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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commissioner Appointments

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

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

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

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

Justice Center Artwork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his proposal, Carpenter wrote:

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

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

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

Justice Center Artwork: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connie Brown thanked the task force members for their work.

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

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park: Commission Discussion

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

Image depicting Mary Thiefels’ mural proposal at Allmendinger Park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artwork for East Stadium Bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Planning

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

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

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

No date has yet been announced for the upcoming retreat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Cathy Gendron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dreiseitl Dedication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council, Percent for Art Ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percent for Art: Public Outreach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percent for Art: Temporary Installations as Promotion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artwork for Justice Center Lobby

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

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

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

New Projects: East Stadium Bridges, Rain Garden, DIA

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

New Projects: East Stadium Bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Projects: Rain Garden

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

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

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

New Projects: Detroit Institute of Arts

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

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

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

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

Project Updates: Murals, River Walk, Kamrowski

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

Project Updates: Mural at Allmendinger

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

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

Project Updates: River ArtWalk

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

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

Project Updates: Kamrowski Murals

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

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

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

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

Project Updates: Annual ArtWalk

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

Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Absent: Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims.

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

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

The loan is needed because the sale of the city-owned First and Washington property to Village Green for its City Apartments development has not yet been finalized. The new municipal center’s financing plan included $3 million in proceeds from that sale. The loan from the city’s pooled investment funds will allow the construction bills to be paid.

The city’s pooled investment fund includes all eligible cash across all city funds – interest earned on the pooled funds is apportioned back to each fund based on the relative amount of cash from that fund in the pool.

The building fund will incur a cost of 1.93% annual interest on the money lent from the investment pool. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, on a short-term basis, the interfund lending approach is more desirable than borrowing money from a lending institution, because of lower transaction costs, lower interest rates and no prepayment penalties. The short-term financing strategy of lending the building fund $3 million from the pooled investment fund will not have an impact on the city’s general fund, if the land sale is finalized. However, the short-term financing strategy does not eliminate the risk to the general fund, if the land sale does not go through.

The city bonded for about $47 million for the municipal building project. The yearly bond payments of $1.85 million can be broken down roughly as follows: $508,000 in TIF capture pledged by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; $490,000 in revenue from antenna rights; $455,000 in elimination of leases for space; $175,000 in elimination of utilities for leased space; $225,000 pledged by the 15th District Court facility fund.

The council had been advised by interim city administrator and chief financial officer Tom Crawford at its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting to expect some kind of short-term financing proposal on its Aug. 15 agenda. And more than a year earlier, at a city council work session in April 2010, the council discussed the city’s contingency plan of taking out short-term financing in the event the land sale did not materialize.

With respect to the land sale, at its Aug. 4 meeting, the council extended the purchase option agreement with the developer Village Green for the city-owned First and Washington site, where the developer plans to build Ann Arbor City Apartments. It’s a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building with 156 dwelling units, which includes a 244-space parking deck on its first two stories.

The land deal was originally set at $3.3 million, but was reduced by the council at its June 6, 2011 meeting to $3.2 million. The reduction in price approved at the council’s June 6 meeting was based on a “bathtub design” for the foundation that is intended to prevent water from ever entering the parking structure, eliminating the need for pumping water out into the city’s stormwater system. However, the Aug. 4 purchase option extension came at a cost of $50,000 to Village Green.

The parking deck portion of Village Green’s City Apartments project is being developed in cooperation with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which has pledged to make payments on around $9 million worth of bonds, after the structure is completed and has been issued a permit for occupancy.

According to the staff memo accompanying the Aug. 4 resolution, Village Green still hopes to break ground on the project in the 2011 construction season.

As a historical point related to the planned use of the sale proceeds for the new municipal center construction, the council defeated a resolution on March 17, 2008 to extend the Village Green purchase option agreement for First and Washington. At the council’s following meeting, on April 7, 2008, the measure was brought back for reconsideration, and the council voted unanimously to extend the agreement. The key difference was the addition of a “resolved clause,” which stated: “Resolved, that the proceeds from this sale shall be designated to the general fund, Fund 010.”

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

Mayor John Hieftje (standing) and interim city administrator Tom Crawford before the start of the city council's June 6 meeting.

For road users who head to the polls on Nov. 8, possibly the most important issue on the agenda was a brief presentation from the city’s project management manager, Homayoon Pirooz, on the city’s street repair tax, which would reach the end of its current five-year life this year, if not renewed by voters. The city council will convene a working session on June 13 to look at the issue in more detail.

Also related to infrastructure was the council’s initial action on setting rates for utilities (water, sewer, stormwater), voting unanimously to send the rate increases on to a second and final vote with a public hearing. The rate increases range from 3-4% more than customers are currently paying. All new and amended city ordinances require two votes by the council at separate meetings.

The council also approved an $800,000 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for the initial, right-of-way portion of the East Stadium bridges replacement project. Construction on that public project is due to start later this fall.

For another public project, the council voted to add a previously budgeted $1.09 million to the construction manager contract for the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron.

In an action designed eventually to reduce employee benefits costs, the council passed a resolution – brought forward by its budget committee – that directs the city administrator to craft an ordinance revision that would alter the way non-union employee benefits are structured. What’s planned is a change from three to five years for the final average compensation (FAC) calculation, and a change from five to 10 years for vesting. In addition, retirees would receive an access-only health care benefit.

The city’s newest non-union employee is Chuck Hubbard, whose appointment as the new fire chief was approved by the city council on Monday night. Hubbard was previously assistant chief, which, unlike the chief’s job, is a union position. Hubbard has 25 years of fire protection experience, all of it in Ann Arbor.

Expected to begin construction this year – in late summer – is a private development on the First and Washington lot currently owned by the city. On that lot, Village Green is planning to build a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building featuring 156 dwelling units and a 244-space parking deck on the first two stories. After much discussion, the council approved a $100,000 reduction in the purchase price – from $3.3 million to $3.2 million – that Village Green will pay for the First and Washington parcel. The price break came in the context of water management and a decision to use a full “bathtub”-type design for the foundation. The unanimous vote came after two councilmembers had already left the meeting (which pushed nearly to midnight), but it seemed at one point to hang in the balance, with two of the remaining nine councilmembers expressing reservations. Because the resolution involved land purchase, it needed eight votes to pass.

Village Green’s project, a planned unit development (PUD) approved over two years ago, was not required to undergo the mandatory process of design review that is now part of the city’s code. The council gave final approval to that design review process on Monday night. The new ordinance sets up a seven-member design review board (DRB) to provide developers with feedback on their projects’ conformance to the design guidelines. While the DRB process is required, conformance with the recommendations of that body is voluntary.

Also receiving approval at first reading was a revision to the landscaping ordinance. Fuller Road Station also drew comment from the public and the council.

Final action on medical marijuana zoning and licensing is not expected until the council’s June 20 meeting. Council deliberations on medical marijuana will be covered in Part 2 of The Chronicle’s meeting report.

Ann Arbor Street Millage Renewal Planned

The council received a brief presentation setting out a timeline for renewing the city’s street repair millage, which is currently authorized through 2011 at a level of 2 mills, but is levied at 1.9944 due to the Headlee cap. One mill equals $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s state equalized value, or SEV. Renewal of the millage would need voter approval on Nov. 8, 2011.

As part of the council’s budget retreat discussion in January 2011, councilmembers briefly discussed the idea of folding the city’s sidewalk replacement program – for which property owners now pay directly – into the activities funded by the street repair millage.

And at a budget work session in late February, public services area administrator Sue McCormick outlined how funds received through the METRO Act, which are currently used for administration of the sidewalk replacement program, could be used to close out the 5-year cycle for the current program. Then in future years, the METRO funds could be used for other work in the right-of-way. METRO funds are paid to the city under state statute for use of the right-of-way by telecommunications companies.

The street reconstruction millage is listed as CITY STREETS on tax bills.

The short briefing that the council received on Monday was given by Homayoon Pirooz, who heads up the city’s project management department. He described how the millage actually has 27 years of history, dating back to 1984, when it was first approved. Over the years, the funds collected under the local street millage have generated an additional $67 million in matching grants.

The street repair millage has criteria attached to the use of funds, Pirooz explained: The street repair millage is for resurfacing and reconstruction of streets – it’s not for filling potholes. [The city has two other funds it uses for that kind of maintenance work, including snow removal – the Major Street and Local Street funds, which receive money from the state of Michigan through vehicle weight and gas taxes.]

One of the new ideas for the street repair millage when it’s put before the voters again, Pirooz said, is to include sidewalk repairs as part of the criteria. If the public is in favor of that, he said, the city would like to apply the same approach as it does to roads. Namely, the millage would not be used for winter maintenance, but rather for replacing existing sidewalks.

Pirooz sketched a timeline for the public discussion on the street repair millage – including the possibility of increasing it to 2.125 mills to accommodate the sidewalk replacement program. That timeline would include two public meetings in June, a city council work session on June 13, and an online survey. At the council’s July 18 meeting, they’d hear a report on the public engagement, and the city council would give direction on how to proceed. At the council’s Aug. 4 meeting, it could then approve the ballot language, which needs to be submitted to the city clerk’s office by Aug. 16.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that there’s now an opportunity to release money in the street repair fund that the city thought it might have to use to replace the East Stadium bridges. With receipt of a $13.9 million TIGER II federal grant, the city can spend more of the balance in the street repair fund on road repair.

Utility Rate Increases Get Initial OK

On the council’s agenda was a resolution to approve changes in rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater facilities. In terms of revenue generated to the city, the rate increases are expected to generate 3.36% more for drinking water ($664,993), 4% more for the sanitary sewer ($829,481), and 3.35% more for stormwater ($176,915).

Because the rates are part of a city ordinance, the changes must receive a second approval from the city council, after a public hearing.

According to the city, the rate increases are needed to maintain debt service coverage and to maintain funding for required capital improvements.

The city’s drinking water charges are based on a “unit” of 100 cubic feet – 748 gallons. Charges for residential customers are divided into tiers, based on usage. For example, the first seven units of water for residential customers are charged $1.23 per unit. The new residential rate for the first seven units would be $1.27.

The city’s stormwater rates are based on the amount of impervious area on a parcel, and are billed quarterly. For example, the lowest tier – for impervious area less than 2,187 square feet – is currently charged $12.84 per quarter. Under the new rate structure, that would increase to $13.24. [.pdf of complete utility rate changes as proposed]

At the council’s Monday meeting, mayor John Hieftje asked public services area administrator Sue McCormick to comment on a study last year showing that Ann Arbor had some of the lowest rates in the state. Ann Arbor’s average increase of 3.2% compares favorably with the regional average of 9% increase this year, McCormick reported.

Councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned McCormick’s numbers, saying it looked like McCormick was relying on comparative data taken exclusively from communities served by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). He asked that, when the council votes on the rate increases at its next meeting, councilmembers be provided with additional comparative data.

