical workers to town, with an estimated economic impact of $5 million. The institute is a joint program of the National Electrical Contractors Association and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Washtenaw County MSU Extension

The board also honored the Washtenaw County Michigan State University Extension, which recently received the state Housing Development Authority’s Homeownership Division Housing Agency of the Year award. Nancy Thelen, director of the local MSU extension, was on hand to accept the commendation, recognizing specifically the program’s work in mortgage foreclosure prevention and home ownership counseling.

Public Commentary

Several people spoke during the time set aside for public comment at the beginning of the meeting, with three minutes allotted for each speaker.

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen expressed concern about funding for human services. Governments are outsourcing the social safety net to various nonprofits, then cutting funding. At some point, nonprofits won’t be able to provide the services the community needs. There’s also the issue of mandatory versus non-mandatory services. The board might decide to cut funding for non-mandatory social services, but that could convert into an increased cost for mandatory services, like the jail system – if people don’t have the safety net of social service agencies, they could wind up in the criminal justice system. The board needs to think very carefully about the implications for their funding decisions, Mogensen said.

John Weiss: The director of the Neutral Zone, a nonprofit that provides activities and programs for local teens, briefed commissioners on the Washtenaw Youth Development Initiative. The effort is focused on building the capacity of youth-serving agencies around the county and on developing the leadership skills of local youth. One recent example of their work is the Youth Peace Town Hall – held in April at Eastern Michigan University, more than 100 people attended, Weiss said. The event was sponsored by the Washtenaw Youth Development Initiative and the Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth. Weiss urged the county to continue its support for youth-focused programs.

Jackie Martin: Martin is extension educator for the county’s 4-H Youth Development program. She spoke about the upcoming Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show, which runs from July 26-31, saying that more than 700 people are expected to participate. Two teens from the extension’s advisory council also spoke their positive experiences with 4-H.

Tom Partridge: Partridge spoke on all four occasions available for public comment – at the beginning and end of the Ways & Means Committee meeting, and at the beginning and end of the regular board meeting. He berated the board for its summer schedule, saying there was important work to be done and that they should meet more frequently than once a month. He said their agenda was inadequate, and didn’t include issues like expanding public transportation and dealing with deputy patrol contracts with the townships.

Executive Session

The board ended its meeting with a closed-door executive session related to pending litigation. At the July 1 briefing, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger told commissioners that the session would provide an update on the lawsuit brought against the county by Bruce Lee. Lee and his brother, Clifton Lee, were involved in a 2006 encounter with sheriff’s deputies in the West Willow neighborhood, which led to Clifton Lee’s death. Last year, the county settled a previous lawsuit – brought by Clifton Lee’s heirs – for $4 million.

Next board meeting: The board is working on a summer schedule, with regular meetings held only once a month. The next meeting is Wednesday, Aug. 5 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

Baron Glassworks owner Annette Baron, left foreground, guides Pam Roselle in making a glass "garden ball," while Baron Glassworks employee Jim Fry describes the technique to another visitor preparing to try glassblowing. (Photo by the writer.)

On November 24, 1998, Annette Baron fired up the furnace at her glassblowing studio, Baron Glassworks, on Railroad Street in Ypsilanti – that fire has been burning ever since, and Baron has practiced the art of glassblowing there for over a decade.

That’s what Baron told a crowd of about 25 fellow artists gathered at her studio on June 22. They came for a Creative Connections networking event held by the Arts Alliance, an Ann Arbor area cultural organization. The evening included food and live jazz music – and, of course, glassblowing.

Jim Fry, who described himself as a Baron Glassworks student and employee, took some time to explain the art of glassblowing to The Chronicle before the event began.

First, he pointed out the heating equipment near the back of the studio. Even from 10 feet away, the heat prickles your skin with a discomforting intensity – it feels like it could burn you without your even touching it. (That’s because, as Baron would later explain, glass needs to be heated to about 2,000 degrees before it can be shaped.)

The furnace – a large, square brick structure glowing orange at the cracks – stores molten, clear glass. Next to the furnace, there are “glory holes”: smaller box-like structures with a large, open hole in the front (also glowing a molten orange). Fry explained that glassblowers use the glory holes to reheat the glass they’re working on when it starts to harden.

“Most materials you work with, they’re pretty stable for a long period of time,” Fry said. “Glass is constantly changing.”

Baron Glassworks owner Annette Baron, right, guides Pam Roselle in shaping the molten glass using jacks. (Photo by the writer.)

As they’re sculpting it, glass artists will use gravity’s force on the molten glass to help shape it, Fry said. They also use a variety of specialized tools. Fry picked up and explained each tool from an array of equipment lined up on a wooden workbench. He held what looked like a huge pair of metallic tweezers in the air, opening and closing them. The tweezers are called jacks, and they’re used for shaping the molten glass.

