An update on Herbert Dreiseitl’s work for the municipal building revealed that two interior pieces – originally part of three pieces proposed for the site, but set aside because they came in over budget – are being reconsidered. Dreiseitl plans to resubmit a design and pricing for the two interior pieces later this month, and is expected to return to Ann Arbor in mid-April to work on the already-approved outdoor sculpture in the building’s front plaza.

Also during Tuesday’s meeting, AAPAC members debated how best to get input from the public, with some members questioning the effectiveness of repeating an event that last year drew 30 people.

Herbert Dreiseitl Project Update

Margaret Parker, AAPAC chair, gave a report from the Jan. 15, 2010 meeting of the municipal center task force, a group formed to handle the public art components at the complex, which includes the new police/courts building.

Katherine Talcott, the city’s public arts administrator, reported that she’d recently talked with Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, the Ann Arbor firm that’s designing the municipal center and acting as project manager for Dreiseitl’s installations. Clein told her that Dreiseitl is “extremely excited” that his water sculpture was approved by city council. The city attorney’s office is now drafting a contract with Quinn Evans for the work, Talcott said. Dreiseitl will be coming to Ann Arbor in mid-April to flesh out design details, interview potential fabricators and confirm pricing.

AAPAC will likely need to hold a special meeting to deal with the revised designs, Talcott said.

Parker reported that Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, was supportive of funding the two additional interior pieces by Dreiseitl. Talcott added that council members were supportive of those pieces, too. From Parker’s written report on the municipal center task force:

Sue McCormick explained that most city projects begin with a concept and an estimated budget. As it becomes more concrete, the budget estimate goes up or down, usually up. So the fact that the two interior projects are going over the amount that was set aside for his project is not unexpected. We now need to decide what changes to the concept we are willing to accept. Sue felt that the three designs work together beautifully and it would be a shame to do anything less. Dreiseitl should not be faulted because his project came in just as construction was going to bid. He has worked in good faith.

Parker noted that the Dreiseitl project had originally been capped at $750,000, but that there was an additional $225,000 available for public art at the municipal center. This could be used for Dreiseitl’s interior pieces, or for additional work by other artists in the north courtyard of the complex. Dreiseitl’s last estimate for the interior work was $58,843 for a piece in the lobby and $47,491 for one in the atrium – that amount “is not insurmountable,” Parker said.

If needed, other money is available as well, she said, including Percent for Art money from the city’s street and water funds. However, those funds would come with certain restrictions, she said. For example, art that’s paid for out of the various water funds would require a water-related connection – this might work for the interior pieces, Parker said, since they are based on images of the Huron River watershed.

According to a budget summary passed out at Tuesday’s meeting, $276,208 is available for public art from the city’s street millage, with another $281,233 from the water fund. The highest available balance in the Percent for Art program – $537,362 – comes from the sewer fund.

Connie Brown said there were some larger questions to consider. For example, if money from the water fund was used for art in the municipal center, that funding wouldn’t be available for art projects elsewhere, she said. Cheryl Zuellig said that it was still a question whether AAPAC wanted to fund all of these projects at the municipal center: “That has not been a discussion or an agreement yet.” She said it was good to know that McCormick is supportive, but they needed to see Dreiseitl’s designs before moving forward.

Jeff Meyers, who was recently appointed to AAPAC, weighed in on the budget issue, saying that AAPAC needs to decide whether budgets are truly ceilings on a project’s cost, or if they’re willing to compromise other future projects by going over budget.

Parker reported that the municipal center task force is asking that a request for qualifications (RFQ) be written, though not yet issued, for artwork in the north courtyard. There was general discussion about the need to be proactive, in part by generating a database of artists and their qualifications. That way, when projects arise, there will be a pre-vetted pool of talent that AAPAC can tap quickly.

Art in West Park

Connie Brown reported that responses to a request for qualifications (RFQ) for a public art project in West Park were due this Friday, with an interview date for finalists set for March 4. AAPAC will be asked to vote on selecting an artist at their March 9 meeting. The project, tied to city renovations at West Park, would be for artwork incorporated into three curving, concrete seat walls that will be built into the hill opposite the park’s band shell. [See Chronicle coverage: "Artists Sought for West Park Project"]

Cheryl Zuellig said she hoped that AAPAC would approve a draft of planning and selection criteria that night, so that it can get into the hands of the selection committee for the West Park project. [It wasn't – see below.] Margaret Parker pointed out that a selection process was laid out in detail in AAPAC’s guidelines.

Zuellig also requested that information about the artists be made available to AAPAC for review before the March 9 meeting. Jeff Meyers asked what would happen if the commission didn’t like any of the choices. Katherine Talcott clarified that there was no commitment to selecting anyone.

Responding to a question about whether the artist would be providing a design for the work, Brown said that they were asking artists for a concept and general approach, not a specific design. Once selected, the artist would have until May 3 to complete the design and budget, which would be subject to AAPAC approval.

Meyers asked what would happen if AAPAC doesn’t like the final design. Brown said it would be similar to what happened with Dreiseitl’s project – they could ask for revisions, or turn it down. One possibility is to write a contract dividing the work into phases, she said, so that an artist would be paid for design work, even if the project wasn’t ultimately approved.

Elaine Sims wondered if they could select two artists to move ahead with design work, based on the early concepts. Brown said they could, but she wondered if it would be worth it for a project this size. The budget for the artist on the West Park project is set for between $8,000 to $10,000.

At one point, Parker asked how much of Talcott’s time is being spent on this project, and whether she’s being paid out of the parks budget for her work on the West Park project, rather than being paid out of Percent for Art funds. Talcott noted that her contract renewal with the city, for a period through June 30, will be coming up for a city council vote at their Feb. 16 meeting.

Zuellig observed that the issue of administrative staff time came up a lot. She was concerned that several city-initiated projects had come up in the last few months – none of them anticipated in AAPAC’s annual plan – and that there’d been no discussion about how that affected administrative resources. Talcott suggested that AAPAC’s planning committee, which Zuellig leads, should have a meeting with Sue McCormick on the issue.

Meyers said there seemed to be a lot of ambiguity about the city’s expectations for AAPAC. This is a commission with little institutional history, he noted. If the process creates surprises, as it seems to now, they’ll forever be in a reactive mode, he said.

Talcott said she kept track of her hours, and how much time she spent on various projects. That’s important, Parker said, so that if an entity like the Downtown Development Authority asked Talcott to supervise a review panel, for example, she’d be able to tell them how much time it would take and how much she would charge them for that work.

Fuller Road Station: An Art Consultant?

Connie Brown reported that the city of Ann Arbor has asked to develop a request for qualifications (RFQ) for someone to represent the arts as a consultant for the Fuller Road Station, a project being undertaken jointly by the University of Michigan and the city. The first phase will be a large parking structure, built on city-owned property, with the plan of eventually building a transit station there for commuter rail.

The arts consultant would work with the project’s architect, landscape architect and others to incorporate art during the design process, both on the site and in the structure. There are several outstanding questions, Brown said, including how much money is available – it would not come from Percent for Art funds.

Katherine Talcott said the project’s budget would have a set-aside for this position. She didn’t yet know what that amount would be.

Commissioners discussed the role of this person. Cheryl Zuellig said the RFQ needed to be clear that they were looking for a consultant, not an artist. Talcott said the terminology was important, and suggested the term “envisioner” as a possibility, to indicate that they would be coming up with an overall plan for public art at the site. The approach could set a precedent for future projects, she said.

Jeff Meyers asked what role AAPAC was being asked to play. In addition to the RFQ, Talcott said, she would be serving on a Fuller Station public art committee, and two commissioners would be asked to serve as well.

There was some discussion about the role of the consultant – would the RFQ make clear that the consultant couldn’t be picked to also provide art for the site? Margaret Parker, AAPAC’s chair, said that in some cities, like Seattle, art consultants were actually guaranteed that their artwork would be included in the project. It would be important to clarify that one way or another, Zuellig said, because it would affect the decision about who was hired.

Zuellig noted that the firm she works for, JJR, is involved in the city’s design team for the project. However, there’s also a UM design team, she said, which is handling the construction of the large parking structure – is the RFQ for both design teams? That’s unclear, Talcott said.

Elaine Sims pointed out that the university has its own public art committee, and that it would be important to coordinate with them.

Connie Brown described the project as “question-laden, but also opportunity-laden.” Jim Curtis suggested raising these questions with the city staff, and asking them to communicate with the UM project team.

Working with the DDA: Hanover Park

As part of the projects committee, Marsha Chamberlin reported on a meeting that several AAPAC commissioners had with Susan Pollay and Mike Bergren of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, to discuss collaborating on public art projects related to work by the DDA.

Currently, the DDA has $60,000 in its funds for public art, an amount that includes about $10,000 for administrative expenses. The funding is earmarked for artwork on South Division, between Packard and Liberty, as part of the Fifth and Division street improvement project. Additional funds will likely be available, Chamberlin said, related to the Library Lot underground parking project on Fifth Avenue.

Because the street improvement project is well underway, it’s unlikely that AAPAC can be included in current plans for incorporating art into the sidewalks and curbs, as had been previously discussed. Instead, the projects committee recommended a project in Hanover Park, located at the northwest corner of Packard and Division. [The possibility of this project has been discussed at several previous AAPAC meetings, dating back to a presentation that Pollay gave at AAPAC's July 2009 meeting.] The DDA has built a large, circular dais in the park, a suitable spot  to place a sculpture, Chamberlin said.

Jim Curtis noted that this would be a gateway project – a characterization that AAPAC chair Margaret Parker disputed. She said that AAPAC had already identified gateways for the city, and this spot wasn’t on that list. However, she conceded that it was a high-visibility location.

Elaine Sims asked what would happen to the existing sculpture there. [The piece is titled "Arbor Sapientiae," by Ronald Bauer.] Curtis said it would likely be relocated – Abby Elias of the city attorney’s office had indicated there was storage space available at the Wheeler service center on Stone School Road, he said. Sims pointed out that in fact, AAPAC was getting two projects – putting in place a new sculpture, and taking care of the old one. Cheryl Zuellig pointed out that the artist who created the existing sculpture would need to be notified.

Commissioners then engaged in a discussion about process. Zuellig said that at this point, the proposal needs to be vetted by the planning committee, which she chairs. Asked by Chamberlin to clarify, Zuellig said that the role of the planning committee is to vet all proposals, making sure they are consistent with AAPAC’s mission and annual plan. “It’s just a check, to make sure we’re not chasing our tails,” she said.

Chamberlin expressed concern that AAPAC has been doing a “mating dance” with the DDA for several months. She felt that the projects committee had been charged to move forward with this partnership, and now they were backing off again by sending it to another committee. Parker said that AAPAC was just following its process, and that one of the challenges in dealing with the DDA was a matter of timing. “The DDA doesn’t realize how much time it takes for public art to evolve,” she said.

Chamberlin said that the DDA respects AAPAC’s work, but that it has its own timelines. Zuellig said the timeline for the Hanover project seemed reasonable – Parker described it as “very short.” [The timeline presented by Chamberlin calls for an RFP to be issued in mid-April, with proposals due by July 1 and artists selected by Sept. 1.] Curtis said he wanted to underscore the fact that the DDA very much wanted to work with AAPAC.

Zuelling then questioned whether $50,000 would be enough for a project at that location. She said she didn’t want to end up putting a cheesy piece there, just because they couldn’t fund something appropriate. Curtis stressed that there would likely be more funds available from the DDA, if that were necessary.

Getting Public Input: A Debate

During her report on work by the public relations committee, Marsha Chamberlin said that she and fellow commissioner Cathy Gendron were still struggling with how to make a community event interesting enough to attract more people than the one held last year, which drew about 30 people. It wasn’t clear how to make it of value, she said. [See Chronicle coverage of the May 21, 2009 event: "The Where and Why of Ann Arbor's Art"]

AAPAC chair Margaret Parker said the event was part of AAPAC’s annual plan. “It’s something we have to do – we can’t not do it,” she said. Parker suggested doing something similar to last year’s event, holding it at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library. They could talk about the public art projects that are in the works, she said, and ask people for feedback.

There was some discussion about having an arts-related lecture as part of the event, given that part of AAPAC’s mission is to educate. But Parker disagreed with that approach, saying it should be a time to communicate with the public and get input on the group’s annual plan. She said that a turnout of 30 people last year was “great,” adding that they weren’t going for numbers – it was more important to be able to say that they’d provided the opportunity for input. She reminded commissioners that they’d been castigated over the past year for not getting enough input about AAPAC’s work.

Parker also said that an annual public meeting was part of the Percent for Arts ordinance, a point that Chamberlin disputed. [The ordinance, passed by Ann Arbor city council in November of 2007, calls for AAPAC to "promote awareness of public art" and as part of AAPAC's annual report to city council, to report on its "efforts to promote awareness of public art."]

Chamberlin said she and Gendron didn’t object to holding an event, but they hadn’t been able to come up with a way to make it relevent and therefore likely to draw interest from the community. She said she wanted to energize people, not have an event with just 30 people sitting around with wine and cheese. At last year’s meeting, they were preaching to the choir, she said: “We didn’t have many John Q. Publics there.” Chamberlin also expressed frustration, saying that this was the third AAPAC meeting at which she’d raised the issue, and there still hadn’t been any ideas floated that “will light people on fire.”

When Parker asked whether Chamberlin was saying that it hadn’t been worth holding something for those 30 people who showed up last year, Chamberlin said it wasn’t appropriate even to suggest that. Her point, Chamberlin added, was that it was important to draw a larger group.

Katherine Talcott suggested throwing a public art party, and Cheryl Zuellig said if people weren’t coming to the event it might be because they weren’t interested or, she joked, that “you haven’t fed them enough.”

Jim Curtis said it was important to stop and reflect on the fact that all commissioners are working very hard, and are doing a great job. As a business owner, he said he constantly juggles needs and wants. He’s all in favor of having an event, but “perhaps the biggest thing we can do to promote art is to produce art.” The best way to demonstrate what they’re doing is to have projects that are publicly visible, he said.

Zuellig said it wasn’t just about communicating what AAPAC was doing – the public also wants to be heard. An event is just one of many ways to get feedback, she said.

Chamberlin contended that a meeting might fulfill the requirement – but not the spirit – of seeking public input. She proposed using SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool, as another way to get feedback. Zuellig agreed, saying a five-question survey could be useful. Chamberlin suggested sending it out via the email lists for local groups like the Arts Alliance, the Ann Arbor Art Center – where she serves as president – as well as posting it on the website for the city of Ann Arbor and finding other ways of distribution.

Then, she said, they could hold an event and deliver the survey results at that venue.

Guidelines, Selection Criteria Tabled

Some commissioners had difficulty accessing updated copies of AAPAC’s guidelines prior to Tuesday’s meeting, so discussion and a vote on approval was tabled until next month. Elaine Sims asked how they should handle any changes, which prompted AAPAC chair Margaret Parker to say, “If you feel you need to perfect this, it could take another two years.” She was alluding to the length of time that the guidelines have been awaiting approval by the city attorney’s office, which has finally signed off on this version. If changes are made now, it goes back to the attorney’s office, she said, then returns to AAPAC for approval before being sent for a vote at city council.

Katherine Talcott, the city’s public arts administrator, clarified that AAPAC’s bylaws had been vetted by the city attorney’s office and passed by AAPAC, but that the city council hadn’t yet voted on those.

Also tabled later in the meeting were two drafts proposed by the planning committee: 1) planning and selection criteria, to use in prioritizing projects, and 2) an annual plan process, outlining general dates throughout the year for AAPAC activities, such as submission of its annual plan. Cheryl Zuellig, chair of the planning committee, urged commissioners to review the documents and be prepared for discussion and a vote next month. She noted that action had been tabled the previous month as well.

Strategic Planning, Organizational Planning – or Both?

The commission had a lengthy discussion about a proposed retreat, and whether they needed to do strategic planning or get help with their organizational processes, specifically as it relates to AAPAC’s interface with city staff. Several commissioners suggested that both types of planning are needed. Parker, who has already contacted three local consultants about the issue, said there were two additional people she would talk with as well. The group also agreed that AAPAC’s planning committee would discuss further the idea of a retreat .

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Jeff Meyers, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger

Absent: Cathy Gendron

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 9 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

This winter seating will be gone by April, when renovations – including new seating built into the hill in front of the band shell – will begin in West Park. (Photos by the writer. The builder of the snow structures is unknown.)

But while reporting on city council’s vote against cutting public art funding to a half-percent, AAPAC chair Margaret Parker wasn’t feeling complacent: “I think we can expect a similar [challenge] to happen in the future.”

The commission discussed several other projects, including the status of the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture recently approved by city council. He has not yet responded to queries asking him to modify two additional pieces of art – it’s unclear if those pieces, originally planned for the interior of the new municipal center, will move forward.