McCormick said she’d bring comparative data on other communities to the next meeting, before the final vote. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked that McCormick bring the actual rates together with percentage increases.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the utilities rate increases.

East Stadium Bridges

In front of the council for its consideration was authorization of an $800,000 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the right-of-way acquisition phase of the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project. Previously, at its April 4 meeting, the council had accepted easements from the University of Michigan for the right-of-way phase.

To be reimbursed for those easements – from federal TIGER funds that the city has been awarded for the project – the council needed to authorize the agreement with MDOT. MDOT acts as the conduit through which the city receives federal funds.

In August, the city council will be presented with a similar city-state agreement – for the construction phase of the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the agreement with MDOT.

Retiree Benefits Change

On Monday, the council considered a resolution directing its city administrator and city attorney to begin work on an amendment to the city’s retirement benefits package for new non-union employee hires.

Under the amendment, for new hires after July 1, 2011, the final average contribution (FAC) for the pension system would be based on the last five years of service, instead of the last three. Further, employees would be vested after 10 years instead of five, and all new non-union hires would be provided with an access-only style health care plan, with the opportunity to buy into whatever plan active employees enjoy.

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution to his council colleagues, saying it came through the council’s budget committee that met earlier that day. It has resulted from the hard work of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), he said. After reviewing the content of the resolution, he stated that the city’s potential financial exposure due to retireee health care is significant, and the resolution was a beginning of the reform.

Taylor asked interim city administrator Tom Crawford if an estimate had been calculated for the savings that would be realized. Crawford told him that no estimate had been generated yet – staff would need to do additional research. Crawford said it’d be 5-7 years before the city sees savings. The nature of the change is long-term, he said, so it’s unlikly to save money in short term.

Taylor asked Crawford to explain what an “access-only” benefit plan is.

[As the phrase suggests, what the retiree gets is access to health care coverage (and only that). Here, "access" means the ability to purchase health coverage as part of the same group to which active city employees belong. The access to insurance as a part of that group allows retirees to purchase health care more economically than they could as individuals.] In his remarks Crawford emphasized that retirees would be able to use money the city sets aside, as well as their own money, to purchase that health care.

Mayor John Hieftje appeared interested in heading off criticism that this kind of reform should have been done years ago, by noting that the city has not hired that many people in the last few years. Given that so few people have been hired, he concluded, the council was acting in a timely fashion.

Stephen Kunselman noted that the city would be hiring at least one person soon – a city administrator. Kunselman wondered whether the benefits policy is intended to be in place before the administrator is hired. Crawford noted that the ordinance would require two readings before the council.

Kunselman wondered about the change in the vesting period from 5 to 10 years. He asked what the vesting period was back in the Neal Berlin days – 10 years seems extreme. [Neal Berlin is a former city administrator, who preceded Roger Fraser.] What about seven years? Kunselman said he wouldn’t necessarily expect a new city administrator to last 10 years. He wouldn’t want to hinder the city’s ability to make a hire.

Crawford told Kunselman that the last major change was when Neal Berlin was city administrator – the vesting period was changed from 10 to 5 years. So the resolution would direct the preparation of an ordinance to restore what was in place previously. City staff could take direction from the council’s labor committee on preparation of the ordinance, Crawford said.

Hieftje said there was a myth that Neal Berlin had received an extraordinarily generous severance deal. In fact, Hieftje said, Berlin had paid $140,000 in order to receive a $26,000-per-year pension. That meant he had to wait six years before getting a return on that, Hieftje said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct staff to begin drafting an ordinance to change the benefits program for non-union employees. The resolution also indicated a goal to include union employees in a similar benefits program.

Ann Arbor Fire Chief

In front of the council for its consideration was authorization to appoint a new fire chief: Chuck Hubbard. Hubbard is an internal hire, who previously served as an assistant chief. His 25 years of experience in fire protection, coming up through the ranks, has all been in Ann Arbor.

Barnett Jones, head of public safety and chief of police, introduced Hubbard to the council with his recommendation. Jones has been serving as interim fire chief since the resignation of Dominick Lanza from that position earlier this year, after a bit less than a year on the job. Lanza had been an external hire.

Hubbard made some brief remarks by way of introducing himself.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the appointment.

Police Promotional Assessments

Items included on the consent agenda, which are normally moved together and voted on as a group, can be pulled out for separate consideration by any councilmember. It’s not uncommon for at least one item to be pulled out for that kind of separate consideration. On Monday, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked that an item be pulled out that approved a $35,830 contract with Industrial Organizational Solutions Inc. to conduct promotional assessment of Ann Arbor police department officers for ranks of sergeant and lieutenant.

Chief of police Barnett Jones explained that the item is related to layoffs and retirements – it helps create a clear path for promotions. It’s been a long time since sergeants and lieutents have taken exams, he said. While the department is faced with layoffs now, it will also be experiencing some retirements in the future – around 16-17 by 2013, he said. Some of those who are retiring will be sergeants and lieutenants. The department will need supervisors at those ranks to replace the retirees. He could not simply promote people as he passed people walking down the hall, Jones said. This will be one of the most imporatnt promotional teams in the history of the city. The assessment will contain a written part and and oral interview.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract for promotional assessment of police officers.

Landscaping Ordinance Gets Initial OK

On Monday the council was asked to consider initial approval to a revision of the city’s landscaping ordinance. The revision is intended to: (1) improve the appearance of vehicular use areas; (2) revise buffer requirements between conflicting land uses; (3) reduce negative impacts of stormwater runoff; (4) improve pedestrian movement within a development site; and (5) preserve existing significant vegetation.

Those benefits are meant to be achieved through several text amendments to the ordinance, which include: adding definitions for “bioretention” and “native or prairie plantings”; allowing the width of landscape buffers to vary; modifying requirements for interior landscape islands; prohibiting use of invasive species for required landscaping; and increasing fines for violation.

The city’s planning commision had given the ordinance change a unanimous recommendation at its March 1, 2011 meeting.

All city ordinances require a first and a second reading in front of the city council, after a public hearing, before final enactment. The landscape ordinance will need a second vote before its approval is final.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to give the landscape ordinance change an initial approval.

Downtown Design Guidelines

In front of the council for its consideration was final approval to an amendment of its land use control ordinance that will establish design guidelines for new projects in downtown Ann Arbor, and set up a seven-member design review board (DRB) to provide developers with feedback on their projects’ conformance to the design guidelines. It’s the final piece of the A2D2 rezoning initiative.

Review by the DRB will come before a developer’s meeting with nearby residents for each project – which is already required as part of the citizen participation ordinance. While the DRB process is required, conformance with the recommendations of that body is voluntary.

The city council had previously approved the design guideline review program at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting. The city planning commission unanimously recommended the change to the city’s ordinance at its April 5, 2011 meeting. [Previous Chronicle coverage, which includes a detailed timeline of the design guidelines work, dating back to a work group formed in 2006: "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

Downtown Design Guidelines: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council they should use the word “democratic” with a big and a small “D” when considering these items. Too often, he said, an anti-democratic viewpoint is taken. He called on the council to advance the cause of using undeveloped land for mixed-use, including affordable housing. He noted there’d been no new housing cooperatives in the last 30-40 years.

Ray Detter thanked the council for their previous support of the A2D2 rezoning process and urged their support of the design guidelines. He told them he was speaking both as chair of the downtown citizens advisory council and as a member of the design guideline review committee. He reviewed some of the more recent history of the review committee. A group of citizens had formed in late 2009. In February 2010 the council had supported the formation of a design guidelines task force. Then in January 2011, members of task force had presented the outcome of their 34 weekly meetings at a city council working session.

James D’Amour told the council it was exciting to be present when the design guidelines are finally going to be approved. He’d served on the planning commission five years ago when talk about this started, he said. He urged councilmembers to support the proposal.

Downtown Design Guidelines: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she thought Detter had summed it up well, and urged her council colleagues to pass it. Mayor  John Hieftje thanked the people who did the work, including Higgins, for seeing it through.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the new downtown design guidelines. The council also received nominations from the mayor for the membership of the design review board, which the council can confirm at its next meeting, on June 20: Tamara Burns, Paul Fontaine, Chester B. Hill, Mary Jukari, Bill Kinley, Richard Mitchell, Geoffrey M. Perkins.

First & Washington Purchase Price

Councilmembers were asked at Monday’s meeting to approve a revision to the purchase option agreement with Village Green on the city-owned First and Washington site, where the developer plans to build a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building with 156 dwelling units. That revision reduces the price from $3.3 million to $3.2 million.

The break on the price is related to the “bathtub” design for the foundation of a 244-space parking deck, which makes up the first two stories of the development. The site of the development is near Allen Creek, and some kind of design strategy is required in order to deal with the possibility of water entering the parking structure. Rather than use a hybrid design that would entail pumping water out of the structure and into the city’s stormwater system on an ongoing basis, Village Green wants to use a complete bathtub-type design that will cost around $250,000. The city’s price break is a portion of that cost.

The parking deck is being developed in cooperation with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which has pledged to make payments on around $9 million worth of bonds, after the structure is completed and has been issued a permit for occupancy.

The timeline put in place on Aug. 5, 2010 – when the city council most recently approved an extension of Village Green’s option to purchase the First and Washington city-owned parcel – called for Village Green to purchase the land by June 1, 2011. However, that deadline was subject to an extension of 90 days by the city administrator – an option which interim administrator Tom Crawford exercised. That sets a new deadline of Aug. 30, 2011 for purchase of the parcel. Proceeds from the sale of the land are part of the city’s financing plan for the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron, which is currently in the final stages of construction.

First & Washington Purchase Price: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off council deliberations by saying that it appeared the council was being asked to reduce the purchase price by $100,000 due to construction issues related to high water. Alluding to the arrangement the DDA has to support the project, he asked why the DDA would not increase that support, instead of having the city reduce the purchase price.

Kunselman then said he wanted to take the opportunity to talk about the DDA. That organization’s 2009-2010 annual report included some telling numbers, he said. The report indicates over $18 million in annual revenue against expenditures of $22 million. Of those expenditures, $5 million is for debt service. The outstanding bond debt is $140 million – of that, $81 million is principle and $59 million interest. The report shows zero dollars in bond reserve. Kunselman noted that the number of jobs created is recorded as “n/a.”

Kunselman asked why the city is “bailing the DDA out for $100,000.” The issue that’s been identified (the bathtub design) is not a property issue, he continued, but rather a construction issue. Kunselman said he was having a difficult time voting for the resolution, but he did not want to see the resolution fail. But he noted that the resolution required eight votes for approval and two councilmembers had left the table.

[Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had left. It was after 11 p.m. Higgins' hoarse voice during the meeting indicated she was under the weather. Votes on real estate transactions are required by the city charter to be ratified by an eight-vote city council majority.]