“They basically replace your fingers,” said Fry, who compared molding the glass to sculpting clay.

There are also tweezers (which look much like the jacks) used for twisting the glass, shears for cutting the molten material and a wooden paddle used to flatten and sculpt.

Since they only have one furnace that holds clear glass, Fry said the Baron glassblowers add color to their pieces in a couple different ways. Off to the right of the furnace, a wheeled rack holds rows and rows of coffee cans. Fry takes the cap off one to reveal that it’s filled with lime green flakes of glass. To make their pieces green or blue or any other color, the glassblowers roll the molten glass in the flakes, which are called “frit.”

They also use solid rods of colored glass. The rod, when heated, expands and spreads out to create a layer of color inside a clear piece.

After they’re finished with a piece, they place them in large boxes – called annealers – on the floor in the studio. The annealing process cools the glass down slowly over a period of 24 hours so it won’t stress or crack, Fry said.

After gathering the Creative Connections attendees inside the small studio space, Baron dons safety equipment before giving a demonstration. She straps on a tan vest, which has compartments in the front for ice packs to keep her cool as she works near the furnace. She also mentions that those who want to try out glassblowing later will need to wear safety glasses, and there are sleeves (tubes of cloth that look like long, toeless athletic socks) to protect their arms.

Baron sticks a long, hollow metal blowpipe into the furnace and draws it back out with a gob of molten glass on the end. She blows into the other end of the pipe, and a bubble forms in the gob of glass. She rolls it along a steel table to shape it, blows on it more to make the bubble bigger, and puts the end of the blowpipe in one of the glory holes to heat the glass again.

Annette Baron, owner and founder of Baron Glassworks, explains glassblowing safety guidelines to a group of visitors in her studio. Two pieces of heating equipment stand behind her: a furnace for storing molten glass and a glory hole for reheating glass during the shaping process.

At one point, she rolls the glass-covered end of the blowpipe in one of the cans of frit and melts the color into it using the glory hole, creating swirls and streaks of pigment as she shapes the malleable, glowing glass. There are also benches flanked by what look like metal arm rests, but which are actually more aids for shaping the glass. Baron rolls the pipe swiftly along them, using the jacks to sculpt. She explains that she can tell the temperature of the glass through the jacks – not through hotness, but through texture and resistance.

As Baron alternates between the sculpting table and bench and the glory hole, Phil Yamron – a Baron Glassworks employee – tells the observers (or rather yells to, over the sound of the fans in the work area) that the glassblower must constantly turn the pipe while she’s working. Otherwise, the glass will drip right off of it.

Baron tells the group watching her that she’s making a “garden ball,” which people who try glassblowing after the demo will also be creating.

After many trips from the work bench to the glory hole and back, Baron forms a large, hollow, green sphere at the end of her pipe. She takes it over to a tin on one of the tables and places the sphere in it. With a tap of the pipe, the newly formed garden ball comes loose. Then, using a solid rod, she uses more molten glass from the furnace to seal the hole at the top of the ball.

Pam Roselle, a painter, was the first visitor to have Baron guide her through the process to make her own garden ball. Roselle said she loved her first experience with glassblowing.

“It was fabulous,” Roselle said. “It took a lot of wind. I love the fact that they have a mechanism to cool themselves off while they’re doing it.”

Arts Alliance president Tamara Real called Baron’s studio a gem in the community that not many people know about. “Something like glass seems like such an unapproachable art form,” Real said. However, she added, events like this help show people that it’s “not out of your grasp.” 

Baron Glassworks employee Cal Fette praised the alliance for “getting people to recognize the jewels in their own backyards.” Fette noted how Baron rents her space out to young artists and also gives glassblowing classes. And, as far as she knows, it’s the only studio of its kind in the county, Fette said.

Baron said she was really excited to have the Arts Alliance and Creative Connections visit her studio. “I hope they do well because their mission is so unique,” she said. “This organization actually reaches down and has services for artists and promotes art.”

The alliance’s website describes Creative Connections as “a monthly gathering for creative and cultural folks in our region.” The events are held at different venues across Washtenaw County. The evening at Baron Glassworks was the last in the 2008-09 season – next season’s line-up will be posted online in the fall.

About the author: Helen Nevius, a student at Eastern Michigan University, is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle.  

Scott Rosencrans, a member of the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission, and Elaine Selo of Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street, at a meeting to discuss the city's arts and culture community.