Percent for Art, Dreiseitl Project

AAPAC chair Margaret Parker began the meeting by reviewing the outcome of the Dec. 21, 2009 Ann Arbor city council meeting.  At that meeting, councilmembers voted on a resolution that would have cut the Percent for Art program to a half-percent for three years, then reverted back to a full percent. Parker said she and eight others spoke in favor of keeping the full percent, and one person from the public spoke against it. The resolution failed on a 7 to 2 vote, with only councilmembers Stephen Kunselman and Sandi Smith supporting it. Commissioner Elaine Sims, who also spoke at the council meeting, said councilmembers indicated that the public commentary made a difference in their votes.

Also considered at the Dec. 21 city council meeting was a resolution approving a $111,400 contract with Quinn Evans, the municipal center’s architect, for design documentation and procurement of bids to fabricate and install an outdoor sculpture proposed by Herbert Dreiseitl. Only Kunselman voted against this, Parker reported. [See Chronicle coverage: "Council: Art Key to Ann Arbor’s Identity"]

The total project budget is $737,820 for this outdoor sculpture, which will be designed to incorporate stormwater runoff. Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator, said she’s working with Bill Wheeler, project manager for the municipal center, and Abigail Elias from the city attorney’s office to hammer out the Quinn Evans contract.

Originally, AAPAC had commissioned and paid for Dreiseitl to design three pieces, though only the one main outdoor work has been approved. There’s still some question about the status of the two Dreiseitl wall installations inside the new building. Talcott reported that the German artist has been in Singapore for several months, and hasn’t responded to queries from the city asking for revised designs and cost estimates.

The AAPAC task force on public art at the municipal center site will meet on Friday, Jan. 15 to discuss other art installations at the site, Parker said. There are spots for possible public art pieces in the north courtyard area off of Ann Street, as well as on a large outside wall on the building, facing east. And if Dreiseitl’s pieces aren’t used for the two inside locations, the task force will need to figure out what will go there. “We do have to get going on it,” Parker said.

West Park, Fuller Road Station, Bronze Horse Statue

Commissioners discussed several projects in various stages of development: public art for West Park and the Fuller Road Station, and a bronze horse sculpture that an artist wants to donate to the city.

In reporting on work by AAPAC’s projects committee, Connie Brown said she had talked with Amy Kuras, a city park planner, who is working on renovations to West Park. The project’s timeline had been accelerated and would likely begin in April 2010, to be completed throughout the summer. Kuras wanted to know whether AAPAC could work within that timeline to include a public art component, which would be funded through the Percent for Art program. [At city council's Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, an agenda item to authorize those West Park capital improvements prompted a lengthy discussion among councilmembers about how the Percent for Art program works.]

Brown recommended that AAPAC issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) for artwork that would be part of poured concrete seat walls, to be dug into the hillside across from the West Park bandshell. If they decide to do this project, they’d have to move quickly, she said, with the artist, design, contract and budget in place by May. City staff need to determine how much money would be available – funds would come either from the parks or stormwater budgets, said Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator.

Some commissioners expressed concerns about the process, the short timeline and the type of materials that might be used. “To me it seems like another thing thrown to us with a tight timeline,” Elaine Sims said, asking how it fit into AAPAC’s budget and annual plan.

Margaret Parker pointed out that it had taken a year to do the request for proposals (RFP) for the artwork in the Fourth & Washington parking structure. City departments need to give AAPAC more advance notice for this kind of project, she said.

Noting that there were maintenance issues associated with outdoor concrete work, Sims suggested the project could be more of an aesthetic, with the funds spent on beautiful materials for the seating, rather than on an art installation. Several other commissioners agreed with the decorative approach.

Talcott said she was meeting with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator (to whom Talcott reports), and would clarify the process for moving forward, including whether the RFQ needs to get council approval.

Talcott then reported on another city project in which AAPAC might play a role: the Fuller Road Station. The project manager, David Dykman, had contacted her and they planned to meet formally soon. It was good that someone from another city project is reaching out, she said. The station is being developed by the city and the University of Michigan, and is envisioned in two phases. Initially, it will entail a large parking structure, with the hopes of eventually building a new Amtrak station on the site, which is located near the UM medical complex. [See Chronicle coverage: "Council OKs Recycling, Transit, Shelter"]

Talcott also reported that she was setting up a review panel to evaluate the proposed donation of a large bronze horse sculpture by local artist Garo Kazan. She hasn’t yet received confirmations from people who’ve been invited to be on the panel.

Funding Rules: What AAPAC Can and Can’t Do

The commission discussed several topics that related to constraints on how Percent for Art funds can be spent.

The city attorney’s office had clarified, Margaret Parker said, that AAPAC could not use funding for temporary art projects, such as FestiFools, an annual parade of towering puppets that takes place every April on Main Street. FestiFools’ organizers had originally asked AAPAC for a five-year commitment of $25,000 each year. At AAPAC’s Oct. 13, 2009 meeting, commissioners rejected that proposal but voted to approve one-time funding of $5,000.

Parker asked that Jean Borger draft a letter to notify FestiFools of the decision. Several commissioners wanted to make sure to communicate that they supported the project in spirit, despite the funding constraints.

Katherine Talcott suggested that if AAPAC wanted to fund temporary projects like FestiFools, they should consider raising money from private donors. Later in the meeting, Parker asked whether the commission wanted to form a fundraising committee for that purpose. They ultimately decided to table the idea until their strategic planning retreat.

Parker also reported that AAPAC can’t award grants using Percent for Art funds – the commission had previously discussed this as a possibility.

Prior to Tuesday's meeting of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, comissioner Cathy Gendron worked on a presentation of public art websites from other cities.

The issue of city rules came up again during a report from the public relations committee, which had been working on AAPAC’s website. The committee – Cathy Gendron and Marsha Chamberlin – had been hoping to redesign the AAPAC website, which is separate from its page on the city’s website. However, city officials have told them that no Percent for Art funds can be used on website design, so they’re focusing their energy on how to revamp the city web page. “It won’t be elegant – or anything like we envisioned,” Gendron said.

However, there are some elements that they can incorporate into the site, Gendron said. She showed commissioners examples of public art websites in other cities that they might emulate. Cleveland’s public art website has an artist registry, for example. Gendron said the Ann Arbor area Arts Alliance is developing something similar, and AAPAC might be able to combine efforts with them. Another example is a Google map with markers showing the locations of public art – this might be possible on the city site, Gendron said.

AAPAC could also consider starting a blog or a Facebook page, she said, showing a Chicago public art blog as an example. This would be a way for people who aren’t city employees (including commissioners) to post things online, she said, because only city employees can load items onto the city’s website.

Strategic Planning

The commission discussed the need for a strategic planning retreat, which would focus on a one- to three-year timeframe. Margaret Parker wanted to bring in someone from the city’s planning staff to talk about how AAPAC can be better integrated into the city’s planning process. They need to know about projects years in advance, she said, citing the rebuilding of the East Stadium bridges as an example of something they should be included in. Parker mentioned Connie Pulcipher as a city planner who might be available for the retreat.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether they needed a professional facilitator instead. The issue of how soon AAPAC hears about projects isn’t strategic, she said – it’s a matter of communication. Other commissioners weighed in, saying that perhaps a city planner could participate in a retreat that would be facilitated by a professional. Fran Alexander of Alexander Resources Consulting and Dannemiller Tyson Associates were both mentioned as options.

Parker said they’d need to do an RFP for the facilitator, and Katherine Talcott cautioned that they couldn’t spend more than $1,000. No date was set for the retreat, but the goal is to shoot for a full day in mid-February, depending on schedules and the availability of a facilitator.

Public Forum?

In reporting on the work of the public relations committee, Marsha Chamberlin and Cathy Gendron said they hadn’t moved forward on planning a public forum, as called for in AAPAC’s annual plan. Gendron noted that the last forum, held in May 2009, had been sparsely attended. About 30 people showed up for the event at the Ann Arbor Art Center. It wasn’t clear what the point would be, Chamberlin said – would it be to educate people about public art in general, or about the role of AAPAC, or to seek feedback? She also wondered how they could make it engaging so that people would want to attend.

Jeff Meyers, who attended Tuesday’s meeting though he hasn’t yet been officially appointed to AAPAC, suggested that the event could connect with the whole arts and creative community, letting them know how the funding process works and how they can get involved. Ultimately, he said, people want to know what the Percent for Art program means for their bottom line, both creatively and financially.

Margaret Parker said she felt like last year’s attendance of 30 people was a lot. She identified several things they could do at a public forum: review current AAPAC projects, educate people about public art, explain AAPAC’s process, and solicit feedback and suggestions.

Chamberlin proposed that she and Gendron meet again to put together a detailed plan and come up with a proposed date. Others suggested holding it in conjunction with other upcoming arts-related events, such as the Ann Arbor Film Festival in March or FestiFools in April.

Election of Officers

The final item of business was the election of officers. Margaret Parker, has served as chair since the commission was formed, and before that for several years led the group’s previous incarnation, the Commission for Art in Public Places.  She announced that 2010 would be her last year as AAPAC chair.

She asked for volunteers to be vice chair, with the assumption that the vice chair this year would assume the chair’s position in 2011. Jim Curtis said he couldn’t do it, because he’ll be involved in launching the Main Street Business Improvement Zone, a new downtown tax assessment district. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle."] Several people suggested Connie Brown, who demurred, citing her workload as head of AAPAC’s projects committee. All other commissioners declined as well.

“That will not do,” Parker said. “I’m not going to do it all by myself anymore.” The issue was unresolved, with Parker joking that she’d bring it up at each meeting until someone stepped up.

Elaine Sims said part of the problem is that AAPAC needs more than nine commissioners. Brown noted that at this point, they don’t even have nine – Jeff Meyers has not yet been appointed, and another seat remains unfilled. Meyers is expected to be nominated and appointed at the city council’s next meeting, on Jan. 18.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger, Jeff Meyers

Absent: Cheryl Zuellig

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 9 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The city has already paid Dreiseitl for the design of three pieces for the city’s new municipal center, also known as the police-courts facility, being built next to city hall. But it will only be the outdoor piece – a storm water fountain and sculpture – that city council is expected to vote on at its Dec. 7 meeting.

City council was originally expected to vote on the Dreiseitl project at its Nov. 16 meeting. According to AAPAC chair Margaret Parker, the delay in voting on the outdoor piece, which currently has a budget of $728,458, was due to McCormick’s concern over unanswered questions that require additional input from the municipal center’s architect as well as Dreiseitl. McCormick had pointed to unresolved issues with the two indoor pieces in deciding to leave them out of the vote completely, Parker said.

Parker handled the status report on Dreiseitl’s project in the absence of Katherine Talcott, the city’s part-time administrator for public art, who has been managing the project. Talcott had been impeded by traffic on her way back to Ann Arbor from Pittsburgh, and did not attend Tuesday’s meeting.

Background on Percent for Art and Dreiseitl’s Project

Two years ago, at its Nov. 5, 2007 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council adopted an ordinance that established the Percent for Art program. It specifies in part:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, all capital improvement projects funded wholly or partly by the city shall include funds for public art equal to one percent (1%) of the construction costs identified in the initial project estimate, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. Where a capital improvement project is only partly funded by the city, the amount of funds allocated for public art shall be one percent of that portion of the project that is city-funded, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. All appropriations for capital improvements falling within the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to include funding to implement the requirements of this section 1.

The following is a timeline, in broad strokes, with key dates in the evolution of the Dreiseitl art project:

• September 2008: Dreiseitl visits Ann Arbor, as keynote speaker for the Huron River Watershed Council’s State of the Huron conference. He meets with AAPAC’s muncipal center task force, which then recommends to AAPAC that Dreiseitl be commissioned to design three pieces of art at the municipal center, also known as the police-courts facility.
• October 2008: Art commission recommends commissioning design for three pieces of art at the municipal center – one outdoor sculpture, and two indoor wall pieces.
• March 2, 2009: City council approves Dreiseitl’s design fees at $77,000.
• July 20, 2009: Dreiseitl visits Ann Arbor to unveil his design concepts at a public forum and at city council.
• September 2009: Dreiseitl returns to Ann Arbor to meet with municipal center architects and others.
• Oct. 19, 2009: At a special meeting, the municipal center task force recommends accepting designs for all three pieces.
• Oct. 19, 2009. At a special meeting, AAPAC recommends accepting design for the outdoor sculpture – tabling and placing contingencies on the other two indoor pieces.
• Dec. 7, 2009: Possible vote by the city council on the outdoor sculpture.

Dreiseitl: Why Delay the  Vote?

In explaining why the expected vote at the city council’s Nov. 16 meeting would not happen until Dec. 7, Parker said that more information was needed from Quinn Evans, the architect on the municipal center project, as well as from Herbert Dreiseitl himself. Dreiseitl is currently working on a project in Singapore, was very busy, and it has been difficult for the art commission to reach him, Parker said.

She reported that Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, had put the resolution together that was to come before the city council, and that McCormick’s conclusion was that only the outdoor sculpture could be voted on. “That’s how it’s come down,” Parker said. [For background on the other two indoor art pieces Dreiseitl was commissioned to design, see previous Chronicle coverage: "Dreiseitl Project Moves to City Council"]

The budget breakdown that Parker had from Quinn Evans showed a cost for the outdoor sculpture of $728,458. That was less, Parker said, than the roughly $841,000 price tag on all three pieces.

Commissioner Jim Curtis had a question about the outdoor seating adjacent to the sculpture – is that included in the project? Parker said that everyone has said the seating component will come later, not as a part of the project.

Commissioner Connie Brown asked if the lower budget [$728,458 versus $841,000] reflected any of the suggestions for changes to the outdoor sculpture from the municipal center task force that were intended to reduce costs. Parker said that while there’d been suggestions made, none had been implemented in the design.

Those suggestions had included, Parker said, making the sculpture shorter, eliminating the lighting function, reducing the water flow elements, and eliminating the steel at the base of the sculpture. Curtis elicited the clarification from Parker that the lack of interest in implementing those design changes had not resulted from an inability to contact Dreiseitl, but rather that “nobody wanted to do them.”

Parker reiterated that the task force had vote unanimously for all three municipal center art projects that had been designed by Dreiseitl. Because of questions about the lighting in the lobby piece and the supporting wall in the atrium piece, the art commission had tabled action on one piece and set conditions on the other during a special meeting called on Oct. 19 to vote on the project.

Brown asked what would happen with the indoor pieces. Subsequent discussion by Parker and Curtis suggests that it’s not clear if or how the other indoor pieces could eventually be completed. Curtis expressed hope that the places for their installation could be reserved in the building as available space, even though a blank wall might not look great in the interim.

Parker explained to commissioner Cathy Gendron that the glass walls for the indoor pieces had not, in fact, been ordered, and that Sue McCormick had said there were too many open questions about the indoor pieces to vote on them.

Dreiseitl: Arguments for Voting Yes

Parker distributed to art commission members some talking points in support of the project that could be conveyed to “anyone who’s willing to listen,” which had been sent to city council members:

1. The design integrates a 12′ high steel sculpture, storm water circulation, electrical and computer systems into an interactive water piece that children can play in – $750,000 is a very reasonable price for such a design.

2. 80% of funds will go to Michigan fabricators, contractors, architects and designers – this means art is generating jobs for Michigan workers.

3. Both the Municipal Center Task Force and AAPAC voted unanimously for the aesthetic and civic value of this project.

4. City staff, engineers, architects and designers of the building are all whole-heartedly behind this public art installation.

5. Ann Arbor would become known as the site of a world renowned artist who specializes in environmental art.

6. If the money were not used for this piece, it would go back to the Public Art Fund and could not be used for any other reason. Even if the Percent for Art ordinance were eliminated, the money would go back to the designated funds for the capital projects that generated them – sewer, water, transportation, etc.

7. Because the building is coming along quickly, this project is our only chance to make something that is embedded in the building’s infrastructure. It would take at least another year to come up with another proposal for this primary site, and then it would simply sit in the space, not demonstrate the environmental goals of the building.

8. Art is good business. Grand Rapids proved with ArtPrize that art in public spaces can generate business, public awareness for our city, and community empowerment. This is what this project will do in Ann Arbor, but on a permanent basis. All we need to do is follow through with the two-year project we’ve been working on together.

Dreiseitl: Would/Could the City Council Vote No?

Later in the meeting, commissioner Cathy Gendron commented that it would be shocking at this point if the city council voted down the Dreiseitl project. Parker responded by saying that this highlighted the importance of having a municipal center task force with city council and city staff membership.

That task force consists of: Ray Detter of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council; Bob Grese, director of Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum; Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city; AAPAC chair Margaret Parker; Jan Onder of AAPAC; Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council; Ann Arbor city councilmember Margie Teall; Spring Tremaine, a lieutenant with the Ann Arbor Police Department; Julie Creal, a judge with the 15th District Court; and Elona Van Gent of the University of Michigan.

Commissioner Connie Brown noted that the council had already voted on the first piece of the proposal – the concept design. Discussion among Brown, Parker and commissioner Marsha Chamberlin drew out the fact that the council had voted not for a particular design, but rather to commission Dreiseitl to create a design. That had been based, said Parker, on Dreiseitl’s background and expertise.