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford told Kunselman that the logic used in not involving the DDA on the price agreement was that it’s a city-owned asset. He noted that it’s possible to design the foundation without the full bathtub deign. But Crawford noted that the city and Village Green have worked with the DDA to use lessons learned from the current construction on the South Fifth Avenue underground parking structure. It’s the city’s decision to mitigate the risk with respect to flooding, and it’s a city decision to move forward with the bathtub design. The full bathtub design guarantees as close as you can that in the future, no pumping of water into the city’s stormwater system would be required, he said.

The agreement to reduce the price could have been set up to include the DDA, Crawford said, but the city did not structure it that way. That approach would have made it a tri-party agreement. The approach the city took – to amend the agreement between the city and Village Green – seemed the most approprate way, Crawford concluded.

Kunselman then asked Crawford to explain how the $100,000 would be made up – proceeds from the parcel were supposed to go into the building fund for the new municipal center. Crawford clarified that the original purchase price was $3.3 million and the amount designated for the building fund was $3.0 million. There’d always been a $300,000 excess, he said, so the price break of $100,000 would not compromise the funding of the municipal center.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed some frustration at the length of time the Village Green project had been in the works, saying it had been going on about five years now. Didn’t we already know, he asked, that the location had water issues? Anglin wanted to know if the developer was willing to move forward. Crawford indicated that Village Green was in fact moving forward, actively spending money on design. Anglin questioned why the city was putting itself at risk with respect to the Pall Gelman dioxane plume – the plume was mentioned in a staff memo about the Village Green project.

Crawford explained that the plume is actually a far distance away, and the reason it’s discussed in the memo is that the city is looking at the very long term. By having a full-bathtub foundation design, there’ll be no requirement to do any pumping of water, so the risk is mitigated of pumping water that’s polluted with dioxane – that would require onsite treatment before pumping. The bathtub design is an attempt to protect the city from every possible eventuality, Crawford said.

Anglin questioned whether adequate hydrological studies had been done. Crawford addressed Anglin’s remark a bit later, noting that the city had relied on Carl Walker, the DDA’s engineering consultant on parking structures, for geotechnical analysis. There’d been a host of consultants, he said, and a substantial amount of work done. That work was what had triggered the need for a 90-day extension.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) drew out the fact that the bathtub design will cost $250,000, with Village Green picking up $150,000 of the cost and the city effectively picking up $100,000. She noted that a year ago, when the purchase option extension granted, nothing was getting built in the Midwest at all. The First and Washington project is a chance to get “another private crane in the air.” The council needs to support this, she concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje stated that using a pumping strategy would be much more of a problem. The full bathtub design offers the greatest amount of security.

Kunselman said he was still not convinced that selling the land should somehow result in an agreement about construction design. He came back to the point about DDA involvement. He felt the price reduction should be expressed in a three-way agreement.

Crawford responded to Kunselman by saying the city attorney’s office advised that this was a good way to proceed. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in by saying that Ann Arbor would own the parking deck for the next 75 years [the expected life of the deck]. The city has a chance now to guarantee that they don’t have a problem, at a cost of $100,000, he said. Taylor supported that.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) confirmed with Crawford that the developer currently has no obligation to pursue a full bathtub design. With Anglin and Kunselman having expressed their dissatisfaction, Hieftje recognized that if they both voted no, that would leave the agreement one vote short of the eight-vote majority it needed. Hieftje stated he would feel okay postponing it. Hieftje then filled some time with some general remarks about the structure, and Anglin followed up with an indication that what he wanted was to make sure the homework was done on it. Hieftje then called for the vote, which wound up being unanimous.

Outcome: The council voted 9-0 to approve the amendment to the purchase price from $3.3 million to $3.2 million.

Municipal Center

At Monday’s meeting, the council considered a $1,091,211 revision to the contract with Clark Construction Co., which is doing the construction on the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron, which houses the 15th District Court and the police department. Of that total, $693,327 is for security elements and $397,884 is for audio/visual.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said the revision brings the building’s total cost to $39 million. Interim city administrator Tom Crawford explained that the increase was for upgrades to the security of the building. He noted that the amount is not an increase to the budget of the entire project, but rather a recognition that implementation of the security measures is best done by the onsite construction manager.

Anglin wanted to know why the money is coming out of the city’s general fund. Crawford explained that the court is a general fund entity. Anglin asked why the funding for security was not part of the bonding process, saying he would rather have security outside the building [i.e, police officers on patrol] than inside the building. Crawford indicated that the expenditure is a one-time cost. The idea of how security in the building would be delivered was a conversation that had unfolded over time, Crawford said, and this was determined to be the most cost-effective. The fact remains that it’s coming from the general fund, Anglin grumbled.

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, told the council that they’d previously decided they wanted to make these decisions about security later and had decided not to make decisions about installation of furniture and fixtures until later. It had been an early and deliberate discussion of the city council, she said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract amendment, with dissent from Anglin.

Wireless for City Hall

Also pulled out of the consent agenda by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) was an item that authorized a $64,571 contract with Sentinel Technologies to equip the public areas and conference rooms of the city hall, the new municipal center and the Wheeler Service Center with wireless internet access – both secure and for public use.

Smith was curious about why the city used the middle bidder, instead of the lowest. She wanted to know why the city was using a non-Michigan bidder, who was not the lowest bid. Dan Rainey, head of IT for the city, explained that the low bid did not include the cost of recurring maintenance.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with Sentinel Technologies.

Fuller Road Station

The proposed Fuller Road Station – a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that the city plans to build in partnership with the University of Michigan, near UM’s medical campus – drew considerable public and council commentary, although the council did not have any business to vote on that specifically referenced the project.

James D’Amour expressed various concerns. He responded to a contention of the mayor’s to the effect that Fuller Road Station would result in the city getting some open space back. What are we getting? he asked. D’Amour contended that current facilities for trains are adequate. If it’s so important, D’Amour said, we should come clean with the fact that it will be located on public parkland.

D’Amour also noted the public art commission’s annual plan, attached to the council’s agenda as a communication item, included proposed art for Fuller Road Station. He asked that the language be removed. He added that the city did not need murals on Huron Parkway, as described in the public art plan.

Barbara Bach told the council that the Fuller Road Station project is getting in the way of a discussion of rail transportation and about public park preservation. She then read aloud the sentiments of Tom Whitaker, who left a comment on an Ann Arbor Chronicle article about a recent meeting of the city’s park advisory commission.

As proposed, Bach said, Fuller Road Station is a huge warehouse for cars on parkland. She said that the city should work on getting cars out of the river valley and begin to talk about rail service.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as the current chair of the Huron Valley group of the Sierra Club. She said that the parcel where the Fuller Road Station is planned is used as parkland, appears on maps as parkland, and is included in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan as parkland. The city’s designation of the parcel as public land is used in the applications to the federal government for grant funding, but there’s no mention of its park designation.

The U.S. Dept. of Transportation requires a more extenstive environmental study for parkland, she said. The redefinition of allowable uses for public land, approved by the council, allows public land to be used as a transportation center. As councilmembers, they should think about the use of parkland, as they anticipate putting the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage before the voters in 2012, Shiffler concluded.

George Gaston told the council he was there to speak in defense of Fuller Park. It’s been a city park for more than 50 years, he said. The 1993 accord struck with the university for use of the parcel as a parking lot was a temporary agreement – it was never intended to be a permanent lot, he said.

In a draft of environmental assessment for selection of the site, he said, 15 sites had been considered. Of those, three were eliminated because they’re city parks. The University of Michigan’s Mitchell Field was considered, but rejected because it’s a recreational area. Gaston said he could see why the university wants a project with free land and a prime location. But if the university is truly interested, he said, then let the university become a stakeholder. Mitchell Field would offer better access to Fuller Road. He contended that there are too many connections between town and gown for it to be an untainted vote. He contended that everything had been decided a year and a half ago. It’s taken too much effort to put together a ribbon of parks along the Huron River to lose that now, he said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called on his council colleagues to watch a recording of the May 17 park advisory commission meeting. Eli Cooper, transportation program manager for the city, had given a presentation on Fuller Road Station, Anglin said. Members of PAC were restrained but confused, Anglin said. [Anglin serves as one of two ex-officio representatives from the city council to PAC.] They thought they were going to have a train station, Anglin said. But now it’s looking like a parking structure more than anything else.

When the council voted to change the allowable uses for public land to include transportation facilities, that moved parks to another category, Anglin said. He said he did not think it sounds like the city’s share of the funding would be coming forward [roughly $10 million]. He stated that the city doesn’t need a large train station for a town this size – it just has one track.

At a time when the city is laying off police officers, $10 million for this project in unconscionable, he said. Anglin said he’s personally not excited by parking structures. The project has momentum behind it, but no funding, he said. There are no guarantees of a train coming to Ann Arbor, but there is a guarantee of a large structure. It’s such a pretty area, Anglin said, they should consider whether they should do that.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) anticipated mayor John Hieftje’s reaction to Anglin’s comments [Hieftje has pushed hard for the project] by telling the mayor that she knew he had a lot of thoughts about Fuller Road Station. But she thought the council should have a working session, so that councilmembers can become more knowledgable about the issue.

Hieftje indicated that he would look into adding something to the calendar. He then went on to describe how he and Briere had attended a press conference in Detroit recently when $196 million in federal rail funding had been awarded to projects in southeast Michigan. U.S. senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin were there, he said. Levin had called out Fuller Road Station as a good idea. Gov. Rick Snyder had also talked positively about rail transportation, he said.

Responding to Anglin’s contention that there is only one track, Hieftje noted that two tracks will be installed at Fuller Road Station. The design of the station has changed, he said, and will now put the train station inside the other building. But as far as the basic site selection, no other location is as ideal as the Fuller Road site – it has 24,000 people a day going to the university’s hospital. He then thanked Anglin for his previous vote in support of Fuller Road Station.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Volunteer of the Month

Karen Moore was recognized as volunteer of the month for her work in connection with downtown parks, in particular for Ann Arbor Downtown Blooms Day.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Forest Hills Housing Co-op received a mayoral proclamation for its role in providing affordable housing for the last 40 years.

Comm/Comm: Environmental Commission Nomination

Most nominations for the city’s various boards and commissions are made by the mayor. One of the exceptions is the environmental commission (EC), for which the council makes the nomination.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) announced that a nomination for a three-year EC term was being placed before the council that evening and that it would be before the council as a resolution at the following meeting. Margie Teall (Ward 4), who sits with Hohnke as the city council’s representatives to the EC, prompted Hohnke to name the nomination, which he did: Jamie Woolard.

Comm/Comm: Municipal Center

Margie Teal (Ward 4) reported that the building committee reviewed construction of the new building at Fifth and Huron, and the renovation of the existing city hall building. They concluded that the project is on time and under budget.

Comm/Comm: Argo Bypass Channel

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford gave an update on progress for the construction of the Argo bypass channel. An application for a permit has been submitted to the state. The city is waiting for that permit to be issued before earthwork can begin. There’s no way to know when the permit will be issued, he said, but city staff is estimating six weeks. The contractor will go ahead and begin to mobilize in preparation to start the earthwork.