Collaboration – and the need for more of it – was a common theme Tuesday night at a meeting to discuss Ann Arbor’s arts and cultural future. Hosted by the Arts Alliance, it’s part of a series of forums aimed at developing cultural plans for seven communities in Washtenaw County, under a broader plan for the entire county.

Several people spoke about the urgency of supporting local groups, as the economy continues to batter both businesses and nonprofits. Elaine Selo, co-owner of Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street, said she’s seen ups and downs for 27 years, and now “all of us are just trying to survive.”

More of that kind of candor is needed – people in Ann Arbor too often hold themselves in such high regard that they’re blind to what’s happening in the local economy, said Newcombe Clark, a local real estate broker who sits on the boards for several local nonprofit groups, including the Michigan Theater. “We lost Peter Sparling last year,” he noted, referring to the closing of the Dance Gallery Studio. He said that the past two fiscal quarters for the Michigan Theater and the Ann Arbor Art Center have been difficult, “and they’re not out of the woods yet.”

Shari Brown, executive director for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, said that many times groups will put up a shield until the very day that their operation collapses. Elaine Selo observed that that’s apparently what happened at the Ann Arbor News – it would have been nice for the community to have known things were so dire, she said, so they could have perhaps come up with a response before a decision was made to close the company.

Because the economy has created a “shared misery,” Selo said, it’s actually easier to admit that your own group is struggling. Even so, some businesses and nonprofits are afraid that if they say they’re troubled, people won’t shop there or donate. They really need to share what’s going on, she said, “and find some solutions for getting over it.”

Chris Lord advocated for a space for local writers to meet.

Tuesday night’s discussion focused on some practical issues, too. Chris Lord, who helps coordinate the Writers Reading at Sweetwaters group, said that while there’s lots of support for school-age writers – such as the Neutral Zone and 826 Michigan – other local writers don’t have venues to come together. She wanted to bring the perspective of writers to the cultural plan, and specifically, the issue of finding a space to hold workshops or informal gatherings.

Omari Rush, education manager for the University Musical Society, suggested contacting the Ann Arbor District Library. The library is positioning itself as more of a community meeting place, he said, and again, it’s an example of the importance of collaboration among different groups. Lord said they’d talked to the library – in fact, they were holding a special poetry reading by Robert Fanning there on Thursday, April 9, as part of National Poetry Month. She said the library charges for room rental – and for groups that don’t have money, that’s an issue.

Brown stressed the importance of communication – connecting underutilized resources in the community with the people and groups who need those resources, like available space to hold meetings and workshops. Selo suggested a blog might be one way to do that. Angela Martin-Barcelona of the Arts Alliance told the group that they were working on creating an online hub for the county’s arts and cultural community, and that they hoped it would be a place to make those connections.

Tuesday night's meeting about the Ann Arbor arts and cultural community was held in the conference room of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau on West Huron Street.

The group also talked about funding. Tamara Real, president of the Arts Alliance, noted that the Ann Arbor area doesn’t have a “granddaddy of funders” like the Mott Foundation in Flint or the Gilmore Foundation in Kalamazoo. And state funding consists of a weird boom and bust cycle, she said – Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed state budget for fiscal year 2010 includes dramatic cuts to arts funding. Long-term, “there must be another way to handle funding,” Real said.

Another issue with state grants is that it’s difficult for smaller, newer ventures – like the Shadow Art Fair – to get funded, Real said. Brown added that the art fair, when it got started 50 years ago, wouldn’t have been funded, either.

Amy Harris, director of UM’s Exhibit Museum of Natural History, said that city officials like to point to Ann Arbor’s arts and cultural sector as an attraction, as does the business community. Yet other than the recent Percent for Art program and funding for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, she wasn’t away of serious financial support from the city. [The Percent for Art is funded by 1% of the cost of public projects, like the municipal center currently under construction. Those funds, up to $250,000 per project, are administered by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.] Brown noted that the Street Art Fair actually pays the city more than $50,000 each year for support like fire and police services.

Harris proposed a series of educational forums for the community, with possible topics including 1) how the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation can be used to create endowments for arts & cultural purposes, 2) a health report on the arts & cultural sector, 3) a look at how university arts & cultural organizations are funded. She noted that at the Exhibit Museum, for example, only half of its budget comes from UM.

Tamara Real of the Arts Alliance at Tuesday's meeting in Ann Arbor.

Scott Rosencrans, a member of the city’s Park Advisory Commission who described himself as an “art hobbyist,” suggested they look at other communities who have successfully supported the arts & culture sector, such as Madison, Wisc. or Key West, Fla. (Earlier in the meeting, Brown had described a recent trip she’d taken to Key West, where she said the arts community was highly visible and reflected a key value of that city.)