Brown cautioned that artists who brought projects before AAPAC understand clearly that a “No” was still possible, even if their project survived the selection process and won recommendation to city council for funding. Chamberlin suggested that it was a matter of the culture among artists – architects and real estate developers were used to a tradition of undergoing a long and arduous process, only to have a proposal rejected at the final step. But did artists have the same culture? Brown echoed Chamberlin’s sentiment that developers were used to that kind of rejection late in a process, saying that artists needed to understand that as well.

Parker expressed her feeling that artists were used to the idea that their proposal could be rejected even after having successfully navigated through many steps of a process.

In their deliberations, art commissioners did not mention an email that had been circulated the previous day, Nov. 9, by councilmember Christopher Taylor to his Ward 3 constituents, in which he framed the issue of the Dreiseitl vote as a possible choice between funding public art and funding human services:

I write today to seek your thoughts on a difficult issue that will likely come before Council on [November 16]. [Editor's note: It's now clear that it will likely be voted on at council's Dec. 7 meeting.] The issue is this: should Ann Arbor spend money that it has been saving in its Public Art Fund on public art, or should it spend that money instead on human services.

Without advocating for either position, Taylor discusses in his email the merits and de-merits of arguments both ways, including the possibility that the Percent for Art ordinance be amended so that monies previously earmarked for public art be spent this winter “to provide comfort and security to scores, if not hundreds, of persons during the dead of winter in bleak economic times.”

This isn’t the first time that a councilmember has raised the issue of funding for public art. In February 2009, at a Sunday night caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had mooted the idea of modifying the Percent for Art ordinance – not to reallocate the money to human services, but rather to reduce the amount earmarked for public art. From Chronicle coverage of that caucus ["Discontent Emerges at Caucus"]:

One Percent for Art? Really??

Higgins also called into question the need for construction projects to allocate a full 1% for public art, noting that around $1 million had already accumulated in the fund in the year since the program was adopted. She wondered if perhaps a half percent would be a more appropriate level.

Councilmember Christopher Taylor noted light-heartedly that “A Half-Percent For Art!” just doesn’t have quite the same ring. But on a more serious note he suggested that monies are being accumulated faster than they’re being allocated because a mechanism for distribution is still getting up and running.

Chair’s Report

In addition to discussing the Dreiseitl project, which threaded through much of the other discussion during AAPAC’s Nov. 10 meeting, the commission heard reports from each of its committees and from its chair.

Parker reported that she’d attended a cultural planning session by the Arts Alliance. They’re focused on (i) communications, (ii) capacity building, and (iii) funding. She said she saw an overlap in the missions of the Arts Alliance and AAPAC in that first area: communications. She cited the planned Arts Alliance web portal as an example where public art could have a presence. [At the DDA's October board meeting, Arts Alliance president Tamara Real asked the DDA board to help with the funding of the web portal. At the DDA's November board meeting, the report from its partnerships committee was that the request had been put off for now.]

Parker said she also saw the opportunity to partner on temporary art projects – FestiFools, the Ann Arbor Film Festival, University Musical Society, and artists residencies.

Parker reported that she’d given a talk as part of a brown bag series at the Institute for the Humanities with Larry Cressman, associate professor of art at the University of Michigan (and former AAPAC member) and Elaine Sims, director of UM’s Gifts of Art program and current AAPAC commissioner. The segment will be broadcast on Michigan Television – Comcast Cable channel 24. Parker said that it was striking how the purely civic orientation of art through the public art commission contrasted with the constraints of art that’s installed in, say, a hospital setting. She cited two different UM websites documenting public art. One includes public art in different areas of the UM campus and the other is the UM Museum of Art website.

Present: Connie Brown, Jim Curtis, Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker.

Absent: Jim Kern, Jan Onder, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. on the 7th floor of the City Center. [confirm date]

Elaine Sims and Jim Curtis of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission at a special meeting on Monday. Sims and Curtis expressed concern about some aspects of Herbert Dreiseitl's revised designs for art in the new municipal center, also know as the police/courts facility. (Photo by the writer.)

The $841,541 budget submitted just last week by Dreiseitl for the three pieces of art – including design fees already paid to him – exceeds AAPAC’s original cap of $750,000 for the project. AAPAC had set aside another $250,000 for other public art projects on the municipal center site, and plans to use part of that amount to pay for Dreiseitl’s project.

Even at the higher cost, Dreiseitl has warned that creating all three pieces for that price will be “challenging” – and some commissioners said they should consider providing more funding, if it’s necessary to achieve his vision. The complete vision was unclear on Monday, however, since AAPAC did not have final drawings for his proposed two interior wall pieces.

Background: The Special Meeting

Only five of the nine commissioners were able to attend the special meeting on Monday evening, which had been called for Friday, Oct. 16. Monday’s meeting, along with one held earlier in the day by a task force on public art for the municipal center, had been organized so that both groups could make recommendations to city council on the Dreiseitl project. Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, has asked that recommendations be made by Monday – city council is expected to vote on the project at their Nov. 16 meeting. McCormick told AAPAC that city staff needs a month to prepare for the meeting.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects, project manager for the Dreiseitl art installations. (Photo by the writer.)

There’s also a sense of urgency as construction of the municipal center moves forward. At Monday’s meeting, Ken Clein – a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, the Ann Arbor firm that’s designing the center and acting as project manager for Dreiseitl’s installations – told commissioners that decisions need to be made about Dreiseitl’s project so that work at the municipal center won’t be delayed.

Parker reported that the task force passed motions recommending all three Dreiseitl pieces, at the budgeted price he submitted: $841,541. They also recommended that AAPAC explore fundraising possibilities to supplement funds for public art at the municipal center, if necessary.

Members of the task force who voted on Monday are Ray Detter of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council; Bob Grese, director of Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum; AAPAC chair Margaret Parker; Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council; Ann Arbor city councilmember Margie Teall; and Spring Tremaine, a lieutenant with the Ann Arbor Police Department.

The Outdoor Sculpture

The main work proposed by Dreiseitl is an outdoor water sculpture to be located in the municipal center’s main plaza. Here’s a description of the work from a Chronicle report of Dreiseitl’s presentation to city council in July:

The sculpture would consist of a large, upright piece made of two rectangular metal plates standing close together, facing Huron Street. Water would flow down the front piece, which would be concave at the top and transition to a convex shape at the bottom. The water would flow from the top and drain out the back, continuing on toward the building like a river. Tanks connected to the center’s rain garden would store and filter water so it could be circulated through the sculpture repeatedly.

Dreiseitl’s models showed a bridge over the river-like part of the sculpture, as well as a couple of benches alongside it. He explained that he wanted to integrate his work with the surrounding architecture and landscape.

A drawing of what Herbert Dreiseitl's water sculpture would look like upon completion. It would be located in a plaza on the Huron Street side of the new municipal center, next to a planned rain garden.

This piece has a budget of $728,458. The largest line item is $155,000 for lighting and controls, including multiple ground-mounted spotlights and possibly a spotlight attached to the building as well. The sculpture would also incorporate multiple hand-blown blue glass “pearls,” individually lit and programmed to flick off and on in a specific sequence.

Another major line item is for “water technology,” at $125,000. Clein told commissioners that this would include water filters, pipes leading back to the building’s mechanical room, two to three pumps, and possibly a system for treatment of the water, if necessary.

Other line items for the outdoor sculpture include $45,000 for a pre-cast concrete water basin; $15,000 for small stainless steel forms affixed to the sculpture and rotating with the water flow; $85,000 for the sculpture itself, made of “weathering” steel; a base for the sculpture, also made of weathering steel, for $30,000; and $3,000 for the hand-blown glass bulbs.

Commissioner Elaine Sims asked Clein about ways to reduce the cost of certain line items, particularly the cost of lighting. She also wanted to see a more detailed breakdown of costs within that line item. Clein said he’d had several long conversations with Dreiseitl about ways to reduce the cost, particularly for lighting and water technology. Ultimately, Clein said, “We felt it would be better to get this one right, rather than do three that weren’t quite there.”

In addition to the elements of the sculpture itself, the budget includes $23,500 in costs associated with re-doing work in the plaza that’s already been finished. For example, foundations that have been poured will have to be modified to support the sculpture and pre-cast concrete water basin, Clein said. Two tall light poles will be taken out and replaced with multiple light fixtures that are lower to the ground. The budget also includes $24,075 for contingencies.

Dreiseitl’s fees for the outdoor sculpture are $140,670, an amount that includes previously paid design work. The fees will also cover the cost of a three-week trip to Ann Arbor for Dreiseitl and an assistant during the sculpture’s assembly next year. Additional budget items include $26,650 to Quinn Evans Architects for project management and technical support, and $37,800 to Conservation Design Forum for consulting on the project.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved a motion to recommend that the council accept Dreiseitl’s design and budget for the outdoor water sculpture, with the suggestion that further cost savings be explored.

Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, looks over drawings by Herbert Dreiseitl before the start of a special meeting on Monday night at the City Center Building's 7th floor conference room. (Photo by the writer.)

Indoor Wall Art: Police/Courts Lobby

Because Dreiseitl has revised his design for two interior pieces but hasn’t provided drawings of the newest versions, Margaret Parker – AAPAC’s chair – described to commissioners what those changes would be.

An installation on the lobby wall of the police/courts building – part of the municipal center, located west of the current city hall – was originally designed as a panel of steel, but will now be made of dark blue glass. The piece will be smaller than originally conceived, Parker said. A drawing of the Huron River watershed will be etched into the front of the glass – paint might be added to highlight the watershed etching.

The original design included hand-blown blue glass “pearls” – each one lit – that were to be embedded in the steel, highlighting the watershed etching. But because it’s more difficult (and therefore more expensive) to embed the lights into glass, a material that could easily crack, that approach was abandoned, Parker said. Instead, the blue bulbs would hang from the ceiling at varying levels and be lit from above by lights in the ceiling.

Elaine Sims said she wasn’t happy with the design changes. “It sounds real boring to me,” she said. “The ‘wow’ factor is pssh – the air’s gone out of it.”

Moving from a steel to a glass foundation for the piece was the idea of the building’s architectural team, Clein said. They believed that steel conflicted with the other materials used in the building, which were intended to be lighter and transparent. The sense was that steel conveyed the feeling of a fortress, he said, noting that Dreiseitl immediately agreed.

Sims and other commissioners questioned whether the glass “pearls” could be lit internally. Adding a power cord to each light, as well as programming for their operation, would increase costs significantly, Clein said. But without light, commissioner Cheryl Zuellig said, it would be difficult to tell that the opaque bulbs were blue.

Commissioner Jim Curtis suggested trying to find a way to work the lights into the wall panel, possibly by embedding them into a wood backing, to which the glass panel would be affixed. Clein said one problem would be how to replace the lights when they burned out – there’s no way to access the lights in that configuration. Sims asked if fiber optics might work. Clein said he discussed that with Dreiseitl, but that the artist wasn’t keen on the idea, because of the lower light output. That’s true, Sims said, but it’s would be more interesting than just an etching.

Sims also expressed concern that the hanging bulbs would gather dust.

The total budget for this work is $53,843. That includes $10,000 to make 100 blue glass bulbs, $16,000 for the etching on a blue glass panel, and $7,000 for lighting and controls. Dreiseitl’s fee for this piece is $7,815. Quinn Evans Architects would be paid $7,175.

Outcome: The commission passed a motion, with Elaine Sims dissenting, that recommended city council approve the design and budget for this wall installation, with the condition that Dreiseitl develop a satisfactory lighting solution.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects holds up some blue glass balls to show how they'd look when hit by light. The balls are part of a proposed art installation at the new municipal center. (Photo by the writer.)

Indoor Wall Art: Larcom Building Atrium

In reporting on design changes to Dreiseitl’s second indoor piece, which would be located on the west wall of the atrium in the Larcom Building, Parker said the wall would be made of white plaster, not the steel originally envisioned. The drawing of plant life, showing root structures as well as above-ground flora, would be done in silver paint.

Clein clarified that the actual wall would be gypsum (drywall), and that a thin layer of plaster would be spread over the wall, except on the parts of the wall with the plant life design. The shallow trough created by the design would be filled in with silver paint. As with the other indoor piece, 100 blue glass bulbs would be suspended from the ceiling.

Elaine Sims and Jim Curtis both expressed concerns over the durability of the material. Clein acknowledged that the drywall and plaster would be susceptible to humidity and temperature changes, due to frequent opening and closing of doors to the building, which will be open 24/7.

Cheryl Zuellig objected to the silver-on-white design, saying that it seemed frivolous and “snowflakey” compared to the earth tones of the originally proposed steel material.

Cathy Gendron wondered whether Dreiseitl could do the drawings on panels that could be suspended from the ceiling or affixed to the wall, rather than make the drawings directly on the wall. But Parker said the beauty of these delicate drawings of plant life was that they would seem to emerge from the building itself, incorporated into the materials of the structure.

The budget for this piece is $47,491, which includes $7,815 in fees for Dreiseitl and $7,175 for Quinn Evans.

Outcome: The commission decided to table this item. They plan to hold an additional meeting, at a date to be determined, to discuss alternatives to this proposal – including the possibility of allocating more funding so that Dreiseitl could modify his design and materials. The meeting would also allow more commissioners to be involved – Cathy Gendron said that some of the commissioners who were absent on Monday were unhappy that they couldn’t be part of the discussion. When they meet again, Cheryl Zuellig asked that Parker review how much funding is still available for public art at the municipal center, and what other projects are being considered there, aside from Dreiseitl.

Present: Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Ken Clein, Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger.

Absent: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Kern, Jan Onder.

A small-scale model of the water sculpture by German artist Herman Dreiseitl, proposed for the new municipal center, is displayed on a table outside of council chambers on the second floor of city hall. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (Oct. 13, 2009): In a move that came as a surprise to some commissioners, the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission was asked at its Tuesday meeting to schedule a special session this Friday to vote on the Herbert Dreiseitl art project.  The project is  a three-piece installation planned for the new municipal center, which includes a large waterscape sculpture in the building’s outdoor plaza.

However, the city still doesn’t have a final budget or final designs from the German artist – those will likely be provided by Thursday afternoon, according to Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator. It’s also possible that the Friday meeting will be postponed, if information isn’t provided in time. The meeting, which is open to the public, is tentatively set for noon at the City Center’s 7th floor conference room, 220 E. Huron St. [Editor's note: At around 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, Oct. 15, the city clerk's office contacted The Chronicle with the news that the Friday meeting would be rescheduled. UPDATE, Oct. 16, 2 p.m.: A special meeting of the municipal center task force has been scheduled for Monday, Oct. 19 from 1-2:30 p.m. at the City Center's 7th floor conference room, 220 E. Huron St. Also on Monday, a special meeting of the Public Art Commission is set for 5:30 p.m. at the same location.]

Why Hold a Special Meeting?

The Dreiseitl project has been in the works for over a year, and is AAPAC’s largest undertaking with an estimated price tag of more than $800,000, funded through the city’s Percent for Art program. That amount includes a $72,000 check for initial design work that the artist received last week when he was in town for additional talks with city staff, architects and others associated with the municipal center project. [Previous Chronicle coverage of Dreiseitl's designs: "A River of Blue Light"]

On Tuesday, Margaret Parker, AAPAC’s chair, told the commission that the task force charged with guiding public art projects at the municipal center met last week. The task force had intended to make a recommendation to AAPAC about Dreiseitl’s work, she said, but because the budget hadn’t been finalized, the task force couldn’t vote. Certain construction elements – such as pouring concrete in the courts building – are ready to proceed, Parker said, but will have to be held back until a decision is made about the Dreiseitl installation. Continued delays could mean that change-of-work orders will be required, she added, and that costs money.

Parker said that Dreiseitl hadn’t yet chosen all of the subcontractors he’d need. But the task force and AAPAC need to know if he can come in under a $750,000 cap for the three installations – the water sculpture on the outdoor plaza, and two smaller pieces inside the courts building. She said it might be the case that he can only do two installations – or even just one – for that amount, describing discussions with Dreiseitl as “ongoing.”

This is the current budget that AAPAC has received for the project, totaling $720,000:

1. Water basin: precast concrete = $57,000
2. Water elements: rotating, stainless steel = $21,000
3. Outdoor sculpture: element base = $57,000
4. Indoor sculptures (2) = $75,000
5. Sculpture: configuration, spotlight, lighting, water supply, lighting control, programming = $225,000
6. Water technology, basin, drain, filter, water treatment, control = $120,000
7. Contingencies = $40,000
8. Artistic design and supervision = $55,000
9. Design development, construction documentation, services during construction = $70,000
10. Change orders = to be discussed

The project will be paid for out of the city’s Percent for Art program, which also pays for Talcott’s part-time salary. However, Talcott has been working additional hours to handle the Dreiseitl project – those extra hours are being paid for out of the city’s water and sewer fund, she told commissioners on Tuesday.

In commenting on Dreiseitl’s preliminary budget, commissioner Cheryl Zuellig pointed out that “change orders” amount – still to be determined – had the potential to be large.

Depending on whether a final budget is ready, the task force also plans to meet on Friday, immediately prior to AAPAC’s meeting. The task force will make a recommendation to AAPAC. Then AAPAC must vote on the Dreiseitl project as well. Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, has asked that the task force and AAPAC make their recommendations by Monday, Oct. 19. Talcott said McCormick wants to take the recommendation to city council for a vote at their Nov. 16 meeting, and it would take a month to prepare for that.