Comm/Comm: Rain

Crawford reported that cleanup continues in the area of Plymouth Road, where the railroad embankment collapsed after heavy rains at the end of May. The city received 87 reports of sewer backups in basements in areas where the system was stressed. Some residents were given vouchers for cleanup, he said. The affected areas were the neighborhood Packard & Stadium, and Hill & Division. The city is considering creating two new areas for the city’s footing drain disconnect program – adding to the five existing areas – and accelerating the program.

Comm/Comm: Historic District Awards

At the start of the meeting, the city’s historic district commission presented its annual awards to property owners. A complete listing of the awards is available in the city’s press release.

Comm/Comm: Ward 5 City Council Race

Henry Herskovitz introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident, saying that it’s a matter of public record that Neal Elyakin is running for city council in that ward. Herskovitz told the council it’s his understanding that if elected, councilmembers must promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Elyakin, he said, had chosen to fly a national flag in front of his home that is not the U.S. flag, but rather one from a country that 44 years ago on Wednesday (June 8) had killed 34 Americans. [Hersovitz was referring to an attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.] Herskovitz said that he supported Elyakin’s right to fly the Israeli flag, and his right to run for a seat on the city council, but wondered to which country Elyakin owed his allegiance. Elyakin should state his loyalty and allegiances clearly, Herskovitz said.

Comm/Comm: JFK, Dems, Mackinac

Thomas Partridge reminded the council that it was the 50th anniversary of numerous historic events in the first year of John F. Kennedy’s administration, like the test ban treaty and the beginning of work on the civil rights act. He said he wanted to remind everyone of the progress made beginning in 1961, and the need to keep up the struggle. He opposed the attitude of those who left southeast Michigan and traveled to the recent Mackinac Policy Conference – that was nothing but a right-wing Republican convention, he said. He called on voters to recall Gov. Rick Snyder.

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

Next council meeting: June 20, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city of Ann Arbor. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Margaret Parker, the long-time chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, stepped down from her leadership role at Tuesday's meeting. The commission haven't yet elected a new chair. (Photos by the writer.)

After some discussion, commissioners decided to postpone the election of officers – no one is eager to take on that responsibility. Instead, they plan to rotate the chairmanship on a monthly basis, until they can come up with a way to resolve the situation.

Tuesday’s meeting also included some debate over how to handle debate and discussion during AAPAC meetings, with Parker’s call for more formality meeting resistance from other commissioners. Parker observed that the city councilmembers don’t debate at their public meetings – they make statements. She felt that AAPAC should use that as a model, to make its meetings more orderly and efficient. A compromise was eventually reached, eliminating some of the stricter rules that Parker proposed.

Commissioners also got updates on several projects, including Fuller Road Station. Though city council hasn’t given final approval to Fuller Road Station – a joint city/University of Michigan parking structure and transit center – work is moving ahead, including the formation of a task force for public art.

For the municipal center – also known as the police/courts building, at Huron and Fifth – AAPAC approved the installation of nine-panel, 27-foot-wide mosaic murals by artist Gerome Kamrowski in the building’s atrium area. The murals were previously located on the outside of city hall, at its main entrance. There was no update available on the municipal center’s largest public art project – the outdoor water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl.

Looking ahead, Parker announced that starting next year, AAPAC’s monthly meetings will be held on the first Tuesday of the month, not the second. The request is to accommodate the schedule of AAPAC’s newest commissioner, Malverne Winborne, who did not attend Tuesday’s meeting.

Leadership Change: A Work in Progress

At the beginning of the meeting, AAPAC chair Margaret Parker announced that this would be her last time to serve in that position. By way of background, Parker has been pushing for someone else to take on the chairmanship for over a year. No other commissioner has volunteered to do the job.

Parker told commissioners that they’d hold elections at the end of the meeting. Several commissioners expressed surprise – Connie Brown asked whether this meant that they’d elect someone, even if that person didn’t want the job. Parker assured her that Elaine Sims – who hadn’t yet arrived – had put together a slate.

At the end of the meeting, when the topic came up again, Sims said she didn’t realize that Parker expected her to make nominations. Sims suggested that Cheryl Zuellig – who chairs AAPAC’s planning committee – would be a good candidate, but Zuellig demurred, saying she hadn’t been aware that they’d be voting that night.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that the commission was in a quandary. They hadn’t been informed in a timely way about the vote, she said, and Sims clearly didn’t have a slate to nominate as chair and vice chair. [Jan Onder previously served as vice chair, but when her term ended at the end of 2009 she left the commission and no one was elected vice chair in her place.]

Chamberlin said they needed more time to discuss it. “I’ve been discussing it all year,” Parker replied.

Zuellig reminded commissioners that she had circulated an email earlier this year to gauge interest in serving as an officer. Some people didn’t respond, and those who did respond had indicated that they weren’t in a position to take on that responsibility, she said. Since then, there hasn’t been any formal discussion about how to resolve the problem, she added.

Zuellig had asked Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, whether the mayor had the authority to simply appoint a chair, but McCormick wasn’t sure and needed to check. As an interim measure, Zuellig suggested that the commissioners rotate the duties of chair on a monthly basis, so that someone would be designated to run the meetings.

Parker urged her colleagues to elect both a chair and vice chair. Though the duties of the chair aren’t as burdensome as they used to be, she said, the work shouldn’t fall on one person’s shoulders. Zuellig reminded commissioners that they had reviewed a proposal earlier this year that would have designated three officers: a vice chair, chair and past chair. This three-tier organizational structure had been presented at the July meeting, but the commission never acted on it.

Sims moved to rotate the position of chair monthly, in alphabetical order by commissioner’s last name. Chamberlin noted that while it was possible to do that, she asked: “How are we going to resolve this? Just think about it for another month and come back? I don’t know what the solution is.”

Though they did not discuss it, AAPAC’s bylaws lay out the process for electing officers:

Article VI Officers

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

Section 2. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and shall decide points of order and procedure subject to the provisions of these bylaws and with the guidance of Robert’s Rules of Order, as revised. The Chair shall have the privilege of discussing and voting on all matters before AAPAC. The Vice-Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair in the Chair’s absence.

Section 3. When an office becomes vacant before the expiration of the current term, the vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as full-term offices and the new officer shall serve the remainder of the term. Should an officer resign or be removed from AAPAC, or otherwise become unable to fulfill his/her official duties before the expiration of his/her term, a replacement officer shall be elected at the next regularly scheduled meeting and shall serve for the remainder of the term. The replacement officer shall be elected in the same manner as for full-term officers. The Vice-Chair may be elected as replacement Chair, in which case a replacement Vice-Chair shall be elected at the same time.

Section 4. No individual may hold more than one (1) office at a time.

There was some discussion about the role of the chair in light of the public art administrator that will be hired – the search process for that part-time job is underway. Parker again emphasized that the duties of the chair were manageable, and could be flexible.

Zuellig noted that it didn’t appear there would be a resolution to the question that evening, and said she supported rotating the chair each month until they can find a solution.

Chamberlin then volunteered to chair the January meeting. Commissioners agreed to review the previously proposed three-tier organizational structure and discuss it in January.

AAPAC Discussion Rules

The meeting started with Parker reminding commissioners that at an organizational meeting this summer, they had discussed ways of running the meetings more efficiently by taking a more formal approach, using Robert’s Rules of Order. Specifically, she proposed adopting Rule 8 of the Ann Arbor city council rules regarding conduct of discussion and debate:

1. No member shall speak until recognized for that purpose by the Chair.
2. The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.
3. A member shall not speak more than two times on a given question, five minutes the first time three minutes the second time, except with the concurring vote of 3/4 of the members present.
4. A motion to call the previous question (call for cloture) immediately ends all discussion and shall be out of order until all members have had an opportunity to speak twice to the question on the floor, and shall require a concurring vote of 3/4 of the members present.
5. A motion to lay on the table shall be out of order until all members have had an opportunity to speak once to the question on the floor.

Marsha Chamberlin said she felt these rules were more formal than they needed to be. Cathy Gendron agreed that the rules seemed too formal and restrictive. Several commissioners cited concerns with the limit of two speaking turns, and of imposing time limits.

Parker noted that AAPAC meetings often turned into debates, and can become raucous. She said she noticed that at city council meetings, councilmembers simply made their statements – it wasn’t a debate. She expressed preference for this approach, saying that discussions can happen at the committee level.

Commissioners ultimately reached consensus to adopt the first three rules, modifying the third rule to eliminate a time limit for speaking turns, and giving some flexbility to the number of speaking turns.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously adopted a modified version of the city council’s rules of conduct for discussion and debate.

Project Updates: Fuller Road Station, Municipal Center

Commissioners received updates on two major projects during the Dec. 14 meeting: Fuller Road Station, and the nearly completed municipal center, also known as the police/courts building.

Project Updates: Fuller Road Station

Fuller Road Station is a proposed parking structure, transit center and possible train station located on Fuller Road, near the University of Michigan medical complex. It’s a joint project between UM and the city, to be located on city-owned property. The project includes $250,000 earmarked for public art through the Percent for Art program.

For several months, the projects committee has reported that their attempts to contact city staff for Fuller Road Station have been unsuccessful – phone calls and emails hadn’t been returned. On Tuesday, Connie Brown said that she and Cathy Gendron had finally met with the Fuller Road Station project manager, Dave Dykman, as well as with his UM counterpart, Doug Koepsell. Katherine Talcott, who’s coordinating the public art piece for this project, participated via conference call.

AAPAC commissioner Marsha Chamberlin looks over a design for the public art installation at Fuller Road Station.

Designs are in the construction phase, Brown reported – she passed out copies of schematics for the sections of the building that would incorporate public art. The architects have already identified locations for the artwork, she said, and have also determined what kind of art they’d like. Originally, they had indicated the art would be large fritted glass panels with images imprinted on them of bikes, buses and trains. Now, the plan is to have the images inserted between two panels of laminated glass, Brown said.

The task force to select artists for the project hasn’t yet been finalized, she said. When asked by Margaret Parker about a timeline for the whole project, Brown said they’d likely select an artist or artists in the spring, with designs ready by the summer.

Gendron noted, however, that the city council hasn’t given final approval to Fuller Road Station. [A city council work session originally set for Dec. 13 was cancelled.] She said that was one reason why they weren’t moving ahead more quickly with the public art component.

Project Updates: Municipal Center

Parker said she didn’t have any update on the progress of the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture, located outside of the municipal center on Huron Street. But she did give a report on additional artwork that a task force is recommending for that new building.

The task force, which Parker chairs, got a walk-through of the municipal center in November. She reported that task force members later voted unanimously to recommend installing the nine-panel, 27-foot-wide mosaic murals by artist Gerome Kamrowski in the atrium area of the building, on the west wall. [Task force members attending the Nov. 8 meeting were Parker, Ray Detter, Laura Rubin, Elaine Sims, Margie Teall and Spring Tremaine.]