Els Nieuwenhuijsen Eldersveld raised the issue of accessibility to arts and culture in Ann Arbor. Some cities are promoting themselves as being accessible to people with disabilities, she said. How accessible is Ann Arbor, and what can be done to bring that message to the forefront?

The group also discussed the need for a comprehensive arts directory, something to allow people to search and find artists in various categories or styles – like a Time Out for Ann Arbor, Selo suggested. Lord said that perhaps information gathered for a previous Arts Alliance survey could provide a foundation for this. Rosencrans suggested Community Television Network as a possible venue for informing the public about local artists.

The Arts Alliance will be holding an additional public meeting in Ann Arbor on a date to be determined. Tamara Real indicated that at their next meeting, they’ll identify concrete steps they should take to address some of these issues.

Next week, the Arts Alliance is hosting a similar forum focused on Saline. That event will take place April 14 from 7:30-9 p.m. at Saline City Hall, 100 N. Harris St.

Aubrey Martinson of the Chelsea Center for the Arts takes her turn answering a question. Looking on are fellow panelists Chuck Kieffer (off camera), Ken Fischer and Jennifer Spitler.

One of the challenges at Tuesday evening’s Creative Conversations event was hearing what the four panelists had to say while listening to competing beer-fueled creative conversations about Ludacris and Bob Seger coming from another section of Ypsilanti’s Corner Brewery.

The panelists were undaunted, however, as they discussed their own challenges and strategies as nonprofit leaders in the arts and human services, giving tips on everything from how to survive in a tough economy to the best place to wear your nametag (the right side – more on that later).

Organized by the Arts Alliance, the evening had several goals, said Tamara Real, the alliance’s executive director. First, it’s part of an effort to mark October as National Arts and Humanities Month by holding similar events nationwide, with a focus on emerging leaders. Locally, several veteran arts administrators are stepping down from their leadership roles, making this a transitional time for the area. “Personally, I’m really nervous about it,” Real said, because collaborative relationships built over decades, in some cases, are disappearing.

Secondly, Real wanted to chip away at the divide between the arts and human services groups. Both groups face similar challenges of scarce resources, small staffs and ambitious missions, but often the sectors operate in silos and don’t join forces. What’s worse, funding agencies tend to see arts and human services as an either/or funding proposition, especially when money is tight. Real calls that a false dichotomy: “I think we can do them both.”

The panelists represented both nonprofit sectors. They included two veterans – Chuck Kieffer of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and Ken Fischer of the University Musical Society – and two executive directors in the early stages of their careers: Jenn Spitler of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Washtenaw County, and Aubrey Martinson of the Chelsea Center for the Arts. Dorrie Milan, a graduate student in arts administration at Eastern Michigan University, moderated the discussion.

Despite their different missions and staff sizes, the four had much in common. Martinson and Spitler talked about the challenge of wearing multiple hats, and learning as they go – something that Kieffer and Fischer said they’d experienced earlier in their careers. All spoke of the importance of networking, of finding ways to partner with other groups, of communicating their mission clearly to potential donors, volunteers and the community.

The most concrete suggestions emerged when panelists were asked about their networking strategies. “I love going to breakfast at Zola,” said Spitler, referring to Cafe Zola, a popular meeting place for business, academic and government types. Fischer described doing the Fleming Walk – literally walking through UM’s Fleming Administration Building to get to know the assistants and secretaries of the university’s executive officers. “It’s all about relationships,” he said. Fischer also pointed out that at networking events, he always wears his nametag on the right side, so people can easily see it when they shake hands. (You can see from the above photo that he didn’t break this tradition on Tuesday.)

The current economic crisis has caused all of these nonprofit leaders to look for new ways to stretch their resources. Martinson said her group is developing partnerships with other organizations – reaching out to local galleries, for example, and looking for ways to work with the Ann Arbor Art Center, which used to be viewed as competition.

As the formal part of the event came to an end, Real urged the audience to stick around and grab another beer. (The Chronicle regrets not asking the three panelists – Martinson wasn’t imbibing – what beers they were drinking. Based on the coloration of the liquid in their mugs, we’d guess Espresso Love Breakfast Stout, Red Snapper and Hoptoberfest.) Real also pushed the opportunity to network with the panelists. “If I were you,” she said, “I’d be like a fly on you-know-what with these folks.” No doubt the beer would help with that.

Participants at Tuesday's Creative Conversations listen to panelists at the Corner Brewery.

Snowglobes line a ledge above the window at Corner Brewery. They were part of a collection that Ann Arbor DDA Director Susan Polllay gave to the brewery. The Chronicle suspects they could provide an apt metaphor for Tuesday's Creative Conversations, but we haven't come up with it yet.