Zuellig asked whether AAPAC would get a design presentation at Friday’s meeting. Parker told commissioners that Dreiseitl had made design changes, which she could only describe, but not show – because they did not have the new designs in hand. Instead of using a steel background for the wall installations in the courts building, he now plans to use glass. And rather than embedding the small blue lights into the glass surface, he plans to hang them from the ceiling, like raindrops. An image of the Huron River watershed will be etched into the glass.

For the second wall installation, the drawing of plant life will be done in silver paint incised into white plaster. Some lights will hang down from the ceiling, while others will be embedded into the roots in the drawing.

Commissioners pushed to get information as soon as possible before Friday’s meeting. “This is a very short period of time and very short notice for us,” Zuellig said. She suggested that the staff prepare two motions in advance – one approving Dreiseitl’s work, the other rejecting it – so that they would have both options ready at the meeting.

“This is a really big deal, and we want to have done our due diligence,” said Marsha Chamberlin.

Working with the DDA

At last month’s AAPAC meeting, commissioner Connie Brown was absent but had submitted a report on possible Downtown Development Authority projects that the commission could collaborate on. Brown is a liaison between AAPAC and the DDA, which also sets aside funds for public art from its construction projects.

On Tuesday, Brown began by saying she hoped to get feedback from commissioners about whether they were interested in pursuing any of these projects, or if they had other ideas for collaborating with the DDA. One of the projects she’d originally listed – the underground parking structure on Fifth Avenue, which broke ground last week – is no longer really an option, since the project is well underway, she said.

Other projects are:

• Division Street and Fifth Avenue sidewalk, curb and street improvements: This might include planters, stamping designs into the concrete or embedding art into curbs and sidewalks in other ways. Work is being done on Division Street now; AAPAC would need to make a decision about getting involved by the end of December. Work on Fifth Avenue is slated for next year.
• Hanover Park: Located at the corner of Division and Packard, this park contains a metal sculpture of stacked books –”Arbor Sapientiae” by Ronald Bauer – that will likely be relocated. The DDA has built a concrete ring in the park that could act as the base for a sculpture, or for plantings.
• Ongoing curb and street repair: Like the Division and Fifth work, projects could include planters, stamping designs into the concrete or embedding tile or other material into curbs.

Cheryl Zuellig said that although it might be too late to incorporate art into the underground part of the parking structure, the city had issued a request for proposals and would be choosing a development to go on top of the structure – that might be an opportunity for AAPAC to get involved, she said.

Zuellig also questioned what the procedure would be for AAPAC’s involvement in any of the projects that Brown listed. Many of them were already in progress, like the Division Street improvements and Hanover Park. If AAPAC was going to be integrated, it really needed to be part of the design team, she said.

Brown responded by saying that AAPAC could set up a process with the DDA and figure out how early to get involved, but it didn’t make sense to do that until AAPAC decided that this kind of partnership was worth pursuing. After that general decision had been made, she said, they could choose a point-person on AAPAC to work out the details and bring back a more specific proposal for the projects they wanted to pursue.

One possibility would be to start with a simple project – like embellishing curbcuts – and use that as a trial before committing to additional collaboration, Brown said.

Margaret Parker said that typically, months of discussion lead up to decisions about what projects to select. She felt like the design had already been pinpointed, without the discussion. “What I see is, ‘Here’s a flowerpot!’” she said.

Brown noted that the DDA had been working on these projects for a long time, but that AAPAC had only recently gotten involved – that’s why it seemed like the process was well underway. If that’s not acceptable, the commission can decide not to participate in any of these current projects, Brown said, but rather to get involved when new DDA projects begin.

Parker asked if commissioners could tell the DDA that they’d like to do one “knock-out” piece of art on the development that goes atop the Fifth Avenue parking structure. If so, they’d need to start talking to developers soon, she added.

Jim Curtis pointed out that the development on top of the parking structure is going to be a very complex project, and probably won’t be built for many years. AAPAC shouldn’t just focus on those large, long-term projects, but should also look for short- and intermediate-term projects to showcase public art, he said. The DDA is being very generous in offering to work with AAPAC, he said. “Yes, it is a pot, I agree – it’s not the whole program. But a pot is better than nothing.”

The commission eventually reached consensus on pursuing a joint AAPAC-DDA project in Hanover Park, and in exploring opportunities for partnering on the Fifth Avenue and Division streetscapes. Commissioners also agreed to let the DDA know that they’d be interested in working on a public art installation for the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure.

Status Update: FestiFools, Project S.N.A.P., Horse Sculpture

Cheryl Zuellig gave a report from the planning committee, and the commission took action on three projects.

FestiFools

The organizers of FestiFools, an annual parade of large puppets down Main Street that emphasizes community involvement in the creation of public art, had asked AAPAC for a five-year commitment of $25,000 each year, for a total of $125,000. Zuellig reported that the planning committee had several comments: 1) As performance art, FestiFools is not permanent, and reaches only a limited audience over a limited period, compared to permanent installations; 2) AAPAC hasn’t determined what its role might be in supporting performance art, so it’s not a high priority at this point; 3) the project type wasn’t identified in AAPAC’s 2010 annual plan; 4) FestiFools gets funding from other sources, and will continue the project even without the support of AAPAC; and 5) the amount requested is higher than what’s allotted for unspecified projects in the annual plan.

The committee did not recommend that the FestiFools proposal be moved to the peer review stage. However, Zuellig said, performance art is an important part of the community’s experience, so the committee proposed awarding a one-time, $5,000 amount to FestiFools for the 2010 fiscal year. The committee recommended certain conditions apply, including that the money be used for puppet-making materials, not administrative overhead, and that AAPAC is mentioned in any promotional materials for the project. The award is also contingent on city council approval.

Jim Curtis suggested adding a condition that the puppets be displayed for some period after the parade, in a public venue. Several commissioners praised the project, saying it drew people to the downtown area.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to approve the $5,000 one-time funding.

Project S.N.A.P.

The youth group Project S.N.A.P. (Share, Nurture, Act, Preserve) is interested in creating a community mosaic project, with support from AAPAC. Zuellig said the committee felt there weren’t sufficient details to move ahead with this project, and suggested that AAPAC table the proposal and ask organizers to provide additional information, including a proposed size, type of materials, design and budget. Another suggestion is for the project to align itself with a local community group that might be interested in creating a mosaic mural.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to table the proposal, and to ask Project S.N.A.P. for a more fully developed proposal.

Bronze Horse Sculpture

Local artist Garo Kazan has offered to donate his large bronze sculpture of a horse to the city. Zuellig said that accepting such a donation was consistent with AAPAC’s mission and its annual plan, and that the piece would be permanent, suitable for locating in an outside venue, and of a size that would be easily visible to pedestrians. One consideration, she said, is that AAPAC would have to earmark funding for its installation, in addition to choosing a location. The planning committee recommended moving the project to a peer review stage. If the proposal is approved during peer review, AAPAC would have to do a structural assessment of the work before it goes to city council for final approval, Zuellig said.

Jim Curtis said that if there was a suitable location near a city parking structure or surface lot, the DDA might be interested in partnering on the cost. He reported that Jan Onder had suggested an area along Ashley as a possible location, where in the past there had been a blacksmiths, carriage factory and livery. Onder added to Curtis’ remarks by specifying the berm next to the surface lot at Ashley and Huron, facing Huron as a possible location.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to move the project to peer review.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Jan Onder, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger

Absent: Jim Kern, Elaine Sims

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 10 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Unlike his previous trip, Dreiseitl won’t be meeting with the public. His agenda includes meetings with businesses in Tecumseh and Hammond that might serve as fabricators for his artwork. That includes a large illuminated water sculpture for the plaza facing Huron Street, and two smaller wall installations inside the building. He’ll also be meeting with city staff and architects for the municipal center, among others.

Katherine Talcott, Ann Arbor’s public art administrator, said the city hadn’t yet paid Dreiseitl for his design work, and that they wouldn’t deliver the $72,000 check for that work until they received more information from him, including detailed cost breakdowns for the project.

City to Dreiseitl: More Details, Please

Dreiseitl came to Ann Arbor in mid-July and attended several public meetings to present his concept for a waterscape installation at the main entrance of the municipal center, now under construction. The building is being constructed next to city hall to house the police department and 15th District Court. His high-profile visit included a presentation to the Ann Arbor city council, which will ultimately need to sign off on the project.

Katherine Talcott said Dreiseitl’s return next week – arriving Sunday evening, Sept. 13 and leaving Wednesday morning, Sept. 16 – will be “on his dime.” (The comment prompted commissioner Cathy Gendron to quip, “Ultimately, it’s on our dime.”) Dreiseitl will meet with Bill Wheeler, project manager for the municipal center, as well as with the project’s architects from Quinn Evans and staff from Conservation Design Forum. He’ll also meet with Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, who’ll be sharing maps of the watershed with Dreiseitl. He plans to incorporate elements of the watershed into some of his artwork. And while he’s here, he’ll be interviewed by Dana Denha for Community Television Network’s “FYI” program.

Talcott said that Dreiseitl has fulfilled the terms of his initial design contract, but that there are still several questions city officials and AAPAC commissioners have about the project. Some of those questions concern his proposed budget estimate, which lists nine items and totals $720,000:

1. Water basin: precast concrete = $57,000
2. Water elements: rotating, stainless steel = $21,000
3. Outdoor sculpture: element base = $57,000
4. Indoor sculptures (2) = $75,000
5. Sculpture: configuration, spotlight, lighting, water supply, lighting control, programming = $225,000
6. Water technology, basin, drain, filter, water treatment, control = $120,000
7. Contingencies = $40,000
8. Artistic design and supervision = $55,000
9. Design development, construction documentation, services during construction = $70,000
10. Change orders = to be discussed

Several commissioners commented that the itemized list was too vague. Dreiseitl also provided sketches for the indoor wall installations, but did not include details about what materials would be used or the size of the pieces. He’ll be asked to provide that information while he’s here.

“We feel confident that before he leaves, our questions will be answered,” said Margaret Parker, who chairs AAPAC.

There are several steps that need to be completed before the project can move forward. A task force – formed last year to deal with art projects at the municipal center – will at some point make a recommendation to AAPAC on whether to proceed. AAPAC will then consider the proposal and make a recommendation to city council, which must give final approval. Then the city staff will need to hammer out a detailed contract for the work.

There was some confusion about the budget related to Dreiseitl’s project. At their August meeting, commissioners had raised questions about roughly $22,000 that had been paid out of AAPAC’s budget to Quinn Evans, for the architects’ work related to public art at the municipal center. At Tuesday’s meeting, Talcott reported that she’d been told by the city’s finance staff that a purchase order had been created about a year ago for Quinn Evans, to be paid out of AAPAC’s Percent for Art funds. [The Percent for Art program takes 1% of every city capital project to fund public art, with a cap of $250,000 per project.] AAPAC did not have a contract with Quinn Evans, she said, and it wasn’t clear whether the architects were to be funded out of money set aside for Dreiseitl’s project, or from some other source. That’s still a question to be clarified, Talcott said.

Talcott also told commissioners that in addition to the 20 hours per week that  she’s paid as the city’s part-time art administrator, she has been working between 10-20 additional hours specifically on the Dreiseitl project. Talcott said those extra hours are being authorized by Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services.

Other Public Art Projects

In addition to Dreiseitl’s work, the commission discussed several other public art projects that require some kind of action.

Gerome Kamrowski Mural

A nine-panel, 27-foot-wide mosaic by artist Gerome Kamrowski formerly marked the entrance to city hall. The artwork was moved into storage when construction began on the new municipal center complex. Called “Twilight Shadows,” it uses tesserae – small pieces of colored Italian glass – to depict fantasy animals that Kamrowski called “beaded beasts.”

AAPAC has discussed for several months where to re-install the piece, and it was again a topic at Tuesday’s meeting, with no resolution. The size of the installation makes it somewhat difficult to place, Parker said. The issue will be addressed by the task force for art at the municipal center site, which will make a recommendation to AAPAC.

Mosaics at Fourth & Washington

Margaret Parker reported that she’ll be contacting the artist who made the ceramic reliefs at the Fourth & Washington parking structure. They’ve been a topic of discussion at AAPAC meetings for several months – the pieces are starting to chip and show other signs of wear. Parker said they hope the artist can give them a statement about the longevity of the work and how the pieces are expected to age. With that information, she’ll approach the donor, county commissioner Barbara Bergman. Bergman had commissioned the work as a tribute to her husband, Reuben Bergman, who led the Downtown Development Authority for several years. The Fourth & Washington structure was built by the DDA.

Parker said the pieces might need to be re-coated, but they need to find out from the artist what substance he used. Several commissioners noted that they’d seen the chips and deterioration, with some saying that it added texture to the work. “People crack and chip too,” commissioner Jim Kern said.

Commissioner Elaine Sims said this situation highlighted the need to specify very clearly, at the beginning of a project, what the expectations were for maintenance and how the the artwork would age. It was especially true, she said,  for pieces like the Fourth & Washington ceramics that are exposed to the elements.

DDA Collaboration

Commissioner Connie Brown has been acting as a liaison between AAPAC and the Downtown Development Authority, which also sets aside funds for public art from its construction projects. Brown did not attend Tuesday’s meeting, but in her absence, Katherine Talcott gave a brief update prepared by Brown on possible DDA projects that could be opportunities for collaboration. They include:

• Library lot underground parking structure on Fifth Avenue: There’s only a small window of opportunity for this project – about six weeks, according to Brown’s report – since work is getting underway on the structure.
• Division Street and Fifth Avenue sidewalk, curb and street improvements: This might include planters, stamping designs into the concrete or imbedding art into curbs and sidewalks in other ways. Work is being done on Division Street now; AAPAC would need to make a decision about getting involved by the end of December. Work on Fifth Avenue is slated for next year.
• Hanover Park: Located at the corner of Division and Packard, this park contains a sculpture that will likely be replaced.
• Ongoing curb and street repair: Like the Division and Fifth work, projects could include planters, stamping designs into the concrete or imbedding tile or other material into curbs.

Margaret Parker mentioned an approach that Jan Onder had floated previously: Put together a pool of ideas that could be implemented quickly for curb or sidewalk replacements. Local artists could be asked to contribute ideas, and be enlisted to do the work when the opportunity arose.

Talcott asked commissioners to give their feedback to Brown before AAPAC’s Oct. 13 meeting, about which of these projects they’d like to pursue.

The mention of Hanover Park, located across the street from Krazy Jim’s Blimpy Burger, prompted Elaine Sims to ask whether the eatery’s oversized “snow bears” had ever been nominated for a Golden Paintbrush award. The bears are a signature snow sculpture built each winter in front of the Blimpy Burger building. Commissioners could not recall that they had received such a nomination.

AAPAC Website

Commissioners Cathy Gendron and Marsha Chamberlin are members of the public relations committee, and see the redesign of AAPAC’s website as their biggest project of the year. This is another effort that’s been discussed at various times over the past several months. Gendron asked for commissioners to give her feedback on what they’d like to include in the site, and to send examples of other websites that they like. She said the budget was a big issue – it wasn’t clear how much money they had for the project, if any.

In addition to determining what funding is available, they’ll need to find a designer, Gendron said. Commissioners discussed possible options, including students at the University of Michigan or Washtenaw Community College. Jan Onder reminded her colleagues that AAPAC’s website has been maintained without charge by Annie Wolock of Keystone Media. If the project is put out to bid, Wolock should be considered, Onder said.

Two Commissioners Stepping Down

AAPAC chair Margaret Parker announced that two commissioners – Jan Onder and Jim Kern – will be stepping down at the end of 2009. Parker said that she and commissioner Elaine Sims would be meeting as the nominating committee to consider possible replacements to be recommended to Mayor John Hieftje, who is responsible for appointing the commissioners. Sims said she’d heard unofficially that Hieftje was planning to appoint Jeff Meyers, managing editor for the online magazine Concentrate. Meyers recently wrote a column on artistic identity, which in part discussed AAPAC’s role.

Misc. Items

Margaret Parker reported that she’d received an invitation from Trevor Staples of the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee to an October design charrette. Parker didn’t have details of the event, but here’s what The Chronicle reported when Staples gave an update to the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission last month:

Wally Hollyday, a skatepark designer with a national reputation, will be leading a workshop on Oct. 18 to get community input on the park’s design. The meeting, which is open to the public, begins at 2 p.m. at the Slauson Middle School cafeteria, 1019 W. Washington St. There will also be a tour of the proposed site – at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park – before the workshop, starting at 1:30 p.m.

Commissioners present: Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims, Margaret Parker, Jan Onder, Jim Kern. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger

Absent: Connie Brown, Cheryl Zuellig

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 13 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St.

Municipal Center Project

Dreiseitl’s visit

AAPAC administrator Katherine Talcott said she thought German artist Herbert Dreiseitl’s visit to Ann Arbor was “very successful.” Dreiseitl, whom the commission has recruited to create three public art installations at the city’s new municipal center, presented his designs for the artwork to AAPAC members, city council and the public on July 20.