The mural is a perfect fit for that location, Parker said, and would be more visible from that site, compared to its previous location on an exterior outside of city hall. AAPAC needed to vote that evening in order for construction workers to have time to reinforce the walls to hold the mosaic’s weight, she said.

Outcome: AAPAC voted unanimously to approve installation of the Kamrowski murals in the municipal center’s atrium. The as-yet-undetermined cost of installation and of reinforcing the wall will come out of the building fund, according to Parker.

Parker also reported that the task force had discussed potential artwork for the court lobby of the municipal center. In the lobby’s southwest corner – near the intersection of Huron and Fifth – there’s a ceiling area about 8 feet by 20 feet that’s wired for electricity and that can bear a lot of weight, she said. The task force felt that some kind of artwork suspended from the ceiling there would be appropriate.

The task force recommended that the city put out a request for qualifications (RFQ) for Michigan artists. They further recommended that up to six finalists be selected from respondents – those finalists would then be asked to submit a proposal. A stipend of $500 to $1,000 each would be provided to cover the cost of the proposal.

Parker said the task force had several questions about how to proceed:

• Would the task force also serve as the jury for this piece, or should a separate jury be formed?
• What fund will pay for the administrative and project management fees, and for installation and lighting costs?
• What should the budget be?

In total, AAPAC had budgeted $250,000 for public art at the municipal center, above the amount budgeted separately for the outdoor sculpture by Dreiseitl, which cost nearly $750,000. The funding is allocated from the city’s Percent for Art program.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the commission reached consensus that the task force should follow up on answering these questions and make a recommendation to AAPAC on how to proceed.

Public Relations: West Park

AAPAC’s first project funded through the Percent for Art program – an outdoor installation of stylized metal trees at West Park – has been completed. [See Nov. 12 Chronicle coverage: "Mural Project OK'd, West Park Art Installed"]

During her report on the public relations committee, Cathy Gendron said that the city had issued a press release about the project, but she described the PR effort as “not the smoothest I could imagine.” The story got out before the formal press release, she said, in part because the press release needed multiple reviews by city staff, and needed to be sent to city council before being issued. Also, the artist, Traven Pelletier, issued his own press release about the project before the city’s release was sent out. He had received permission from the city to do this, she said.

Elaine Sims suggested including an item in future contracts with artists about how publicity would be handled.

Jim Curtis said it was nice that the community is interested in the work. His sense is that the overall perception of the sculpture is favorable.

Annual Report FY2010

During her report from the chair, Margaret Parker noted that AAPAC’s 2010 annual report has been posted on the commission’s website. It will be presented to the city council at their Dec. 20 meeting.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Venita Harrison, city management assistant.

Absent: Jeff Meyers, Malverne Winborne.

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

The Ann Arbor municipal center, under construction at the northeast corner of Huron and Fifth, will house the city's police department and 15th District Court. It will not include interior artwork by Herbert Dreiseitl. (Photos by the writer)

“It’s August,” commissioner Cathy Gendron noted. “August is always like this.”

The four commissioners were joined by Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects, who came to give an update on the large water sculpture commissioned from German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, to be located outside the city’s new municipal center. Clein also provided a revised, lower budget for a proposed interior piece by Dreiseitl – a work that commissioners ultimately voted to reject. At last month’s meeting, they had voted against another interior Dreiseitl piece as well.

Instead, AAPAC is directing its task force for the municipal center to revisit other public art options, with a proposed budget of $250,000. That’s in addition to the cost for Dreiseitl’s water sculpture and related expenses, which are approaching $1 million.

Municipal Center Public Art

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects, project manager for the public art component of the municipal center, attended Tuesday’s meeting and gave an update on both the exterior water sculpture and a proposed interior installation – both designed by the German artist Herbert Dreiseitl.

Update on Dreiseitl Water Sculpture

Clein said that the city got three responses to its request for statements of qualifications from potential fabricators of the sculpture. One company was eliminated because its submission was incomplete. The other two are now completing the next step – responding to a request for proposals (RFP). They’ve been provided designs, and are putting together a detailed document about how they would construct the sculpture, and how much it would cost. Those RFPs had been originally due on Aug. 11, but both companies requested more time, so the deadline was extended until Aug. 26, Clein said. When both proposals are evaluated, the project team will make a recommendation to city council on which one to accept.

Cathy Gendron asked how soon construction would begin. The installation is scheduled to start next spring, Clein said, so they’ll be working toward that goal. One of the bigger challenges is dealing with the infrastructure needed for the work, he said, including underground electrical conduits for the sculpture’s LED lights and two water lines that will lead back to the building’s pump room. Right now, Clein said, they’re working on revised designs to give to Clark Construction, the project’s contractor, for the work. They’re also revising some of the lighting on the plaza where the sculpture will be located. Dreitseitl felt the light poles conflicted with his piece, so they’re removing two poles and installing lights on the building’s wall instead.

Elaine Sims asked whether the fabricators were given a cap for their budget. [City council has already approved $737,820 for the work, plus $77,000 for design fees.] Clein said they didn’t set a cap – they’re hoping for a true read of what the project would cost, he said, adding that they obviously hope it comes in under budget. He said that while they love the design, there are several unresolved issues that they’ve asked the fabricators to address. It’s possible that they’ll suggest design changes that might save money, he said. Neither of the companies asked about a budget, he said.

Update on Dreiseitl’s Interior Etching

Clein then moved to the topic of Dreiseitl’s artwork for the lobby of the police/courts building. AAPAC had tabled action on the item at their July meeting, asking for a revised, lower budget. The new version, with a projected budget of $70,818, did not include a lighted element that had been part of the previous proposal.

The piece was intended to be a stylized representation of the Huron River watershed, etched into large blue glass panels that will be adhered to the wall. Those panels – and others that will be on the wall, but not etched – are being prepped at the fabricator’s shop, Clein said, and are scheduled to be installed in the next 15-30 days. City officials have instructed Quinn Evans and Clark Construction not to delay installation, Clein reported.

Though normally the etching is done prior to installation – when the panels are laid flat – the fabricator originally had indicated that they could etch the glass after it was installed. But after seeing the size and complexity of the design, the panel fabricators felt there was too much risk involved in that approach, Clein said. “They’re assuming that since it’s artwork, it should look good.”

So the only option now would be to install the panels, then remove them when it’s time to do the etching. But because of the adhesive back, they couldn’t just be taken down – the 4-foot by 8-foot panels would have to be broken, and new ones etched and installed in their place, at a projected cost of $32,000. That amount was included in the proposed $70,818 budget. Breaking the glass would break his heart, Clein said, but it could be done.

Sims asked if they knew what the etching would look like. Clein said he’d hoped to get a sample from the artist, but that hadn’t happened. He thought it likely would turn whitish in the etched areas, giving it a frosted look.

Cheryl Zuellig wondered why they couldn’t just wait to install those panels. Clein said it would add to the cost to bring back the work crew later. There was then discussion about putting up something temporary in place of the glass panels, until they could be etched. Zuellig said that even if they factored in the cost of labor, it still would likely be cheaper than $32,000. Clein said the city would have to sign off on that – he’s raised the possibility before, but was told they’d need to stay on schedule.

Cathy Gendron described the idea of breaking the panels as indefensible. Sims added that in this economy, it wasn’t possible to justify.

Saying she didn’t want to insult Dreiseitl, Sims cautiously proposed using a different technique – an overlay design, rather than etching – to achieve the image of the watershed. Clein said he’d discussed that option with Dreiseitl, but the artist felt it seemed too temporary, with the overlay possibly coming off after exposure to light over time.

Gendron suggested a separate hanging, which could be placed in front of the panels. Clein said that might be possible, depending on what it was.

At this point Margaret Parker weighed in, saying that $70,000 sounded like a lot of money, but it resulted in something significantly worthwhile – even if it meant they had to break some panels. “Anything we do at this point is going to be expensive,” she said. It’s a large wall and a public space, she added, and if they choose another piece of art to go there, it will also be costly.

Clein clarified that the etching would be about 20 feet by 20 feet, and that the entire wall is roughly 50-60 feet wide and 30 feet high.

He also mentioned that they’ve left space in the southwest corner ceiling of the lobby – a recessed area that’s about 9-10 feet wide and 12-15 feet long – where artwork could be hung. Because it would be in a windowed corner facing the intersection of Huron and Fifth, it would be highly visible from outside, he said.

After some further discussion, Zuellig suggested approving the etching with the contingency that the glass panels wouldn’t be broken. Parker then stated that since the lighting had been removed from the design, it significantly weakened the entire piece. [The proposal discussed in July had included a cluster of blue glass balls that would be suspended from the ceiling in the southwest corner, and lit from within. With the lights, the budget had been about twice as expensive – $141,218.] She said the lighting element would have related the interior piece to the exterior water sculpture, which will include blue LED lights. At this point, they should start over, she said.

Commissioners had no further questions for Clein, and he left the meeting.

None of the four commissioners present were enthusiastic about the modified Dreiseitl artwork. They discussed the fact that there would be limited public access to the lobby – it will have a secured entrance for the 15th District Court. Elements of the design have changed, they noted, which have diminished the work’s impact.

Gendron asked how much they’d spent on the interior pieces – she thought people would want to know how much they burned. Parker noted that the $77,000 in design fees were for three conceptual designs by Dreiseitl – the exterior water sculpture, and the two interior pieces. “Divide it up however you want,” she said.

When Gendron pressed, Parker said they could go back to the budget updates they’d received over the past year, which should indicate how much had been spent. There are a variety of expenses, she said, including fees to Quinn Evans and for Katherine Talcott, the former city public art administrator. Zuellig said that in any project, just because you design something at the conceptual level doesn’t mean it evolves into something that’s built.

Zuellig then made a motion to not approve Dreiseitl’s interior piece for the police/courts lobby.

Outcome: The four commissioners present – Gendron, Parker, Sims and Zuellig – voted unanimously to not accept Dreiseitl’s revised proposal for the lobby of the police/courts building.

Lee Doyle, who is expected to be appointed to AAPAC and who attended the meeting, told the commissioners she would have voted the same way. “It sounds like it’s been a long, hard haul,” she said.

“And it’s not over,” Gendron replied.

Directions to Task Force: More Public Art for Municipal Center

The commissioners then moved on to the topic of other public art for the municipal center. Parker said that the funding amount doesn’t have to be definite. “It’s not like we’re writing down our shopping list at home,” she said. “I don’t think it behooves us to come with a hard and firm number. It seems like we want the best art for the building.”

Zuellig said there’s an understanding that with a budget, they might end up spending more or less. For her, the question was whether they wanted to spend more money at the municipal center, or on other projects elsewhere.

There was discussion of the 9-panel mosaic by Gerome Kamrowski, which previously was located near at the entrance to city hall and is now in storage. Parker said the task force hadn’t been able to identify a spot for it. They felt the atrium area was too large, and would dwarf the work.