Approximately 65 people showed up for Dreiseitl’s public reception that day, according to Talcott. She said she didn’t receive any negative comments, except for one individual who advised that they “tweak the design.”

“That kind of represented a more positive outlook from the community,” Talcott said of the public turnout and reaction. [The commission has previously come under fire for the project, with critics citing both its cost and the selection of an artist who isn't from this area.]

Talcott said that she’s following up with the center’s architects, the Ann Arbor firm Quinn Evans. She said Dreiseitl also needs to produce a more refined version of his design, including cost estimates and a more specific plan for the two installations inside the center on walls in the atrium, and in the lobby of the courts and police building.

Talcott also said she wanted to get a sense of when the task force for the municipal center public art would give its recommendation and approval of Dreiseitl’s design to AAPAC, and when the commission would in turn pass on a recommendation to city council. The recommendations are especially important for the indoor atrium and lobby pieces, Talcott said, since they will also require approval from the architects working on the building.

“I’d like to have it OKed by AAPAC in September,” Talcott said. She also asked if AAPAC could issue their approval for the “general aesthetic” of Dreiseitl’s design.

“I know he does want to hear that kind of overall, general aesthetic approval,” Talcott said. “I think he just needs to hear that we’re approving it.”

AAPAC commissioner Cheryl Zuellig said she thought it would be important for AAPAC to know Dreiseitl’s fees and any other costs (such as sewer hookups) associated with the project before they give their approval. The commission has already paid Dreiseitl $77,000 for preliminary design work and has budgeted roughly $700,000 more for the completed artwork.

Commissioner Marsha Chamberlin agreed with Zuellig. “We need to know all these components if we’re going to approve this project,” Chamberlin said. “What I’d like to see to approve this project is a whole costing out.”

AAPAC chair Margaret Parker said that Dreiseitl had asked for 30 days after his visit to come up with a budget for the project and create a more detailed plan for his interior artwork. Hopefully, he’ll have that done by Aug. 26, she said, when the municipal center task force will hold its next meeting. Then, the task force can make a recommendation to AAPAC, which meets next on Sept. 8. In turn, AAPAC can make its recommendation, and the city council then can vote on the project. Parker said she hoped they could achieve city authorization by Sept. 11.

Other municipal center art

Aside from Dreiseitl’s proposed work, Parker reported that the municipal center task force has discussed three other possible public art sites in the building.

This diagram illustrates the sites for the artwork in the new municipal center.

One is on the north courtyard’s west stairwell wall, which Parker described as five stories tall. She said it faces a parking lot, which might be used for events or gatherings. According to a handout summarizing the task force’s Aug. 6 meeting, this artwork would be visible from Ann Street east of the structure and by pedestrians entering the center from the north.

Another site is a 5-foot by 5-foot area facing Ann Street. This piece would be visible from the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Ann Street as well as from Division and Ann streets.

Third, Parker said the task force had discussed relocating mosaic panels – which originally decorated the entrance to city hall – created by the late Gerome Kamrowski. They proposed separating the panels and placing them in front of the elevator doors inside the new building.

Kamrowski conundrum

Some of the commissioners objected to splitting up the Kamrowski panels, arguing that the panels should be viewed as one work of art.

“It would not be consistent with the design of the piece…it was designed as one piece,” Chamberlin said.

Commissioner Jan Onder countered that each panel had its own signature, indicating that the artist intended to display them separately.

Parker concluded that the task force needed to do more research to come to a decision regarding the panels. She suggested getting in touch with the artist’s widow or other relatives to find out how Kamrowski wanted the panels displayed.

Budget and mission

Parker said the task force estimated that these additional municipal center projects would cost $225,000. The task force proposed sending an invitation out to artists across the U.S. for the two sites near the north courtyard. They would scope out interested parties using a Request for Qualifications method, asking the artists to submit their credentials. A small group of those who applied would then form proposals, one of which would be selected by a jury.

The task force came up with a mission statement to guide the artists, articulated on the handout outlining the task force’s latest meeting: “The public art should demonstrate how this building pulls the community together. Artists may design for either and/or both sites.”

AAPAC commissioners took issue with both the task force’s proposed mission statement and its suggested budget. Some questioned whether the task force should have its mission statement approved by AAPAC at large before they could proceed further with the projects.

Commissioner Connie Brown said that AAPAC should have a say in the mission statement, providing a “bigger oversight” for the task force.

Chamberlin added that the task force also shouldn’t be able to move forward until AAPAC decides how it will allocate funds. She questioned whether it was a good decision to spend more money on the municipal center. “I’m not sure if we’re going to put more money into these projects,” she said.

Others thought that art at the municipal center was a sound investment.

“I don’t have a hang-up with having two more pieces of art in the municipal center,” commissioner Cheryl Zuellig said. “Ann Arbor has a long way to go before we get too much art.”

Onder agreed with her that more art in the municipal center would benefit the community. “I would like to have more art in this block for people to discover,” Onder said of the center. “This is our nucleus.”

However, Zuellig expressed doubt that $225,000 would be sufficient to fund two pieces large enough to be visible from the street.

Brown proposed more interaction between AAPAC and the task force in order to address these concerns. She said the commissioners need to know the criteria that led to the task force’s decisions. They could add an approval step in the process of deciding on locations and missions for projects.

Commissioner Elaine Sims said they should come up with a template with a standard set of questions that the task force could use when reporting to AAPAC on a project.

Commissioners agreed that the task force would not have to report on all of their meetings to AAPAC. They would only have to report to AAPAC when they’d reached a “critical juncture” in a project.

Artist selection: Local or national?

Parker explained that the task force had decided to look throughout the U.S. for artists for the two north courtyard projects. They also decided that instead of sending out Requests for Proposals (RFPs), which would include designs, they would first send out Requests for Qualifications (RFQs). “The discussion around the Requests for Qualifications is that better artists will follow it because they want to be paid for design,” Parker said.

Other commissioners disagreed with looking on a national level.

“I personally feel that this is an opportunity to select local artists,” Zuellig said. She added that it should be someone who understands “our culture, our vernacular and our traditions” in Ann Arbor. “I’m sorry, but if you grew up in Australia, you’re not going to understand Ann Arbor or this community.”

Talcott argued that – like Dreiseitl – a non-local artist could still relate to the city without claiming it as their home. “Any smart artist is going to be able to apply themselves to that kind of language,” she said.

Onder agreed with Talcott. “To me, a sense of community is beyond a particular community,” Onder said. “It’s deeper than that.”

Parker proposed adding questions to the RFQ concerning how the applicants are connected to the area and how they can reflect the mission statement for the municipal center in their work. She also said she would relay the commissioners’ other suggestions back to the task force.

Committee reports

Projects

Connie Brown reported that the projects committee had, so far, collated a spreadsheet listing potential projects and information including artist names and proposed locations. The committee – which also includes commissioners Jim Kern and Jan Onder – has also created a schedule for upcoming Downtown Development Authority (DDA) projects and set up a meeting with the Arts Alliance for “information sharing between the organizations,” according to the committee’s typed report.

Three projects are currently being passed on to the master planning committee for comment, Brown said. These include Project S.N.A.P.’s 4-foot by 6-foot mural (which would cost approximately $10,000); funding of $25,000 per year for five years for FestiFools, an arts organization that holds an annual parade and educational workshops; and a bronze horse sculpture donated by artist Garo Kazan.

The commissioners debated which committee – projects or planning – was responsible for organizing a jury of peers to review these projects, as well as which committee should determine a site for the artwork.

Onder proposed using a jury of peers to approve the artwork and then passing the project on to a site group, just in case there isn’t an appropriate location for the art. “You may think the quality is fine, but there’s absolutely no site,” she said.

Zuellig questioned whether, for example, the bronze horse would need a task force. Onder responded that not all projects need one.

Talcott said that as the administrator, she should help organize the peer review jury.

Zuellig proposed that projects should first be evaluated by the projects committee, then planning, and then presented to AAPAC as a whole. After that, the project would go to the peer jury for evaluation.

Parker stated that all members of AAPAC would be responsible for putting together a site committee.

Public relations

Commissioner Cathy Gendron, who serves on the committee with Marsha Chamberlin, reported that she had reviewed and tested GoogleSites for AAPAC members’ use and communication. She said she was prepared to start setting sites up, whenever the administrators had time to help.

Kerrytown Arch

AAPAC members considered whether or not to hold a rededication ceremony for the Kerrytown Sculpture Park’s Arch, a sculpture AAPAC renovated roughly a year and a half ago, in partnership with the DDA.

Parker was in favor of holding an event, saying it would provide publicity for the commission. “It’s also a connection to the DDA, because the DDA paid for it,” she said.

Brown countered that putting time and effort into a dedication ceremony at this point might not be the best use of AAPAC’s resources. “Maybe it’s an opportunity that’s lost, and we should focus on things that are up and coming.”

Sims pointed out that the commission had been talking about an event for the Arch for a year already, and it still hadn’t happened.

Ultimately, the commission voted to discontinue their efforts to organize a rededication for the Arch, with 4 in favor of the motion and 3 opposed. 

Website concerns

Commissioners discussed AAPAC’s website, a topic carried over from earlier meetings. In addition to a site that was designed by a volunteer, the commission is part of the city’s web page. AAPAC administrative coordinator Jean Borger pointed out the limits of the city’s site, noting that AAPAC couldn’t post anything besides their minutes – adding extra information would take staff time they didn’t have.

Parker said AAPAC might want to put out a brochure again to provide information to the community. However, some commissioners argued that the website should be up-to-date first. Gendron said her first priority would be working on the site before developing a brochure.

Planning

Zuellig spoke for the planning committee, reporting that she, Sims and Parker had met with Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje on July 17.

“There was discussion about how much time it takes to complete what we’re doing here as a commission,” Zuellig said. “It sounds like, from a communication standpoint, it was worthwhile.”

Zuellig said they found out that the commission can add more members, but only after the city council votes to change the Percent for Art program ordinance concerning AAPAC. [AAPAC allocates money generated through the Percent for Art program, which captures 1% of the cost of a public building project, with a cap of $250,000 per project.] Zuellig advised against an ordinance change, saying that it “may have unintended consequences that we don’t want to deal with.”

Sims suggested that instead of changing the ordinance, AAPAC could just take on more working members who aren’t actually commissioners.

Zuellig also mentioned that the planning committee would draft a guide for new commission members this month and submit it to AAPAC as a whole in September.

According to the committee’s written report, their ongoing tasks include requesting clarification on public art matters with the city, including the “ability to have art easments on private property, the definition of the word ‘public’ in the ordinance, funding ability and source for project-specific management.”

The planning committee also aims to help the projects group come up with a diagram illustrating the city’s review and approval processes for public art.

As for upcoming tasks, the committee’s report states that its members will meet with Sue McCormick, Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator, in part to come up with a strategy to “accomplish what we can with the staff time we have available and to determine what tasks (i.e. project management) should be put under the jurisdiction of the art/design team.”

Finally, the planning committee members discussed holding a commission training workshop in the fall. Commissioners determined that they wanted to hold the training session sometime in October; the location is to be determined.

Budget summary concerns

Looking over a handout which gave an overview of AAPAC’s expenditures so far for 2009, commissioners has some questions about the roughly $22,566 paid to Quinn Evans architects.

Parker explained that the architects were paid for the time they spent meeting with AAPAC. Commissioner Jan Onder expressed concern about the expense.

“For every dime we spend here, we’re not spending it on our work,” Onder said.

Onder went on to say that the substantial sum spent on the meetings with the architects might have arisen from AAPAC’s joining in on the new municipal center project relatively late in its development. Other commissioners agreed and added that more price negotiation with the architectural firm might have remedied this concern.

“Just because we came in late to this project is no reason for us not to get projected prices,” Marsha Chamberlin said.

Commissioner Elaine Sims added that they should “know what we’re negotiating next time.”

DDA collaborations

Connie Brown, who has been a liaison between AAPAC and the Downtown Development Authority, identified three projects that the two groups could collaborate on. She suggested that commissioners read over her report and consider taking action at their next meeting.

One is a public art piece in Hanover Park, at the corner of Packard and Division. Brown’s written report stated that there’s an area designated for a sculpture in the park. She judged that the timing for the project would allow AAPAC enough time to do RFPs and contract with an artist. Katherine Talcott brought up the possibility of AAPAC taking on the landscaping for the area surrounding the sculpture in the park.

Another possible collaboration involves road intersections that are set to be stamped with the city logo, as part of the DDA’s Fifth and Division streetscape project. Brown said the DDA is open to having a design by an artist stamped on the curbs instead. This work will probably take place in the spring, she said.

Third, the DDA will be replacing curbs and planters later this year. Brown wrote that AAPAC could send out RFPs looking for artists to embed items in the curbs or color 8-foot sections of them. “There’s a variety of things that could happen there,” Brown said of the work on the curbs.

Brown also wrote that AAPAC could create a series of art pieces to link the city streets together.

Finally, AAPAC has a two-month window of opportunity to create public art in the new library underground parking structure, which is yet to be constructed. The commission would have to work with the architect in order to incorporate their plans for a piece of artwork into his drawings.

“There would not be an artist chosen at this time, but the ‘what if’ moment where we could see if there is an opportunity for something here,” Brown’s report stated. According to Brown, the commission would have to act by October 2009.

Commissioners had some questions concerning the expenses for these projects. Brown said she had met with DDA Executive Director Susan Pollay and discussed cost. At this time, “we’re not saying we pay for it or we don’t pay for it,” Brown said. She said AAPAC could decide to throw in some Percent for Art funds to help.

Overall, Brown suggested that the AAPAC members simply brainstorm about the projects she’d listed for now and make decisions about further participation later. She said she would speak again with Pollay.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Cheryl Zuellig, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims, Margaret Parker, Jan Onder, Jim Kern. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger

Absent: Jim Curtis

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 4:30 p.m.. Note: All future AAPAC meetings will be held at a new location – the 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St.

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

Herbert Dreiseitl stands near a scale model of his proposed water sculpture during a presentation on Monday. (Photo by the writer.)

Although he was born there, Herbert Dreiseitl doesn’t belong to Germany. He doesn’t belong to Norway, Australia or Singapore either. He belongs to the planet.

That’s what Dreiseitl – the artist the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission hired to create a public art installation at the new city municipal center – told the audience at a presentation on Monday morning at city hall.

“As a person, I always feel home where I am,” Dreiseitl said.

The controversy over the municipal center project – especially the fact that AAPAC isn’t using a local artist for the nearly $800,000 project – drove Dreiseitl to make those remarks as he presented his designs for the artwork during his recent visit to Ann Arbor.

He spent most of the day on Monday in public and private meetings about his work, including a morning session with city staff and art commissioners, a public reception and a formal presentation to city council.

Structural Details

The German artist, who has over 20 years of experience integrating art with urban landscapes and stormwater, proposed a water-driven work to draw people into the new city hall entrance with its flow. Dreiseitl used two scale models, sketches and a PowerPoint presentation to express his vision for the installation.

A drawing of what Herbert Dreiseitl's water sculpture would look like upon completion. It would be located in a plaza on the Huron Street side of the new municipal center, next to a planned rain garden.

The sculpture would consist of a large, upright piece made of two rectangular metal plates standing close together, facing Huron Street. Water would flow down the front piece, which would be concave at the top and transition to a convex shape at the bottom. The water would flow from the top and drain out the back, continuing on toward the building like a river. Tanks connected to the center’s rain garden would store and filter water so it could be circulated through the sculpture repeatedly.

Dreiseitl’s models showed a bridge over the river-like part of the sculpture, as well as a couple of benches alongside it. He explained that he wanted to integrate his work with the surrounding architecture and landscape.

“This should not be an isolated piece of art,” Dreiseitl said.

The vertical part of the sculpture would be approximately 3 feet wide at the top, 3.3 feet wide at its base and 16.5 to 20 feet tall. It would lean back at an angle toward the building. That element, along with the direction of the water’s flow, would serve to bring people in toward the building’s entrance, Dreiseitl said.

Dreiseitl mentioned that he wanted the flowing water “very shallow,” so it wouldn’t be a danger to children. He indicated the depth by holding his thumb and forefinger about a centimeter apart.

As for material, Dreiseitl said he envisioned “a very big, beautiful piece of rusty steel” for the vertical part of the sculpture (although his designs also listed bronze as an option).

“It’s something which has history,” Dreiseitl said of his ideal material. “Patina.”

As for the ramp the water would travel along from the back of the standing part of the sculpture toward the building, Dreiseitl said he could use either concrete or Cor-Ten steel. He expressed a preference for the steel.

LED lights illuminate glass spheres, which Dreiseitl described as "pearls," to be incorporated into the scuplture. (Photo by the writer.)

Use of Light

He also explained another element to the sculpture: light. Glass spheres – or “pearls,” as Dreiseitl called them – with cavities for waterproof LED lights would be mounted with screw systems so they peek through holes in the steel. The water would flow over them. As an example, Dreiseitl showed a piece of metal with two “pearls” mounted on it, radiating blue light. He described the possibility of them fading in and out to create their own wave-like pattern. The artist also pointed out that the LED lights wouldn’t require much maintenance, even though his design makes it possible to replace the lights, if needed.