Noting that Parker was a member of the task force, Zuellig asked her what kind of direction would be helpful from AAPAC. Parker responded by saying that they’d started out thinking they’d spend about $1 million in total on art for the municipal center. Since Dreiseitl’s water sculpture was about $700,000, she said, it seemed reasonable to allocate $300,000 to other artwork there.

Gendron said they’d also talked about scaling back because of the economy. Zuellig noted that they had already spent close to $1 million, if they included the design, consulting and administrative fees. With just four commissioners at the meeting, she said, it was tricky making a decision. She added that she was undecided about whether or not to seek additional art for that location.

Sims liked the idea of a hanging piece in the police/courts lobby, possibly made of art glass, plus perhaps one or two other pieces elsewhere in the complex. But she was concerned about the cost. “We’ve spent a lot,” she said.

When Parker noted that there was money available, Zuellig said that’s not the point. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean they have to spend it, she said.

Doyle asked about the budget – was it $1 million for the municipal center? “It’s complicated,” Parker replied.

Commissioners then explained that $250,000 for the Percent for Art program came out of the budget for the municipal center project, and had to be spent there. Beyond that, Percent for Art funds had accrued from other capital projects – projects for water and sewer, for example. Those funds could be pooled and used as well, as long as the public art had a thematic link to the funds. That’s why, for example, the stormwater Percent for Art funds could be used to pay for Dreiseitl’s water sculpture.

After some further discussion, commissioners arrived at a consensus to allocate $250,000 for two additional art pieces and the possible installation of Kamrowski’s mural.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved giving direction to the municipal center’s public art task force to consider two additional pieces of art, plus the possible placement of a large 9-panel mosaic by Gerome Kamrowski. They set a budget of $250,000.

Administrative Changes

At the beginning of the meeting, AAPAC chair Margaret Parker announced that Jean Borger, who’s been working as an administrative assistant for the commission, will no longer be in that role. And Katherine Talcott, who has served as the city’s part-time public art administrator since early 2009, has recently signed a new one-year contract with the city as an art project manager. She’ll be handling the Dreiseitl project, Fuller Road Station and other projects that are assigned to her by Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator. The job of public art administrator is being restructured, and has not yet been filled.

Parker also informed the group that she won’t be attending the September or October meetings. In September, Elaine Sims will run the meeting. Cheryl Zuellig will chair AAPAC’s October meeting.

In addition, AAPAC is still awaiting word from mayor John Hieftje about whether he intends to nominate Lee Doyle as a new commissioner. Doyle attended Tuesday’s meeting, but neither she nor Parker had received any communication about the appointment. Doyle is chief of staff for the University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Communications and a member of the UM President’s Advisory Committee for Public Art. She also oversees the UM Film Office.

There are currently two vacancies on AAPAC. The mayor makes nominations to the city’s boards and commissions, which city council must approve.

Later in the meeting there was some discussion about how to recruit new members. Sims said she’s talked with Susan Froelich, who had expressed interest. Parker pointed out that Froelich had chaired the city’s Commission for Art in Public Places – the predecessor group to AAPAC – and that they needed to give some thought about how to get new people on board.

Zuellig asked whether they should post something on AAPAC’s website, or other online venues. Parker said they hadn’t done that because there are specific qualifications and abilities that are necessary to serve on the commission. Zuellig replied that if they’re looking for a broader range of people, they needed to go outside of their peer groups for candidates.

Cathy Gendron suggested posting an item on AAPAC’s Facebook page, as well as the Arts Alliance website – other commissioners agreed.

Sun Dragon Sculpture

A sculpture at Fuller Pool called the Sun Dragon, designed by AAPAC chair Margaret Parker in 2003, was damaged this spring by maintenance workers making structural repairs to the pool’s shower, to which the sculpture is attached. The sculpture is made of colored plastic and attached to a wooden beam that holds a pipe carrying solar-heated water. The beam had rotted and was being repaired – as part of that process, maintenance workers removed part of the sculpture, and parts of the artwork were broken.

At last month’s meeting, AAPAC voted to allocate $6,946 in repair costs, including $4,000 for labor, to be paid out of an endowed fund established at the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The fund is designated for public art maintenance, and has a balance of $16,270.

However, the commission was subsequently informed that not all of the $16,270 is available for use. The principal cannot be spent, so only about $2,000 is actually available.

At the start of the discussion on Tuesday, Parker recused herself and left the room. Cheryl Zuellig reported that Parker had sent an email to Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, asking for direction on where to seek funding for the repairs.

Elaine Sims said she recalled that McCormick had told them that the unit where the art is located – in this case, parks and recreation – was responsible for maintenance and repairs.

McCormick had addressed that issue at a July 14, 2010 organizational retreat for AAPAC. From previous Chronicle coverage:

At an organizational retreat … McCormick clarified the question of maintenance, confirming that the service units that oversee the site where the art is located, or the funds from which the Percent for Art monies were drawn, are responsible for maintenance and repair. This applies to both public art that was acquired prior to the Percent for Art program, as well as work funded by the Percent for Art. In addition, AAPAC can choose to allocate funding for repair or maintenance of Percent for Art work, but not for older public art.

The Dreiseitl work, for example, is funded through the water utilities fund, which will provide funding for maintenance in the future, McCormick said. She said the city will run a depreciation schedule on each piece of art, and when the work is fully depreciated – or when it comes to the end of its “useful” life cycle, whenever that might be – the staff will come to AAPAC to discuss whether to decommission it.

For public art that pre-dates the Percent for Art program, AAPAC is under no obligation to deal with those, McCormick said – though they can if they choose.

Zuellig said they should ask Parker to follow up with McCormick, and that the parks and recreation unit should pay. The commissioners then called Parker back to the meeting.

When Zuellig reported the results of their discussion, Parker expressed frustration that she was being asked to deal with the repairs. So far, she said, she had taken it on herself and hadn’t been helped by anyone – and that’s inappropriate. “As an artist, this is very awkward,” she said.

Zuellig then offered to communicate with McCormick herself. She wondered why it needed to be handled by AAPAC at this point. Parker said it’s because the piece pre-dated the Percent for Art program, so there’s no allowance for maintenance costs.

Sims asked Parker whether the sculpture’s fabricator – Plastic-Tech of Ann Arbor – had everything they needed. Parker said if they needed more, they could contact her. All of the pieces are sitting in the shop at Plastic-Tech, Parker said, and somebody needs to do something about it.

Updates on Fuller Road, DDA Projects

AAPAC commissioners Cathy Gendron and Connie Brown will be serving on a public art task force for the proposed Fuller Road Station project, a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan parking structure and transit center. Gendron reported that a list of other potential task force members has been forwarded to Dave Dykman and Connie Pulcipher – two city staff members who are working on the Fuller Road Station project. However, Gendron said, she didn’t think that anyone on the list had yet been contacted.

Saying she wanted to be emphatic about this, Margaret Parker pointed out that in the past, AAPAC has been perceived to be slow in responding to projects brought to them by the city. It was crucial that the task force be formed as quickly as possible, she said.

Gendron said it might be time to push a little harder. She offered to talk with Katherine Talcott, who’s now working for the city on art projects on a contract basis. Either she or Talcott could make the calls, Gendron said.

Elaine Sims reported that there’d been no further progress in moving ahead with projects for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Jim Curtis, a former commissioner who’d been working on that effort, lost his notes that had outlined a proposed process to manage DDA projects, Sims said. She and Connie Brown, who’s also working on that effort, decided that they should wait until the next public art administrator is selected before taking additional steps.

Parker pointed out that the project had been dangling for months – they needed to get back in touch with the DDA, she said. There was more discussion, and some confusion, over what had been done so far, and what needed to happen next. Parker said she thought she had a copy of the process that Curtis had written up, and would pass that along to Sims and Brown.

Commissioners present: Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Lee Doyle, Ken Clein, Venita Harrison

Absent: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jeff Meyers

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 14 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Abracadabra Jewelry & Gem Gallery storefront on East Liberty, just east of Fourth Avenue. The business is being given a Golden Paintbrush award by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission for contributing to the streetscape. (Photos by the writer)

Also at their Tuesday meeting, commissioners voted on the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, recognizing contributions to art in public places. Winners this year are Abracadabra Jewelry on East Liberty, the University of Michigan Health System, and Tamara Real, president of the Arts Alliance.

The group also discussed how to publicize a public open house set for Wednesday, June 23 from 6-8 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The event will include a talk by Chrisstina Hamilton, director of visitors’ programs for the UM School of Art & Design who also runs the Penny Stamps Distinguished Speakers Series.

Tuesday’s meeting was attended by Lee Doyle, who might be joining the commission. She’s chief of staff for the University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Communications and a member of the UM President’s Advisory Committee for Public Art. Doyle is also a founder of the university’s Arts on Earth program, and oversees the UM Film Office. To serve on AAPAC, she would need to be nominated by mayor John Hieftje and confirmed by the city council.

Herbert Dreiseitl Update

At Tuesday’s AAPAC meeting, Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the German sculptor Herbert Dreiseitl had been in town for a couple of days in mid-April, working with Quinn Evans Architects and the Conservation Design Forum to finalize some elements of the water sculpture commissioned by the city for the exterior of the new police/courts building at Fifth and Huron, also known as the municipal center. A request for a statement of qualifications (SOQ) is posted on the city’s Bid-Net website, to solicit responses from potential fabricators for the project. The deadline for submission of an SOQ is June 16. Up to three fabricators will be selected and asked to make proposals, which will be due July 14. A final selection of a fabricator is expected by July 23. [.pdf of SOQ request]

Talcott also provided commissioners with a detailed schedule for construction of the exterior water sculpture. According to the schedule, Dreiseitl is set to provide “firm pricing” for the piece in mid- to late August, with final city review and approval of the project in early September. Fabrication would begin soon after that, with installation to start as soon as December and continue through the spring of 2011.

Dreiseitl had originally been asked to do three pieces – the exterior water sculpture, and two interior pieces for the municipal center. The city paid $77,000 for those three designs – a price that included $5,000 for Dreiseitl’s travel expenses – but so far AAPAC and the city council have approved only the exterior piece, at a cost of $737,820.

Last year, AAPAC members had questions about the two interior designs, and at their October 2009 meeting they tabled action on one interior piece and approved the other, with certain conditions. They were also concerned about the cost. Although they had originally set a cap of $750,000 on the entire project, Dreiseitl in October proposed a budget of $841,541 for the three pieces, including the design fees.

Since that October meeting, they’ve been waiting for Dreiseitl to respond to questions about the interior pieces and to provide a new budget for those installations – etchings to be hung on the walls of the building’s lobby and atrium. At Tuesday’s AAPAC meeting, Talcott passed out copies of a revised design for one of the wall pieces – an image evocative of the Huron River watershed, to be etched on blue glass panels. In response to a query from commissioner Connie Brown, Talcott clarified that the drawing had been put together by Ken Clein of Quinn Evans and the staff of the Conservation Design Forum – not Dreiseitl. Nor has Dreiseitl provided a revised budget for the interior pieces.