“This lasts, really, almost forever,” Dreiseitl said of the lights.

He said the sculpture should be lit at night, mentioning several options to accomplish this. They could install a floodlight at the back of the sculpture, or use the illumination of nearby street lamps. However, he said he didn’t want to overdo it.

“I would not put too much,” Dreiseitl said. “Water always reflects. So the water doesn’t need light.”

Inside the Building

Dreiseitl’s vision didn’t stop at the building’s entrance – the project includes two pieces on the walls inside the new building. One of his concepts: a relief of the Huron River watershed, featuring the same LED pearls used on the outside sculpture to show the movement of the water.

“The piece of art is celebrating the water of the region,” Dreiseitl said.

His other idea involved engravings of local plants, showing the extensive root systems they’ve developed for survival. The lights would make an appearance here as well, in a pattern demonstrating the water’s journey from sky to soil.

The Design Philosophy

Dreiseitl didn’t just incorporate water for aesthetic appeal or motion; he explained that it possesses a deeper meaning to him, particularly in the context of the municipal center and the region.

“Water is getting more and more critical and more and more important,” Dreiseitl said. He added that it’s especially relevant in this area, with all of the lakes and rivers.

On a personal level, Dreiseitl said water connects to spirituality and humanity. He discussed how tears can convey different emotions – joy or pain – and how water helps people “to relax and be open.”

Since his sculpture would also be near the court and police station, Dreiseitl said it would help people put their individual problems in perspective.

“What happens to this entrance here?” Dreiseitl said. “People come with different expectations. The city hall is something bringing the community together. Also, very personal decisions are done at the court.”

Seeing the sculpture and watching the water will hopefully remind them of something larger than they are, Dreiseitl said. As his PowerPoint stated, “Water and rain are beautiful symbols that connect us to the world outside ourselves.”

Using Local Resources

After expressing his awareness of the fact that his non-local status is a sore point for some Ann Arbor residents, Dreiseitl stressed the fact that he wants to obtain the materials and perform the labor for his work locally. He mentioned collaborating with the University of Michigan and area scientists on creating the designs on the walls inside the building as well as creating the outdoor sculpture. Companies in the region could also provide the materials.

“I want to produce everything here in the U.S., in the region,” Dreiseitl said. “This is a region for steel.”

During one of his presentations, Dreiseitl informed the city council that he was already aware of companies with the capability to shape and curve steel in the way he wanted, though he didn’t want to mention specific companies by name. The next step in the process would be narrowing the selection down to a few companies and investigating them more closely.

Why Dreiseitl?

This isn’t the first time Dreiseitl has spent time in Ann Arbor. In a one-on-one interview with The Chronicle, he explained that the Huron River Watershed Council brought him here to lecture last September. He also spoke at UM during that trip, and to AAPAC, whose members were working on the public art component of the municipal center project.

“They really were impressed with my artwork and my environmental and social context,” Dreiseitl said.

They asked him if he would participate in the project, and he accepted.

“It’s an interesting way to bring some hope and perspective to people,” Dreiseitl said of the installation. “The topic of water is very strong here.”

He described his extensive experience with water-related projects. During his presentation on Monday, he showed examples of some of his work. His portfolio includes pieces in Germany, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland (among other countries). He’s also done work in U.S. cities such as New York and Portland.

His design for the municipal center piece conveys some of the same style as his other projects, but it has unique aspects to it.

“The lines and everything are certainly a Dreiseitl design,” he said. However, he hasn’t previously incorporated the LED lights poking through metal.

“This is an idea that’s new,” he said.

Dreiseitl mentioned that he’s paid attention to the media here and therefore knows that some are less than happy that AAPAC is spending a substantial chunk of funding ($77,000 for preliminary design work and roughly $700,000 for the completed artwork) on a non-local artist.

“I’m a world citizen,” Dreiseitl said, echoing his earlier public statement. “I do things in the U.S. a lot.”

The controversy also led to his “special concept” of using local materials and labor.

“I’m very aware of the sensitivity,” Dreiseitl said.

AAPAC Chair Margaret Parker also addressed the issue in her introduction at a public reception for Dreiseitl Monday afternoon.

“We had also looked at artists from Michigan,” Parker said. “We looked at artists from the Midwest region. We looked at artists from around the country. We looked at artists from around the world.”

Questions and Reactions

Attendees at Dreiseitl’s presentations had no lack of questions and concerns about his proposed work.

AAPAC member Elaine Sims expressed a desire for a more fluid design for the standing part of the sculpture.

“I’d love to see something that just has a little more flow to the shape of it,” Sims said. “There’s a tension there that’s just too tense for me.”

Dreiseitl responded that he wanted the sculpture to be more “organized” than “romantic.”

“All the architecture is straight,” Dreiseitl said of the work’s surroundings. Therefore, he reasoned a more flowing shape wouldn’t mesh with its environment.

Some wanted to know if it would be possible to climb the large vertical piece. The answer seemed to be no, as Dreiseitl explained it would be too steep and the water cascading down it would complicate things (although he joked that a practiced rock climber might be able to scale it).

Another question concerned maintenance. Dreiseitl said he had designed the artwork with the aim of keeping it low-maintenance. For example, there would be no running water in the winter (to prevent problems with frozen pipes) and no standing water at any time. The lights would require a computer system, which Dreiseitl said might take one person in city hall to manage (although it would run itself once installed). Other than that, it should probably be cleaned once a year with a brush or pressure washer.

“In all my projects, I take a lot of care with this issue,” Dreiseitl said. “It’s a question of how to design it very clever and very smart.”

At the public reception, most people seemed in favor of Dreiseitl and his ideas.

Linda Diane Feldt, a holistic health practitioner, said she had understood those who opposed Dreiseitl because he wasn’t a local artist until she saw him and his ideas.

“I was sympathetic until I went and saw who he was and the concepts that he’s creating around the world. This is a world-class installation,” Feldt said.

But the controversy had its advantages in inspiring him to go local with the process of creating the installation, she said.

“The good thing about that conflict…it has changed his approach,” Feldt said.

City intern Adrienne Marino also expressed enthusiasm for Dreiseitl’s work.

“I think he’s a world-renowned artist in this type of art, and it’s really exciting that he’s doing something for the city,” Marino said.

Landlord Nick Contaxes was more cautious in making a judgement; he said he’d come to the presentation “mainly to get some information.”

“I’m still trying to form a picture of what’s going on,” Contaxes said. “I didn’t know [Dreiseitl’s] distinctive motif.”

Contaxes expressed some uncertainty about the financial aspect of the project.

“Is it a good thing to do? I say definitely, yes,” Contaxes said. “Can we afford to do it? That’s a different question.”

Next Steps

Dreiseitl gave his presentation on the project three times. AAPAC commissioners, members of the municipal center task force, city representatives and others involved in the design and building process attended a meeting in the morning. The next presentation took place in the afternoon, for attendees of the public reception. Finally, Dreiseitl explained his plans to the members of the Ann Arbor City Council. All of those presentations were open to the public. The presentation to the city council was also broadcast on Community Television Network and can be viewed on the city’s website.

AAPAC and the task force also met that afternoon to discuss Dreiseitl’s proposal. According to an AAPAC handout describing the day’s events, the task force discussed Dreiseitl’s proposal concentrating on “whether the proposal fulfills the mission, direction, and spirit of the public art envisioned for the Municipal Center.” Similarly, AAPAC met to “concentrate on whether the proposal fits within the larger priorities that AAPAC has set for public art for the whole community.”

The task force will make a recommendation to AAPAC, which will discuss the design at its Aug. 11 regular meeting, unless they decide to schedule a special meeting before then specifically to focus on this project. Then, AAPAC will make a recommendation to city council. If council approves that recommendation and the project, city staff will proceed with negotiations with Dreiseitl.

At the public reception after the meetings, Parker said it was too soon for the commission to hint at a decision.

“This is the day that we are all listening and looking and thinking about it,” Parker said. “We’re working on our decision. But I think that there has been real excitement surrounding it.”

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

A button promoting public art, worn on the lapel of Cathy Gendron, a member of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.

Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (July 14, 2009): A big chunk of Tuesday’s art commission meeting focused on the upcoming visit of German artist Herbert Dreitseitl, who’ll arrive in town this weekend. Where will he stay? When can the public see his designs for the municipal center? How can you score one of the buttons shown in this photo? Our report on Tuesday’s meeting will provide answers to all these questions, and more.

The meeting also introduced The Chronicle to a new vocabulary word – “scuppers” – and included a talk by Susan Pollay of the Downtown Development Authority. To find out which piece of public art she describes as a “sad little sculpture,” read on.

Director’s Report: Public Art Tours

Margaret Parker, AAPAC’s chair, said she’d just met with a group of travel writers and had accompanied them on a tour of public art on UM’s north campus. [The writers were hosted by the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and were in the area for several days.] She said it highlighted to her the fact that people liked those kinds of tours, and that the sooner they could figure out how to set up tours for public art in Ann Arbor, the better.

Dreiseitl in Ann Arbor

AAPAC is paying Herbert Dreiseitl $77,000 to do preliminary design work for three installations at the municipal center, a project also known as the police/courts building. The commission has budgeted roughly $700,000 for the pieces, which are expected to incorporate water features into their design. The public’s first view of Dreiseitl’s designs – and AAPAC’s first view, for that matter – will come during his visit later this week.

He’ll arrive on Saturday evening, according to Katherine Talcott, the city’s administrator of the Percent for Art program. Jan Onder, an AAPAC commissioner, will be hosting him at her home during his stay.

Several meetings on Monday, July 20, will focus on Dreiseitl’s project. Here’s the tentative schedule:

• 9-11 a.m.: Dreiseitl will present his designs to AAPAC’s municipal center task force, city staff, and architects for the municipal center. This meeting, held in city hall’s 2nd floor council chambers at 100 N. Fifth Ave., will be open to the public. The presentation from 9-9:45 a.m. will be followed by a Q&A.
• 11:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: The task force meets to discuss Dreiseitl’s proposal.
• 12:15-1:15 p.m.: The task force and AAPAC commissioners have lunch with Dreiseitl.
• 1:30-2:30 p.m.: AAPAC meets to discuss the project.
• 4-5:30 p.m.: A public reception will be held in the hallway outside of council chambers. Dreiseitl and members of AAPAC and the task force will be on hand to discuss the project. AAPAC will also be passing out public art buttons, as well as providing information about the city’s Percent for Art program.
• 6-6:45 p.m.: Dreiseitl makes a presentation to city council. This meeting is also open to the public and will be broadcast on Community Television Network. It is scheduled prior to the start of council’s regular meeting, which begins at 7 p.m.
• 8 p.m.: Margaret Parker and her husband, Mark Hodesh, will host a dinner at their home for Dreiseitl, AAPAC, the task force, city staff and municipal center architects.

At one point, there was the possibility that a city council vote on the project would occur that same day. But at Tuesday’s meeting, Parker said the task force will convene on July 29 to discuss Dreiseitl’s designs and to make a recommendation to AAPAC. Then, AAPAC will meet to discuss the recommendation, either at a special meeting or at their regular monthly meeting on Aug. 11. The commission will make its own recommendation, which will be passed on to city council for their approval.

If council signs off on the project, negotiations will begin between Dreiseitl and city staff, covering engineering concerns, risk management and legal issues. A contract will be drawn up based on the outcome of those negotiations, Parker said.

Other Municipal Center Art

Parker reported on a recent meeting of the municipal center task force, and gave an update on potential places available for additional public art within the site.

The large wall in the north courtyard could be good for sculpture, Parker said. There are also 12 bike racks that could be designed as public art, similar to the racks recently installed downtown incorporating the word “art” in purple letters. Parkers said the task force was inclined to focus on a large piece, however.

The building’s architects proposed three other places where AAPAC might consider installing public art, Parker said. These options include: 1) scuppers, a feature used to guide the flow of rainwater as it falls into the rain garden; 2) the floor in the atrium’s hallway, which runs from the back parking lot to the front of the building and will be open 24/7, and 3) recessed areas in the atrium’s walls. Parker said they would hold off on exploring this last option until they’d seen Dreiseitl’s proposal, since one of the three pieces he’s proposing would be installed in the atrium.

Projects in the Pipeline

Connie Brown gave an overview of all the projects that had been proposed to AAPAC, giving commissioners a status report on these projects and a general sense of how they’ll move forward – or not.

The projects committee divided the proposals they’ve received into three categories: 1) proposals submitted by artists or organizations soliciting funding, 2) proposals submitted by donors, and 3) proposals generated by AAPAC, either via the annual plan or in other ways. Brown organized her presentation around those three categories.

Proposals from artists or organizations

• Local artist Mary Thiefels of Tree Town Murals has proposed a mural for the walkway next to Michigan Theater. Status: Awaiting her formal application.
• The Ann Arbor Skatepark committee has approached AAPAC asking for help in funding and artist solicitation for a public art installation at the park, which is still in the planning stages. Status: Need additional conversations with skatepark organizers.
• SoundFall is a programmable light and sound installation planned for the Maynard parking structure. The project has been in the works for several years, and is on hold. Commissioner Jim Kern reported that they’re now talking to a light artist in Boston who might get involved.
• Village Green, the developers for a proposed residential/parking project at First & Washington called City Apartments, contacted AAPAC several months ago about a public art project for that development. Status: Unclear where the City Apartments project stands – need to contact the developers for an update.
• Project S.N.A.P. has proposed doing a mosaic mural at an estimated cost of $10,000 for a 4-foot by 6-foot mural. Status: The project will be forwarded to AAPAC’s planning committee, which can recommend whether the project is feasible and if so, what site might be appropriate for it.
• FestiFools, an arts organization that puts on a community parade each year as well as educational workshops, has asked for AAPAC funding of $25,000 per year for five years. The group’s main revenue source is the University of Michigan, which is cutting its funding to FestiFools by 15%, Brown reported. Status: The application will be forwarded to the planning committee, which will determine whether the project fits with AAPAC’s annual plan.

Proposals from donors

Two donors have approached AAPAC with specific projects:

• The Nissan family has offered to fund a mural by the artist Yulia Hanenson. Status: Need to contact the family to see if their offer is still on the table.
• The artist Garo Kazan wants to donate to the city a bronze horse sculpture that he made. Status: Waiting for him to submit a formal application, which would need to include the costs of a base and installation. When that information is provided, AAPAC would likely start a peer review process, to see if it’s a piece they’d like to add to the city’s collection.

AAPAC-generated projects

The main projects coming out of AAPAC are the work being commissioned from Dreiseitl, and projects for the remainder of the municipal center. In addition to those, Brown mentioned a north gateway project that’s been identified as a priority in AAPAC’s 2009-10 annual plan, and possible joint projects with UM and the DDA. Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, was on the agenda to speak about possible DDA/AAPAC projects later in the meeting.

Commissioner Elaine Sims, who is also director of UM’s Gifts of Art Program, said there were two possible projects with the university – both in the very preliminary stages. One might involve a visiting artist from Finland, and the other a piece of public art in Nichols Arboretum to celebrate the opening of C.S. Mott’s Children’s Hospital, which overlooks the Arb.

Jan Onder, who serves on the projects committee, said they were trying to figure out how these projects fit into the goal of accessibility for all artists. That is, should people who bring projects to AAPAC always get priority? What about artists who haven’t heard about the city’s Percent for Art program? Connie Brown suggested that perhaps when someone brings an idea forward, the commission puts out an RFP for that project, to give other artists the chance to participate. Cathy Gendron cautioned that taking that approach could raise intellectual property concerns on the part of the artist who brought forward the original proposal.

Margaret Parker said she’d like to see the information that Brown presented put onto a spreadsheet, so that all commissioners could track the progress of various projects. Brown suggested putting it online, making it easy for commissioners to access and update.

Planning, PR

-

Planning committee

Elaine Sims, reporting on the planning committee, said they hoped to meet with Mayor John Hieftje to ask if they could expand the number of seats on the commission. There was a lot of work for the current nine-member group to handle, she said, even with the addition of a part-time administrator. The committee also proposed that it serve as the nominating committee for new commissioners, making recommendations to the mayor, who officially nominates commission members for city council approval. Sims asked for the full commission to vote in support of that.

Connie Brown said she’d like to see the administrator, Katherine Talcott, attend committee meetings, be involved in the nominating process and in general be more involved in the commission’s work. Talcott told the commission that she’d just seen a new job description that’s been written for her, which might affect her involvement. Margaret Parker noted that Talcott had a 20-hour-a-week job, and was limited to working on things that related only to the Percent for Art program. Sims suggested that Talcott could serve in an ex-officio capacity during meetings, but not as a voting member. There’d be a perceived conflict of interest if Talcott participated in nominating new commissioners, since she also reports to them.

Parker said that because the number of commissioners is set in the ordinance that formed AAPAC, it would be hard to expand the group.

Cathy Gendron asked whether they could add committee members who weren’t commissioners. “We need more bodies,” she said. The answer is yes, they can – but committee members need to be clear about their roles, Parker said. In the past, some committee members simply pitched their own projects.