Brown asked whether there was any kind of deadline for Dreiseitl to deliver designs and a budget – Talcott said no deadline had been set. She said that the exterior piece was on budget and on time, but that if they moved forward with the interior pieces, additional costs would likely be incurred because of change-orders that would need to be made on the building to accommodate the pieces.

Cheryl Zuellig expressed concern about how long it’s been since they’ve asked Dreiseitl to respond to questions about the design and budget. “I’m concerned about the artist’s engagement in this process,” she said.

Talcott responded by saying that they were dealing with an artist who had many projects underway. She and Clein have been pushing, but perhaps it’s time for the commission to decide what they’d like to do, she said – whether they want to move ahead with this project, or redirect those dollars to other places.

Margaret Parker pointed out that they do have a budget for the interior pieces – it just hasn’t been revised. [The original budget submitted by Dreiseitl last year included $53,843 for the installation in the lobby and $47,491 for the atrium wall piece.]

Later in the meeting, during a discussion of AAPAC’s annual public art plan, the topic of Dreiseitl came up again. The draft of the annual plan, which is to be submitted to the city council , includes seven items – the first three relating to public art at the municipal center: 1) complete Dreiseitl’s exterior art installation; 2) make recommendations for the two interior pieces during the first quarter of FY 2011; and 3) based on the decisions made regarding the two interior pieces, decide how to proceed with two additional exterior projects – which do not involve Dreiseitl.

Parker reported that the municipal center task force for public art had reviewed proposals for two pieces in the center’s north courtyard, next to Ann Street. But they hadn’t moved forward with those because they were waiting for AAPAC’s decision on Dreiseitl’s two interior pieces. The task force hasn’t met since last year, she said.

Talcott suggested that AAPAC set a deadline for a decision regarding Dreiseitl’s interior installations. Zuellig proposed getting information regarding the two pieces – including answers to their design questions and a new cost estimate – in time to make a decision at AAPAC’s July 13 meeting. The plan is to ask Dreiseitl to submit information by the end of June. At that point, the commission can then provide direction to the task force regarding how to move forward. Options would include approving the Dreiseitl pieces, allocating funds to work by other artists for the municipal center, or shifting dollars to projects that aren’t located at the municipal center.

Talcott pointed out that the task force had approved Dreiseitl’s two interior pieces – even though AAPAC had subsequently had issues with that work – and that one suggestion from the task force had been to seek funding from other sources to help pay for the pieces. That might be something that task force members would still be willing to do, she said, adding that it was important to respect the work of the task force.

Members of the task force who approved the Dreiseitl installation last year included: 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. Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, is also a task force member.

Marsha Chamberlin used a familiar colloquialism to indicate it was time to either make a decision, or “get off the pot.” There was agreement on this fundamental approach.

Saying she wasn’t speaking for all commissioners, Zuellig said she was frustrated by the time it’s taken to get a response from Dreiseitl. “I question that,” she said. She also questioned whether they should commit resources to having five pieces of public art at the municipal center.

Parker suggested having McCormick come to the next AAPAC meeting to talk about funding sources, saying that McCormick had explained to the task force that there were various different funding streams that could be used for public art at the municipal center. “There are various ways you can work that,” Parker said, adding that it’s “amazingly complex.”

Zuellig responded that it wasn’t an issue of the budget. The question was whether they wanted to spend the money on those particular pieces, or at that location.

Cathy Gendron commented that the economic situation has changed significantly since they started this project, and that public perception has changed as well. Zuellig noted that Dreiseitl’s exterior piece cost more than they originally expected, and the designs of the two interior pieces “aren’t necessarily home runs.”

Talcott planned to convey AAPAC’s deadline request to Dreiseitl via Ken Clein of Quinn Evans, the municipal center’s project manager.

Golden Paintbrush Awards

Commissioners unanimously approved three Golden Paintbrush awards:

• University of Michigan Health System, for contributions to public art, specifically in commissioning the “Rotations” sculpture as a memorial to the UM Medical Center transplant team, who died when their plane crashed into Lake Michigan in June 2007. [See Chronicle coverage: "New Sculpture Honors UM Transplant Team"]
• Abracadabra Jewelry & Gem Gallery on East Liberty, for contributing to the streetscape with their storefront design. [See Chronicle feature: "Behind the Counter of a Local Jeweler"]
• Tamara Real, for being a champion for the arts and artists in this region. Real is president of the Arts Alliance, an Ann Arbor-based nonprofit that advocates for the arts community throughout Washtenaw County.

The annual awards honor individuals, businesses or organizations that support art in public places in Ann Arbor. AAPAC chair Margaret Parker will formally present the awards to recipients at an upcoming city council meeting.

Public Relations: Open House, Survey Results

Marsha Chamberlin gave an update from the public relations committee, and reviewed the agenda for a public open house set for Wednesday, June 23 from 6-8 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The event will include a talk by Chrisstina Hamilton, director of visitors’ programs for the UM School of Art & Design who also runs the Penny Stamps Distinguished Speakers Series. In addition to providing updates on public art projects in the works, commissioners will be on hand to get input and feedback about the city’s public art program.

Chamberlin asked for help in publicizing the event, saying she hoped for better attendance than last year’s open house, which drew about 30 people. Commissioners discussed various ways to get the word out, in addition to a press release that went out last week and the group’s Facebook page. Cheryl Zuellig suggested getting the art commission on the city’s email distribution system – people can sign up to receive email alerts about a variety of topics.

Noting that the company she works for, JJR, has been hired to help with several projects that include a public engagement component, Zuellig said they’ve started going back to the sign-in-a-window approach, to reach people who might not be in the loop for online notices. She suggested emailing a sign to commissioners so they can print out copies and post them throughout the community.

A couple of respondents to the recent online public art survey didn't like the "Art" bike hoops installed downtown. This one is at the southeast corner of Liberty and Division.

Also at the open house, Chamberlin said they’ll report details of a recent online survey of public art, which yielded 263 responses. She reviewed some of the results, noting that respondents included a disproportionate number of people in the arts community, compared to the general public. A goal for next year is to broaden the input, she said. She described the open-ended responses as “all over the board,” including a number that were very supportive of the commission’s work. About 15%, she estimated, commented that they didn’t think the city should be spending money on public art during these tough economic times. That’s something to keep in mind as they determine the next steps for the municipal center building, she said. And two people characterized the “Art” bike hoops as the worst public art they’ve ever seen – Chamberlin noted that those were a Downtown Development Authority project.

Project Updates: West Park, DDA

Giving a report from the projects committee, Connie Brown said the artist selected for a West Park public art installation – Traven Pelletier of Lotus Gardenscapes – is expected to submit his final design concept by June 30. [Pelletier was introduced to the city's park advisory commission by parks planner Amy Kuras at PAC's May 18 meeting, but has not yet attended an AAPAC meeting. .pdf of Pelletier's conceptual design] His work will be incorporated into new seat walls being installed in a hill facing the West Park bandshell.

Brown said there’s been no action over the past month on a potential project in Hanover Square, at the northwest corner of Packard and Division. AAPAC has been talking with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a possible public art installation there, paid for as part of the DDA’s Fifth and Division street improvement project.

And a task force is still being formed for a possible public art project at the Fuller Road Station, Brown said.

Planning Updates: Annual Plan, Project Steps

Cheryl Zuellig gave a report for AAPAC’s planning committee, discussing the group’s annual public art plan as well as a document outlining the steps to be taken on city-owned public art projects.

Public Art Annual Plan

In addition to the Dreiseitl project reported above, AAPAC’s annual public art plan includes four other items, which the commissioners discussed briefly. They are:

• Develop a public art project at the Fuller Road Station.
• Identify a gateway project and set up a task force for it. Efforts will be coordinated with other potential enhancement projects. Planning is anticipated to occur over several years, with potential installation in FY 2014-15.
• Pilot a mural program.
• Assist the Downtown Development Authority in developing a public art project for Hanover Square.

Katherine Talcott asked about the funding source for the mural program, which had been proposed by Jeff Meyers. She pointed out that the Percent for Art program has some constraints, and reminded commissioners that certain things – for example, temporary art projects like FestiFools – don’t qualify.

Commissioners voted unanimously to accept the annual plan, which will be forwarded to city council.

Project Steps: There Are Many

Zuellig presented the latest version of a document outlining the steps to be taken on city-owned public art projects, from intake form to completion. She noted that this draft represented the third set of revisions, based on feedback from commissioners and Sue McCormick.

On Tuesday, commissioners spent considerable time making additional changes to some of the 21 steps, in particular discussing the definition of and difference between a selection committee, task force, peer review and jury. The group also talked about the meaning of conceptual design versus proposal, as it related to the stages of approval.

Noting that the document could get complicated if they tried to account for every type of project, Zuellig proposed adding a preamble indicating these steps are intended as a general guide. Margaret Parker said she was hoping for a simplified list that could be distributed to the city’s department heads and others, to help them understand the process. She pointed out that AAPAC also has detailed guidelines about the process, and that they can address it at an upcoming organizational planning session, to be facilitated by Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit.

Commissioners unanimously approved the project steps document, as revised.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Katherine Talcott, Lee Doyle

Absent: Jim Curtis, Jeff Meyers

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

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]

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.

Public art commissioners Connie Brown, Jim Curtis and Elaine Sims at their April 14 meeting.

Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (April 14, 2009): Much of Tuesday’s meeting focused on issues related to communication, and in particular how it related to the controversial Herbert Dreiseitl project for the city’s municipal center.

And though his visit wasn’t discussed at length, the German artist is coming to Ann Arbor on July 20 to present his designs to the commission and city council. Using funds from the Percent for Art program, the city is paying $77,000 for his preliminary design work, but would still need to sign off on the entire project, which is estimated to cost around $700,000.

There will be a public reception for him, said Margaret Parker, chair of the art commission. It’s not clear whether the commission will see his designs before he arrives, but they might try to vote on the project and take it to city council for approval while he’s here, she said, adding that details about his visit have yet to be finalized. Before he arrives, the commission also plans to have an open house for the public on May 21, to talk about their mission and goals.

Dreiseitl and the Muncipal Center

Parker led off a discussion about how to increase public awareness of the process of selecting art through the Percent for Art program. The program receives 1% of funds from each of the city’s large capital projects, with a cap of $250,000 per project. Connie Brown said that in general, AAPAC needed to do more outreach and do a better job publicizing its work. She said public comment during AAPAC meetings would be an opportunity for input. No one from the public attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Parker said that one suggestion she’d heard was to put a general summary of meeting minutes from the municipal center task force on their website. [That task force has come under fire for its choice of Dreitseitl, with some people in the community saying the money should have been spent on work by local artists. Others have objected to the whole concept of the Percent for Art program, especially in the current economic climate.] Cheryl Zuellig said she wanted to make sure they weren’t creating two documents, one for the commissioners and one for the public. “Commissioners should be issued the exact same thing that the public sees on the website,” she said.