The commission voted to approve having the planning committee – consisting of Sims, Parker and Cheryl Zuellig – also serve as the nominating committee.

Public relations committee

Cathy Gendron said the PR committee’s main focus had been on putting together the display for AAPAC’s table at the Townie Street Party on Monday, July 13, as well as preparation for Dreiseitl’s visit and public reception. In the future, they’re planning to do some public advocacy on behalf of AAPAC, arranging meetings with groups like the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

She said they needed to redesign AAPAC’s website, which would be a huge project. She was hoping to learn how to use Google shared documents, so that commissioners eventually could use that system to post and edit files and a calendar online. Gendron said it would be difficult to do a site redesign since there was no money budgeted for it, but Margaret Parker questioned that assumption, saying she thought there was a line item for the website in AAPAC’s budget .

Gendron also said the committee wanted to make sure they recognized volunteers appropriately, and noted that AAPAC hadn’t done anything special when two commissioners – Larry Cressman and Tim Rorvig – stepped down in December. After some discussion, commissioners decided to send Cressman and Rorvig a certificate of appreciation for their service.

The sculpture "Arbor Sapientiae" by Ronald Bauer at Hanover Park at the corner of Packard and Division. This photo is taken looking southeast – Blimpy Burger is visible on the left, on the opposite side of Division.

Partnering with the DDA

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, came to talk to commissioners as a follow-up to a joint meeting that AAPAC and DDA board members held in May. At the time, they talked a lot about the underground parking structure that the DDA is building next to the Ann Arbor District Library on Fifth Avenue. Though folks at the DDA find parking structures “remarkably sexy,” Pollay allowed that perhaps not everyone else did, and for that reason she wanted to talk about another DDA project that might be a better avenue for partnering with AAPAC.

That project is the Fifth & Division Improvements Plan, which began six years ago and is just now starting to be implemented. The idea is to transform the two major one-way thoroughfares of Fifth (going south) and Division (heading north) into more user-friendly areas, accommodating not just cars, but also bicyclists and pedestrians.

Pollay described several elements of the makeover, which will add parking, bike lanes, trees, seating and other features. The $6.1 million project includes $61,000 set aside for public art. “We can add trees and seating,” Pollay said. “But what more can we do to make this area special?”

One place where the DDA sees an opportunity is at Hanover Square, a city park at Division and Packard. The park is fairly nondescript, Pollay said, aside from a “falling book” sculpture. ”It’s a sad little sculpture,” she said. “Nobody visits the little sculpture.” Hundreds of people pass through the park – Blimpy Burger and the former Perry School, which houses UM offices, are located at the intersection – but there’s no reason to keep people at the park.

Part of the DDA’s plan for that area includes making that intersection a gateway into the downtown. They plan to make some kind of a vertical planter, which might be a way to incorporate a public art element, Pollay said. Another possibility would be to refurbish the sculpture.

The DDA had listened to feedback from AAPAC about the need for setting aside funds for maintenance and administration. They’d adjusted their set-asides to include 15% for maintenance and 15% for administration on each project, Pollay said.

“We can make the dollars available,” Pollay said, “but we don’t have the expertise.” That’s why they’re interested in partnering with AAPAC. She also noted that the DDA has long supported public art, citing DDA-funded projects at Sculpture Plaza and the Fourth & Washington parking structure. Partnering with AAPAC would be building on that historical commitment.

Her presentation was met with a round of applause from commissioners.

During discussion following the talk, Jan Onder urged Pollay to consider adding an artist to a project’s design process at an earlier stage. “Artists can help you meet your goals in ways you never thought possible,” Onder said.

Margaret Parker asked whether the DDA would consider forming a task force that would pull together people from diverse backgrounds to help identify which public art project would work at a particular site. “Absolutely,” Pollay said.

Factoring in the budget from the underground parking structure, there’s about $311,000 available for public art projects, Pollay said. That could be used in many different ways, and might include projects on existing structures “that aren’t the loveliest,” like the one at Fourth and William, or the Maynard parking structure.

Elaine Sims mentioned that at the previous DDA/AAPAC meeting, participants had gravitated toward photos of bus stops in other cities that incorporated public art – one with a swing, another that looked like the shell of a yellow school bus. Perhaps the DDA should think about having a unifying theme for its projects, she said. That might work well for gateway areas, to give them a distinctive feel and aesthetic.

Pollay said that one of the barriers to working together had been the percent set aside for maintenance and administration, and she asked what commissioners thought about the changes that the DDA had made in that regard. Parker said that was the percentage they’d recommended, “so I think we should say that is helpful and it does mean we want to try to help administer your projects.” The question, she said, is how exactly will that process work?

Pollay suggested having another meeting between the DDA and AAPAC, to identify one project they could work on together. Commissioners agreed to discuss it further at their August meeting.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Jim Kern, Jan Onder, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger

Absent: Marsha Chamberlin, Cheryl Zuellig

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 11 at 4:30 p.m. at city council chambers, 2nd floor, 100 N. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [confirm dates]

Mike Anglin's (Ward 5) amendment with edits made by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) at the council table.

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (July 6, 2009): The word “public” covered much of the ground of this past Monday’s meeting: public art, public land, public input.

The council got an annual report from the Public Art Commission highlighted by a reminder that Herbert Dreiseitl will be visiting Ann Arbor on July 20 to introduce plans for the storm water art he’s been commissioned to design for the new municipal center. The designs have not yet been accepted.

The council also heard a report from the Greenbelt Advisory Commission on a slight strategy shift in the use of $10 million of public money so far to protect 1,321 acres of land. The  council also approved a resolution to preserve the First & William parking lot as public land.

The discussion of another parcel of public land, the library lot, led to long deliberations on the wording of a resolution to establish an RFP (request for proposals) process for development of the site – below which an underground parking structure is planned. At issue was the timing of the RFP and the explicit inclusion of a public participation component in the process. The deliberations provided some insight into how councilmembers work together when the outcome of their conversations at the table is not scripted or pre-planned.

Planning in the sense of “land use” was also a topic addressed in multiple agenda items by the council. Councilmembers passed a resolution establishing a study committee to review the R4C and the R2A residential zoning districts – a bid by the Ward 3 council contingent to eliminate R2A from the purview of the committee got no support from others.

Having received a recommendation from the Downtown Development Authority board on the A2D2 zoning package that they wanted to examine more closely, the council postponed for two weeks the first reading of the A2D2 zoning package. The site plan for Walgreen on Jackson Road, near Maple Road, was approved with permits contingent on an easement for ingress and egress.

The November city council campaign in Ward 4 began to take shape when independent candidate Hatim Elhady took a turn at public commentary, and he took the occasion to ask some questions of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the incumbent he’s challenging.

Site Development Committee and RFP for the Library Lot

-

Background

The planned underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue has generated discussion about the “What goes on top?” question. In March, the DDA passed a resolution in support of making DDA resources available for facilitating a public process. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Community Vision for 300 Block of South Fifth Avenue: What Goes on Top? [Sandi] Smith introduced the resolution, which states support of a process to develop a community vision for the 300 block of South Fifth Avenue. She said that it was prompted by the dialogue about the undergound parking garage, which had prompted the frequent question from residents: What goes on top? The idea, said Smith, was to begin a community conversation that was vague, free from preconception, and not steering towards some pre-set notion.

[John] Hieftje said he was happy to begin the discusison and that the reason it hasn’t come before is that it’s not a good economic environment to start a project. People needed to understand, he said, that it would be a few years before that climate would change.

[John] Mouat said it was an interesting urban planning exercise involving potentially a lot of different groups. “Are we really prepared to take it on?” he wondered.

John Splitt stressed that the DDA would just be offering resources: “We’re not trying to steer it into any direction; we’re there to help.” [Jennifer] Hall said she supported it, and pointed out that the discussion would include the whole block, not just the library lot. “Somebody needs to get out the door,” she said. “It should have been done ages ago.”

Public Commentary on Library Lot Site Development

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Alan Haber and Hatim Elhady addressed the council, speaking on the topic of the library lot site development.

Alan Haber: Haber began, “By the time questions get here, the fix is in and the deal is done and this is ceremonial democracy so that the people will think that we had something to do with this.” Haber sketched a scene of an America that is owned by banks, and the local landscape dominated physically by the “elite monumentalism” of the university. He gave the newly renovated Michigan Stadium as an example. He expressed the hope that sometimes people can actually change their minds and let the people’s voices come in. Haber proposed that the council dedicate the parcel as public land, dedicated to the culture of peace and nonviolence for the children of the world. “Build a park on the Commons, on the public land. Build it all-season, make it solar, geothermal, a place for community, embrace the vision of The Commons, a place for people to come together to sustain themselves and each other.”

Hatim Elhady: [Councilmember Marcia Higgins will be unchallenged in her August Democratic primary, but will face Hatim Elhady, who's running as an independent, in the fall.] Elhady began with a point blank question: “I would like to ask councilmember Higgins just what the rush is to build atop a nonexistent parking lot a project threatened with a lawsuit from an environmental group – when the Stadium bridge has gone unrepaired since you and George W. Bush were elected into office?”

Elhady noted that there were emails from the mayor and other councilmembers to constituents saying there were no plans to build anything on top of the library lot and that it could be years before anything is built, but that soon after the emails were sent it had been declared there must be something built. He focused on two clauses in the resolution. [The first of these was eventually taken up during council deliberations by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).] The first clause that Elhady highlighted specifies that the the site must bring financial return to the city. The second says that the city administration shall incorporate a design committee with residents. From that Elhady reasoned that residents can have whatever they want – as long as it brings revenue. This immediately tosses out the idea, he contended, that a park should be made with swings in it. The citizens of Ann Arbor deserve honest and open answers to their questions and an inclusive and thoroughly deliberate discussion about what gets built in their city before council votes to issue RFPs, he concluded.

Deliberations by Council on the Library Lot Process

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) introduced the resolution by acknowledging that it had morphed a little bit based on input from the public and from the council. At the immediately previous council meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had moved successfully for a postponement of the resolution to establish a committee on site development of the library lot.

The general context described by Smith in which the resolution was being brought forward was one in which the council had received an unsolicited proposal from a developer. Drawings had been provided to councilmembers at their January 2009 budget retreat. The idea, said Smith, was to throw the door open wide to any and all other proposals to see what they get.

Mike Anglin then offered amendments to the resolution, couching them in terms of the council’s commitment to public participation in development decisions. He said that the same requirement for public participation should apply to city projects as well as private developments. Anglin circulated printed copies of the amendment language to all of his council colleagues. Anglin noted that there was a feeling in the community that the space itself was very special and that it has the potential to become something spectacular. Anglin’s amendment:

RESOLVED: That the city conduct a series of public meetings to determine citizen opinion on the desired use of the site before the RFP is prepared.

Anglin’s amendment also proposed to strike the date-related resolved clauses specifying an RFP issuance on Aug. 3 and a 60-day time frame for submissions.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) began deliberations on the amendment by saying that he appreciated Anglin’s motives, saying that they were “well served.” But he reminded his colleagues that this was an RFP process and that removing the dates reflected a non-standard way of moving forward. Having dates certain ensured that everyone had the same amount of time to respond to the proposal, Rapundalo said. He echoed Smith’s view that the process really did open the door wide to anything and everything that someone might propose. He said that once the RFP process was finished that it was reasonable to expect that there would be some kind of public review of proposals. He characterized the RFP processes that he’d been a part of over the years as “very deliberate.” Rapundalo concluded that he would not be supporting the amendment.

Anglin then challenged his fellow councilmembers to describe what the public input to date had been on the subject. A longish pause ensued.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) responded to Anglin by saying that the community had been talking about the downtown for six years. Over the years, she said, they’d talked about what might happen to the parcel if it were ever developed: There’d been ideas about selling the parcel, and they’d heard from groups about making it into a park; they’d heard a proposal to put an ice rink there; and it’d had been discussed as a possible location for the municipal center. During that whole period, Higgins said, they’d heard many different ideas about what should happen on the lot.

What they had not yet heard, she allowed, was council saying that they would like to hear from everybody, and that’s what this RFP process was about.

[Analysis: Here Higgins acknowledged that there'd been a lot of talk by a lot of people, but never a specific directed process meant to achieve some specific design proposal. It could have been used as a common ground gambit, but was mostly missed in subsequent deliberations by Anglin, Rapundalo and Leigh Greden. Higgins' characterization allowed that there'd been a lot of discussion up to now (which occupied subsequent focus by Greden and Rapundalo) but none as specifically directed and as wide open as this one they were about to contemplate – the only part that Anglin focused on.]

“We are not saying that it is a done deal,” Higgins stressed. She allowed that people had heard there was a group who had convinced the council that the parcel should be used for a conference center. She’d also heard from greenway advocates that the parcel could become another park area. She’d heard the mayor advocate for a very long time that he would like to see an ice skating rink downtown as a part of any project that might be done there.

Part of this proposed process, Higgins emphasized, was to say that there were no particular criteria that they were looking for. She said she was hoping for lots of different ideas to be proposed. The proposals would all go forward for review by the committee, she said, which would include citizens. That, she declared, would start the public process. She concluded that it was the most wide-open RFP process that she had ever seen the city council do.

Higgins said that if, after 60 days, the city administrator reported that they had received no proposals, then the council could easily extend the time frame.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) read through an amendment by Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) weighed in by saying that it was not a question of whether to have public participation but rather when. Once council had a series of proposals, he said – with different themes and with different uses for that property – then it was appropriate to have public input as to which one might be picked. Restricting the process of beginning, he said, would simply choke off the flow of potential alternatives. He stressed that council should wait and see what proposals they received, noting that the public input on the proposals was going to be incredible in any case. “It’s a question of what you choose from,” Derezinski concluded.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) said he agreed with the idea of some additional public process associated with the site, and that the question was when and in what form. He allowed that he did not know if he had a position on the “when” question– is it after the bids come in, or is it earlier in the process?

Greden said he wanted to point out that there had been extensive public process already to date on this particular site. Greden appealed to the historical record of a resolution passed in November of 2007 in which council had talked about the development of the area above what could eventually become the future underground parking garage.

The language of that resolution, which authorized the DDA to design and construct the underground parking garage, was quoted subsequently in deliberations by Stephen Rapundalo:

… Whereas, The land above an underground parking garage on the South Fifth Avenue lot could be used in the near future to support new residential, retail, and/or office development and open space for public use, thus increasing the number of downtown residents, employees, and visitors, increasing the tax base, creating jobs, and enhancing the experience of being downtown; and …

… Be it further resolved … the underground parking garage shall be designed to support above ground, in the short-term, surface public parking, and in the long-term, development which could include, but is not limited to, a residential, retail, and/or office building(s) and a public plaza;

Citizens had come and spoken at public comment on that, Greden said. In the process of the DDA designing the garage, Greden noted that the DDA had coordinated public activities to help design the underground garage itself and also to explore the question of what might go above the site. A second resolution, Greden said, had been passed in early 2008 that shows similar conversations were conducted.

While he agreed with the idea that there should be additional public input, Greden said that the language of the amendment was “too vague.” “Public meetings – what does that mean? How many?” he asked. Greden also allowed that the dates and times proposed in the original resolution (Aug. 3 and 60 days) might be too strict, but agreed with Rapundalo that there should be dates of some kind. He said he’d be open to an amendment of the dates but would not support eliminating them completely. He concluded that he would not support the amendment as written.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said that over the years there had been a significant amount of input from the public that had been specific to the site. However, he felt that some additional public input would be useful. Having no deadline, he cautioned, was not constructive for the process. Hohnke wanted to know what was meant by having “a financial return to the city,” but he was advised by Mayor John Hieftje that he needed to focus the amendment – which did not include that phrase.

Anglin, advised by Hieftje that this would be his last speaking turn without a suspension of council rules, contended that there had been no public input specifically on the library lot. The DDA, he said, had done “invite only” meetings. He then said he believed that the financing was not yet in place for what was to go below or on top, saying that it was not a done deal. And he then introduced a phrase that caused momentary confusion by saying that he would be calling for a “voice vote” on the issue – subsequently Hieftje would clarify that the intended term was “roll call vote.”

Anglin then admonished his colleagues that voting no on the amendment meant that they didn’t want the public to say anything more about this. Zeroing in on a previous mention of public process on the library lot as having begun with the Calthorpe process, Anglin declared: “And this nonsense of saying that we started this at Calthorpe, that is erroneous.” Anglin then contended that the cost of the underground parking structure was 25% greater than it needed to be, because the city council had already planned to put something on top of it. “The public has not been consulted. So tell the public that you don’t want them to vote on something that is so important to them.”

Anglin said that he was certainly happy to change the dates and that conversation could happen once it was determined there would be public input.

If Anglin had been blunt, then Rapundalo was equally so: “With all due respect to councilmember Anglin, I think a lot of what you allude to is, quite frankly, in your own words, ‘nonsense.’” Rapundalo stated that the Calthorpe process had been fully open to anybody and everybody and not limited to select groups. He noted the example that Greden had previously cited was a resolution that passed on the public record. Based on that resolution, Rapundalo concluded: “We are in no way limiting what could be there.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) explaining that before asking the public to weigh in he felt there needed to be something "in hand" to show them.

Rapundalo related the timing of the solicitation of public input to having something specific for the public to evaluate: “I don’t have a problem going out to the public for their input. I’d like to have something in hand, and right now we have nothing.” Rapundalo reiterated that timelines are fairly standard for RFPs, then concluded with: “If you’re not up to speed on this, go back and do some homework on what has transpired at this body for years on end.”

Higgins then asked the city administrator, Roger Fraser, if the timelines were too restrictive. Fraser replied that he had provided input on the resolution and that he felt that it was doable to prepare the RFP by Aug. 3. Fraser characterized the 60 days as “tight but doable.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) reported that at the last partnerships committee meeting of the DDA there had been discussion of putting the RFP out more widely, possibly on a national level. A longer timeframe, she said, might allow for something like that.

Greden analyzed Anglin’s reference to a roll call vote as an implication that councilmembers should be ashamed to vote no on the amendment. Greden said that he thought the amendment was a “poor proposal.” “It’s vague,” he said. Anglin’s proposal didn’t have any parameters for time, Greden said, but he allowed that Aug. 3 and 60 days were probably too strict – he would entertain some alternative proposal. He said he agreed that a proposal for some kind of specific public process might be useful before the RFP is issued – that was a fair debate, he allowed. Because the amendment lacked sufficient detail, he said, “I look forward to casting my vote on the record against this amendment and would happily entertain any alternatives that someone else at the table has to address those issues.”

[Link to a column: "How a Skilled Politician Plays Chess"]

Councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) identified the points of commonality around the table, focusing on the willingness of several people to discuss different dates as well as an agreement that there should be a public process. Councilmembers then thrashed through amendments to Anglin’s amendment at the level of wording differences like “determining public opinion” versus “soliciting public opinion.” There was constructive input from many around the table. One example was from Higgins, who warned that the explicit inclusion of a provision for public input might imply that the usual practice was not to have public input. The final draft reconstructed by The Chronicle:

RESOLVED: That the committee conduct a public meeting to solicit public input, consistent with usual practice.

At this point, the Aug. 3 date had been left intact, and the 60-day window was extended to 90 days.

The roll call vote on Anglin’s amended amendment resulted in unanimous approval.

Greden then proposed delaying the date for issuance of the RFP by a month. Subsequent deliberations, which included an invitation by Smith to Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to offer her perspective, resulted in an Aug. 14 date for the issuance of the RFP.

Hohnke then returned to the issue of the phrasing “financial return to the city.” He asked if the intention was that it required there to be a profit or rather that any proposal be at least revenue neutral. Higgins indicated that a proposal yielding profit was fine but that a revenue-neutral proposal would also be fine.

In summing up the deliberations, Hieftje said that a challenge facing the city council was the question of when public input should be solicited. On the one hand, he said, council strived to get public input as early as possible. On the other hand, in his experience, the public generally wanted something to react to, and that without something concrete for the public to consider, there was the risk that some members of the public would feel like their time is being wasted.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously as amended.

Planning: A2D2 Rezoning Package

-

Public Commentary on A2D2 Rezoning

Bruce Thomson: Thomson owns property on the north side of East Huron Street. He noted that it had long been zoned as C2AR, so the idea that it was being “changed” to D1 was not accurate, he said. He noted that the currently proposed zoning as a part of A2D2 included a height limit that was 30 feet lower than the rest of downtown [150 compared to 180 feet], plus had a requirement of increased setbacks. He said he felt the proposal was a good compromise and reflected some good hard work. [Thomson's remarks came in the context of a relatively recent effort by residents of nearby tall buildings to see Thomson's property zoned D2 under the new ordinance, which would limit future building heights to 60 feet.]

Jerald Lax: Lax introduced himself as Thomson’s attorney and offered comment on a communication from a Michigan Department of Transportation employee that had been sent to the city related to the proposed D1 zoning on Huron Street. He cautioned that the letter had been elicited by the residents of a nearby tall building who did not wish to see another tall building built on Thompson’s property. He noted that the zoning designation that had been in place for decades – C2AR – allowed for unlimited height. He also noted that the property already had curb cuts.

John Etter: Etter said that he was the one who had provided information to MDOT and it had come as a surprise to him that MDOT had not been consulted in the context of the rezoning effort in Ann Arbor.

Bob Snyder: Snyder reminded councilmembers that they had received communications from a variety of sources and neighborhood groups recently on the subject of the A2D2 zoning ordinance that was on their agenda. He said there was overall support for the effort, which had included a lot of hard effort over several years. However, Snyder reported a certain anxiety over last-minute compromises that might take place without going back the citizens. He stressed that after five years of involvement in public process, the groups he’s involved with generally approved of the Downtown Plan, the Central Area Plan, and the DDA Renewal Plan of 2003. They supported the new zoning ordinances, but only in the context of the Downtown Plan plus a context-based design process. “Consistency is what we looking for,” he said. Snyder was critical of a last-minute attempt to increase the mass of buildings in the downtown.

Council Deliberations on A2D2

In response to the question raised during public commentary, Wendy Rampson, the city’s interim director for planning services, was asked to explain what the nature of the consultation had been with MDOT. Rampson noted that the communication conveyed to city council had come via MDOT’s Brighton service area. She noted that in addition to the Brighton office, the city of Ann Arbor dealt with MDOT via the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). She indicated that she had given a presentation to that group in December of 2008 and in January of this year.

Rampson noted that the current zoning is similar to the zoning that is now proposed. She indicated that traffic would be addressed on a site-by-site basis.

The effort to increase building mass – to which Bob Snyder had referred in his public commentary – was rooted in a resolution passed by the DDA at its June 3 meeting. In relevant part, that resolution reads:

Given that City Council has resolved to impose building height limits in D1 and D2, the DDA respectfully recommends that if 33% or more of a floor of structured parking required by the zoning ordinance is being constructed within a development, the remaining parking needed to complete a floor of parking should not be calculated as part of the building’s FAR.

• We recommend that the ratio for residential premiums be restored to a 1 to 1 proportion as is current zoning.
• Now that a height limit has been established in the D1, we recommend that the by right zoning in the D1 be increased to 500%.
• Further, to increase the community benefits of new buildings, we recommend that the FAR with
  premiums be increased to 900%, and with affordable housing to 1,100%.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated he didn’t have enough information on the interpretation of the suggestions that had been made by the DDA regarding building mass. He therefore asked for a two-week postponement in order to query staff. After confirming that the postponement would be to a date certain in two weeks, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said that council would still be able to take care of rezoning in time for the Sept. 14 joint working session with the planning commission on design guidelines.

Outcome: The first reading of the A2D2 zoning ordinance package was postponed until the July 20, 2009 meeting.

More Planning: R4C/R2 Zoning District Study Committee

As an amendment to the resolution to appoint an R4C and R2A zoning district study advisory committee, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) moved that the R2A district be eliminated from consideration, saying that it unnecessarily burdened the committee members and city staff.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as city council’s representative to the planning commmission, appealed to a resolution from October 15, 2007 that specifically referenced the need to review both the R2A and the R4C districts. The idea, he said, was to do the review comprehensively: “Here’s the thing: Get it done!”

Higgins elicited from Jayne Miller, director of community services for the city, some of the rationale for consideration of the two districts together. First, these two districts represented the last classifications that planning staff needed to review in order to complete their comprehensive look at zoning for the whole city. R4C is more dense than R2A – R4C is multi-family housing, which also includes group housing, she explained. R2A is single- and two-family dwellings.

The idea, Miller said, was not to replace one zoning district with the other. The idea was that they should be considered together because there are many places, especially in the central area, where the two zoning classifications abutted each other. Higgins concluded that it would not be prudent to look at the zoning classifications separately, given their close geographic proximity, especially in this area.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he could appreciate the view of geographic primacy, but he felt that the designations were sufficiently distinct that they could be teased apart analytically. Sabra Briere acknowledged that it was important to analyze the two districts separately. But she noted that she herself lived in an R2A district, whereas her neighbors lived in R4C. She noted that her street was not unique in that the two districts were interwoven. She concluded the two kinds of district should both be within the purview of the study committee.

Outcome: The resolution to appoint the review committee passed with dissent from both Ward 3 councilmembers, Greden and Taylor.

More and More Planning: Possible Moratorium in R4C

During Mike Anglin’s (Ward 5) communications to council, he announced that he would be bringing forward at the council’s next meeting, on July 20, a resolution to establish a moratorium on all demolitions, rezoning, and all new developments that require site plan approval within the R4C and R2A districts, effective immediately.

Anglin indicated that the city attorney’s office was working on the language of such a resolution. The moratorium, said Anglin, would extend for a period of six months in conjunction with the study and possible revision of zoning ordinances pertaining to those districts. Anglin said that one of the goals was to bring the zoning ordinances in line with the Central Area Plan, which was adopted in 1992.

It was supposed to be ready in draft form by Thursday (July 9). In his report to the planning commission on Tuesday, July 6, Tony Derezinski – the council’s representative to that body – alerted the planning commission to Anglin’s intended resolution, concluding: “I don’t know how much support he’ll get.”

Even More Planning: Preserving First & William as Open Space

-

Public Commentary on First & William

Margaret Wong: Wong said that although she was affiliated with the Greenway Conservancy and the Friends of The Greenway, she was there to speak as a citizen. She said that she was encouraged by the resolution on the council’s agenda that would establish the First & William parking lot as open space, but noted that it was just the first step. She noted that there were specific concrete actions that need to be completed, which included seeking funds for the remediation, revising the mutually beneficial parking agreement with the DDA, and rezoning the land. She noted, however, that there was a crucial need to classify the parcel as parkland. She encouraged council to expedite all of these concrete steps.

Rita Mitchell: Mitchell said that she’d been working with Margaret Wong on the Greenway for a long time and she welcomed Mayor Hieftje and councilmember Hohnke to the effort. Mitchell echoed Wong’s sentiment that it is a first step. She noted the benefits deriving from turning the parcel into a park: flood risk mediation, and improvement of water quality. She stressed the need to make sure that this parcel becomes the first in a chain and to make sure that it is more than just a green space on a piece of paper.

Council Deliberations on First & William

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began deliberations with a friendly amendment of the resolution he co-sponsored with John Hieftje, which confirmed Margaret Wong’s view – reported previously in The Chronicle’s analysis and expressed during public commentary – that the Park Advisory Commission needed to designate the parcel as parkland in its Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) plan. The amendment directed the commission to add the parcel to its PROS plan.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Yep, More Planning: Walgreen Site Plan Approval

Dave Prueter: Prueter, with Agree Realty, appeared at the podium to indicate that he was present and available to answer any questions along with Marc Levy, the owner of the property.

John Lagos: Lagos, who is an adjoining property owner, asked the council to maintain the requirement that an easement be granted to allow ingress and egress. The easement, he said, should be granted prior to the issuance of any permits.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge told the council that any site plan should require the consideration of access for people with disabilities. In particular he cited the need to require access to public transportation riders. He cited the case of the recent eviction of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority from the Arborland shopping plaza as an example illustrating why a necessary requirement of any site plan should include such access.

During deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) clarified with staff that the easements mentioned by Lagos were in place to be granted in a manner that seemed acceptable to all sides.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Fee Adjustments for Historic District Commission

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave the background for the resolution, which included the fact that application fees for a historic district permit had increased from $50 to $500 as a part of the recently passed budget by the city council. Briere noted that the fee increase had not been a part of the budget book circulated to councilmembers. Instead, she said that it had been provided in a packet that had been sent the day before they had voted.

The resolution changed the rules so that all application fees would be $40 until September, and directed city staff to develop a sliding fee schedule. Briere noted that it made little sense to charge a $500 application fee to someone who wanted to install a new door that might cost $100-$150. The fee schedule, Briere said, should not encourage residents to avoid going before the Historic District Commission.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Revised Park Advisory Commission Bylaws

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) thanked the city attorney’s office, in particular Kevin McDonald, for assistance in “getting into the weeds” with the review of PAC bylaws. There was a brief discussion about the fact that city council representatives to the Park Advisory Commission were non-voting members. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that a similar situation applied in the case of the housing commission and the cable commission. Anglin said that he was surprised at the last Park Advisory Commission meeting that some members said they did not want councilmembers to have a vote on the commission.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Greenbelt Advisory Commission

Laura Rubin, who is chair of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission, gave a presentation outlining progress to date on land protection activity and provided an update on some changes in their strategic plan. Rubin said that 12 deals had been closed that protected 1,321 acres of land. The city itself, she said, had invested around $10 million, which had been matched by almost $9 million – in federal funds, funds from surrounding townships that had also passed a similar greenbelt millage, Washtenaw County, as well as landowner donations.

She reported the fund balance at around $6 million. Each year the millage generates around $1 million, she said. The focus to date on land protection had been in the area north of the city. Rubin, who is also executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, said that no land had yet been acquired on the Huron River itself, but that land on its tributaries had been protected with millage funds.

Rubin said there had been a change in the commission’s approach due to the overall economy. Whereas the commission previously had a real sense of urgency with the need possibly to pay top dollar to protect land, the market has slowed so there’s less need to act quickly.

In terms of general strategy, Rubin reported that the commission was placing a new priority on local food markets. Previously, land parcels greater than 40 acres had enjoyed a higher score on the metric used by the commission to evaluate parcels. Now, however, Rubin said that the commission had lightened its emphasis on matching funds when it came to smaller parcels that could be used for growing local food.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) confirmed with Rubin that the dollars invested by the city had so far been matched on a roughly 1-1 ratio with other funds. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Rubin to speak to the new strategy of a local food focus, asking if it was related to the scale or if the emphasis was on organic food production.

Rubin clarified that it is the scale of the operation that is at issue. She said the new strategy is intended to provide that parcels of 5-10 acres were also suitable candidates for protection under the greenbelt millage. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Rubin to clarify how easements are being handled for the smaller parcels. Rubin clarified that some of the easement language is more restrictive for investments that are matched by federal grants.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to know whether the new emphasis on local food production amounted to a material change in scoring outcomes for parcels. Rubin clarified that there are still many other factors in the scoring metric used to assess suitability of protecting a particular parcel. But she said that the 40-acre threshold used to get quite a bit of weight. Rubin allowed that it amounted to an expansion of eligible properties.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was curious about what Rubin had meant by “going it alone” in the case of protecting some of the smaller parcels. Rubin clarified that it might well be that the city of Ann Arbor could be the only purchaser of development rights for some of the smaller parcels. If a parcel is less than 40 acres, she said, then the federal government cannot be a partner.

Higgins noted that this represented a policy shift, saying that it had always been the intended policy that the city of Ann Arbor would never be the sole purchaser. She stated, “I’ll have a conversation with you off-line.” Higgins explained that she was not sure if there had been a public enough discussion on this shift in policy.

Public Art Commission Annual Report: Dreiseitl

Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, gave an annual report to the Ann Arbor city council during the agenda’s introductions section. Parker said that in the commission’s first year it had designated the new municipal center as the focus for public art projects and had convened a task force to identify such projects in connection with the center’s construction. That work had begun in August of 2008, she said.

In February of 2009 the commission had hired a half-time administrator, Parker reported. She noted that the DDA had set up its own Percent for Art program and that the Fourth & William parking structure addition had generated funds that could be spent on public art. The DDA had designated the Public Art Commission as the body to allocate those funds but had not included any funds for administration, Parker said. She characterized the coordination between the two bodies – the city’s public art commission and the DDA – as “still being determined.”

Parker said that one half-time person would be able to accomplish not more than one major project per year. She announced that on July 20 Herbert Dreiseitl would be visiting Ann Arbor and that from 4-5 p.m. on that day he’d be presenting proposed designs for the storm water art to be installed at the new municipal center. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) inquired of Parker where the commission was currently getting its administrative help.Parker said that 8% of the money generated through the Percent for Art program goes to fund administration. She said that the city attorney’s office had been very helpful with legal concerns and that Sue McCormick, who is director of public services with the city, had also provided support.

Any arrangement with the DDA, Parker said, still needed to be clarified. “The DDA has their own way of doing things,” she concluded.

Airport Runway Expansion

Since the beginning of the year, public commentary at most, if not all, Ann Arbor city council meetings has included remarks on the proposed runway expansion at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Kathe Wunderlich: Wunderlich spoke against the proposed runway extension at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. She said that she wanted to correct some errors that had appeared in an Ann Arbor News article about a plane that had landed on the Stonebridge golf course recently. She stressed that the runway would be lengthened by 950 feet and that planes taking off from an airport took off directly over Stonebridge. She warned that the citizens advisory committee appointed in connection with the environmental review was loaded with Ann Arbor citizens and was therefore biased. She told city council that they would be asked to approve the runway extension without a safety study by the city, the state, or the Federal Aviation Administration. She noted that the Willow Run airport is just 6 miles away.

Miscellaneous Roundup

Two concerns leftover from the adoption of the FY 2010 budget were addressed formally: a Senior Center task force was appointed, and a task force to create a self-sustaining financial plan for Mack Pool was created.

Finally, a liquor license for the new Tios location on Liberty Street was approved.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, John Hieftje.

Absent: none.

Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 20, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]