Jim Curtis said in general they should also publicize what they plan to discuss at their next meeting. He wondered why their meetings weren’t being aired on Community Television Network, which covers many other city commissions. Katherine Talcott, administrator for the Percent for Art program, said she’d look into that.

Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.

Marsha Chamberlin said that everyone understands the need for transparency. But her concern was that while the commission technically approved the Dreiseitl project, she didn’t think she could explain the process. It all goes back to the question, she said: What is their procedure for selecting projects?

Parker pointed to the commission’s guidelines, saying that the document outlined the procedures in detail. [That document is being reviewed by the city attorney's office and is not posted on AAPAC's website at this point.]

Later in the meeting, Parker asked the commission if they thought it was time to reconvene the municipal center task force to talk about the next phase of that project. They hadn’t met since late last year, she said, after they’d recommended asking Dreiseitl to submit a proposal for three main pieces at the center. There’s about $300,000 remaining in funding for the year, Parker said, over and above what’s been set aside for Dreiseitl.

In addition to Parker, members of the municipal center task force are:

• Julie Creal, 15th Circuit Court judge
• Ray Detter, DDA Citizens Advisory Committee
• Bob Grese, director of Nichols Arboretum and Matthaei Botanical Gardens
• Sue McCormick, city of Ann Arbor
• Jan Onder, Ann Arbor Public Art Commission
• Laura Rubin, director of Huron River Watershed Council
• Spring Tremaine, Ann Arbor Police Department
• Elona Van Gent, UM professor and artist

Jim Curtis said he didn’t support using the entire $300,000 on the municipal center. Marsha Chamberlin proposed waiting until they know what Dreiseitl’s proposal will entail before spending any additional funds there. [Dreiseitl specializes in work that incorporates water, including surface water runoff.] Chamberlin also said she wanted the task force to present year-to-date plans so that the commission has a better idea of what other projects are being considered for the municipal center.

Parker said the task force needs to be reconvened in order to receive and consider Dreiseitl’s proposal in July. Sims asked why it has to be reconvened – shouldn’t it just stay in place until its work is done? After some discussion, it emerged that the commission did not, in fact, need to vote to reconvene the task force, because it had not been disbanded.

Cheryl Zuellig asked if the public would be asked to submit proposals for the municipal center. The task force was charged with making recommendations to the commission, Parker said, and had a list of sites within the center and projects it was analyzing. Zuellig said she thought an important time to get public feedback would be when the task force makes its recommendations.

Finances

Katherine Talcott reported that she’d recently received a projection for Percent for Art funding in fiscal 2009: $441,612. Parker said they would give a full budget report in the future, but they weren’t prepared to do that at this meeting. [Though this was not presented or discussed at Tuesday's meeting, here's a breakdown of funding for the program in fiscal 2008 and 2009, as detailed in the city's capital improvement project appropriations report.]

A Tale of Two Websites

The commission talked about how to manage their two websites: 1) a page on the city of Ann Arbor’s website, and 2) a website designed specifically for AAPAC by a volunteer.

One of two AAPAC websites. The other one is on the city of Ann Arbor's website at a2gov.org.

Some commissioners were concerned that this created confusion. Jean Borger, the Percent for Art administrative coordinator, said the city suggested linking to the independent site from the city site. They’re constrained from doing anything outside of the template used by the city on its site. Borger recommended that they hire a web designer to redesign their own site.

Parker said the commission’s website committee should handle the project. Later in the meeting, Chamberlin said she’d like to put a deadline on the effort, because she feared it wouldn’t move forward. Parker said they’d ask for a report from the website committee at their next meeting.

Meetings, Parties, More Meetings

Downtown Development Authority: Parker said that she, Sims and Talcott had met with Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, and Susan Pollay of the Downtown Development Authority. There’s some confusion about how the commission and DDA should work together – DDA capital projects fall under the Percent for Art program – and the DDA has requested a joint meeting of the two groups to get a better understanding on how to proceed with projects funded via the DDA. April 21 or April 28 were two dates proposed for a lunchtime meeting – Parker said she’d get back to the commission after confirming a date with the DDA. The meeting would be open to the public.

Annual meeting/AAPAC open house: Parker said that feedback from people about the municipal center project had included the suggestion to have a public forum. She said the commission could hold one to invite suggestions for their annual plan, and that the library had a room open on April 29. She asked whether commissioners thought that was a good idea, and said she wanted to look forward, not just hash over mistakes.

Several commissioners expressed concern that the date was too soon, and that they wouldn’t have time to adequately prepare or notify the public. Zuellig said she thought the idea of an annual meeting was great, but suggested pushing it back to May.

Gendron said that if they were soliciting feedback about AAPAC’s annual plan, they’d better be prepared to modify their proposal to council based on that feedback. Curtis added that timing was important – he’d rather have a meeting in January or February to focus on their annual plan, which would give them time to accept input and be respectful of the community. Having it now, he said, “almost comes across as we’re doing it because of Dreiseitl.” Chamberlin also was concerned that they’d look defensive, and run the risk of seeming reactive and disingenuous if they took input when they don’t have the means of using it.

Sims said maybe they could use a meeting in the coming weeks as more of a launch, to tell people about what the commission does. Several others picked up on this idea. Curtis said it would give people a chance to see the faces behind the decisions, to know that they care about the community, too. Chamberlin added that it could be a way to talk about how decisions are made in an open, friendly venue. She also warned that they might be using a canon to shoot a flea – they’ve heard from the disenchanted, she said, but not necessarily from the enchanted. It was important to do something positive that gets out information about the commission.

Parker wanted to have a public forum before Dreiseitl comes to town, so that if someone is harboring ill will about the project, they can get it out of their system. Otherwise, they might come to the public reception for him “loaded for bear.”

After a fair amount of discussion, the commission settled on May 21 as the date for an informal open house for the public. Zuellig urged the group to publicize the event in ways other than just posting it on their website. Sims joked that Curtis wanted to have Harvey the photographer outside, or maybe have the Naked Mile finish line at the event.

Commissioners also agreed to plan for some kind of annual meeting in February.

Working session for planning: The commission also set a working session to focus on planning issues for Wednesday, April 29 at 5:30 p.m. The meeting, to be held at the Ann Arbor Art Center, is open to the public and will include time for public comments. Commissioner Jim Kern wondered why public comments were part of the meetings. “Are our meetings public now?” he queried. Parker told him that as a public commission, AAPAC meetings are public. When Kern noted that the city council holds some of its sessions behind closed doors, Parker said the council does so only under special circumstances, such as to discuss personnel issues.

Guidelines and Bylaws

Abby Elias of the city’s attorney’s office dropped by to talk to the commission about revisions she was making to the group’s guidelines and bylaws. She said that city council had asked for their office to review all the bylaws and come up with as uniform a structure as possible across all the city’s boards and commissions.

Abby Elias of the city attorney's office, at Tuesday's meeting of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.

She’s doing the same with the commission’s guidelines. Those are, as the name suggests, a guide to show artists and the community what the commission is looking for, how projects will be selected and administered, among other things. Her job, Elias said, was to make sure the guidelines are consistent with the city’s existing procedures. She’s not going to second guess artistic concepts, she said. “I’m just a lawyer – which reminds me, today is Be Nice To Lawyers Day.”

Sims said there still seems to be discussion of what the commission’s role is, and that their role needs to be clear. Zuellig said that when she thinks of their mission, she sees three roles: 1) guiding art projects from idea to implementation, using the commission’s procedures, 2) planning what they want to do strategically, and 3) promoting public art through outreach and education.

Sims added that public perception is also an issue. Some people initially thought they could just come to the commission and tap a big pot of money. The commission needs to communicate what they can or can’t do.

Elias closed by saying. “I think you guys have a fair amount of work to do.”

Golden Paintbrush Awards

The commission had originally planned to vote on these annual awards at their Tuesday meeting, but decided they didn’t have enough information on all the nominations. Instead, they chose to email their votes to Jean Borger by Friday, April 16. The awards will be presented at a city council meeting in June.

Nominations included the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, the Prison Creative Art project, an eight-panel mosaic by Yulia Hanaasen at Matthaei Botanical Gardens, the mastodon mural at Slauson Middle School, the Urban Forest Project exhibition, a mural on the building behind the Ann Arbor Art Center, the Imagine/Align project at Nichols Arboretum (an installation by Susan Skarsgard of 20,000 daffodils), and Play Gallery videos airing on Michigan TV. Three people were nominated: Ellie Serras, former director of the Main Street Area Association; Shary Brown, executive director of the Street Art Fair; and Bob Kelch, UM executive vice president for medical affairs.

Gendron said she was uncomfortable mixing community art projects with professional work. She suggested establishing different categories for the awards. Parker said that in the past, they’ve tried to give out as many awards as possible. Gendron said that dilutes the value of the award, and after a while, people won’t pay attention to it. Zuellig noted that having categories could actually increase the number of entries and raise the level of awareness about the awards.

Commissioners discussed whether some of the nominations even qualified for the awards. They decided that the Street Art Fair and the Prison Creative Art project – both nominated by members of the public – didn’t qualify because the fair was art in a public place, not  public art, and the prisoner art was a program and traveling show, not something that encouraged public art in Ann Arbor. Zuellig said it was a cool program, and that perhaps they could have a category in future years for programs like this.

Parker raised a conflict-of-interest concern about the mural behind the Ann Arbor Art Center, which was nominated by Chamberlin, the art center’s president and an AAPAC commissioner. Parker said that according to the group’s bylaws, they shouldn’t consider any work that a commissioner is involved with. Chamberlin said she didn’t have anything to do with the mural, but setting that aside, why would anyone involved in the arts have any incentive to serve on the board, if doing so hurt the organization they worked for?

Curtis said Chamberlin could recuse herself from voting, but that he didn’t have any problem with the nomination. Chamberlin, who was reading from a draft of the bylaws [the ones being reviewed by Elias of the city attorney's office], said she could see how they might be interpreted as a conflict. The relevant parts (from the draft version) are:

Article V: Ethics and Conflicts of Interest

Section 3: A member of AAPAC shall not obtain for himself/herself or for any person with whom he/she has business or family ties, any financial or beneficial interest in a matter which may be affected by a decision of AAPAC. This restriction shall apply during the member’s tenure and for one year thereafter.

Chamberlin said the key word was “beneficial,” and in that case, it could be seen as a conflict. She said at some other time they should reexamine their bylaws, because if it causes a member’s organization not to receive recognition during their tenure, there’s disincentive to serve.

Moving to other nominations, Gendron wondered whether the Imagine/Align project was too old to be considered, since it was installed in 2004. Parker said they could give it the “How Did We Miss It?” award.

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

Absent: Jan Onder

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 12 at 4:30 p.m. at city council chambers, 2nd floor, 100 N. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.  In addition, a working session will be held on Wednesday, April 29 at 5:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Art Center, 117 W. Liberty St. The date for a joint meeting between AAPAC and the DDA has not been confirmed. [confirm dates]