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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Updates

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

Project Updates: Justice Center Lobby

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

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

Project Updates: Dreiseitl Sculpture

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

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

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

Project Updates: Allmendinger Mural

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

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

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

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

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

Project Updates: Huron River Artwalk

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

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

Project Updates: Village Green

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

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

Project Updates: Street Art

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

Administrative Funding for Public Art

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

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

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

Annual Planning

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

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

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

The timeline drafted by Seagraves begins in January:

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

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

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin.

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

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

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

Annual Planning: Projects, Programs and Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Derezinski, who serves on AAPAC and city council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donation of Gates

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

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Elaine Sims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parker’s Resignation

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

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

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

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

Absent: Cathy Gendron, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig.

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

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

Marsha Chamberlin and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) before the start of the Ann Arbor city council's Dec. 5 meeting. Chamberlin is chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. (Photos by the writer.)

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to ordinance revisions that included temporarily reducing the required 1% allocation to public art from all city capital improvement projects, dropping the amount to 0.5% for the period from 2012 to 2015. Neither that provision, nor one that would have required allocated funds to be spent on public art within a specific period of time, survived a final vote. What did survive was a prohibition against using general fund dollars for public art projects, as well as an exclusion of sidewalk repair from the definition of projects triggering the public art requirement.

Councilmembers who had previously argued for the temporary reduction, but changed their positions after intense lobbying by the arts community – both privately and at the lengthy public hearing – included Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. All face possible re-election campaigns in 2012. Questions about the legal foundation of Ann Arbor’s public art program, which taps utility fees and dedicated millage funds to pay for public art, were raised again at the meeting by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In other significant business, the council gave final approval to an expansion of the area around Ann Arbor that is eligible for protection using funds from the voter-approved greenbelt millage.

The council also approved its side of a deal to contract out Ann Arbor police dispatching services to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – at an annual cost of $759,089. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The council also formally tabled a proposed ordinance that would have provided residents with the ability to forbid the delivery of newspapers to their property – by posting a notice on their front doors. The city’s code already prohibits depositing newspapers onto sidewalks.

A sidewalk along Dexter Avenue, east of Maple Road, was the subject of a special tax authorized by the council to be applied to property owners there. The city will use the funds to construct a continuous sidewalk along that stretch, and make curb and gutter improvements.

The council took care of several housekeeping issues, including approving its set of rules for the coming year and making its committee appointments. Those included the appointment of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) as the council representative to the board of the local development finance authority – replacing Stephen Rapundalo, who was defeated by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) in the Nov. 8 election. But Rapundalo was appointed as a citizen representative to the board and will thus continue to serve on that body. Council committee appointments were only slightly shuffled, because Lumm was assigned to a number of spots Rapundalo had previously filled.

At the end of the meeting, Hieftje announced a nomination to replace Sue McCormick on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – Eli Cooper. Cooper has previously served on the AATA board and is the city’s transportation program manager.

Highlights during public commentary included advocacy for a 24/7 warming shelter to be staffed by volunteers from the community, and support for 14-year Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, who faces deportation later this month.

Public Art Program

The council considered final approval of a revision to its public art ordinance that would temporarily reduce the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. The city has a law – enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project. At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to the reduction, as well as other ordinance amendments.

The initially approved reduction applied for just the next three years, from fiscal year 2012 to 2015. That three-year timeframe was also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to the public art ordinance. The sunsetting amendment would have required that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance be encumbered within three years. Money that was unspent or unencumbered after three years would have been required to return to its fund of origin. The language of the amendment would have made it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The sunsetting clause had been proposed in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

Two other amendments – that did receive final approval by the council on Monday – included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments before the council for final consideration also excluded the public art ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are rare. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Public Art Program: Public Hearing

As with all changes to city ordinances, a public hearing was held before the council took its second vote on the public art ordinance amendments. Most but not all spoke against the idea of reducing the 1% funding. The public hearing included many of the same personalities who have previously addressed the council on the topic. Here are some highlights.

Thomas Partridge, noted that his deceased mother was an artist, so it was only reluctantly that he was asking that the ordinance be amended to cut funding. The program had been so fully funded that it had enticed the mayor and council to a lapse in judgement that had led them to purchase a $750,000 object [the Dreiseitl fountain] that looks like it came out of a junkyard, he said.

Brenda Oelbaum told the council that her mother is on life support in Toronto and she’d traveled back to Ann Arbor because she felt that public art is on life support. She contended that the talk of Ann Arbor in a financial crisis is exaggerated, citing as evidence the fact that she’d gone to dinner on Thursday and waited for an hour in a place that wasn’t cheap. Where’s the recession? she asked. Ypsilanti and Detroit are suffering, but Ann Arbor, she claimed, is not suffering.

Cheryl Elliot, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, spoke in support of the public art program, calling art the “gift that keeps on giving.”

Alan Haber encouraged the council to maintain the full amount of funding. He suggested bringing art from Ann Arbor’s sister cities around the world and displaying it in an art exchange.

Paul Hickman introduced himself as the owner of the home furnishing company Urban Ashes. He told the council he felt that something was being critically missed in the conversation. He asked how many people in the room had had a mentor – several people raised their hands. He said that his bridge from school to work was working with a professor doing public art in 1999-2000, which was funded through Arizona’s Percent for Art program. That bridge connected him to the trades and techniques of public art and took him into a career, he said. It’s allowed him to be able to do what he really loves to do, he said.

If councilmembers had not heard of Urban Ashes, Hickman told them, they would eventually hear about it. Six years ago he and his 5-year-old son had started working with disadvantaged kids in Brighton. The benefit of public art goes beyond the visual impact on the community, he said. Art is a profession, and it’s taught him an incredible way to give back to the community.

Shoshana Hurand, one of the organizers of FestiFools, expressed her support for the public art program, saying it makes economic sense.

Margaret Parker and Marsha Chamberlin, who both serve on the public art commission, spoke in support of maintaining the funding the same way it had been previously mandated. Parker said that cutting the percentage from 1% to 0.5% brings no new revenue to the city. She insisted that the amounts the council was discussing were “pennies.” Parker said the reason that so little art had been created up to now was that not enough money had been allocated for administering the program.

Chamberlin told the council that Ann Arbor is not a sleepy college town. She acknowledged that public art is well funded, judging by the amount that had been generated to date. The volunteer commission had started the ball rolling, she said. It sets a bad example to reduce the funding, she said. Having a three-year deadline for encumbering funds with the council extension is understandable, she said, but not a reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Odile Hugenot Haber lamented the fact that funding for art is now pitted against social services.

Alexandra Hoffman introduced herself as a University of Michigan PhD student. She’s working with the group trying to establish a warming center. She told the council her group is not against public art folks, but invited the council to come help at the warming center.

Nancy Kaplan told the council she appreciated the effort they’d made to amend the ordinance. She said she also appreciated the hard work of the public art commission. She allowed that everyone appreciates public art, but said that the debate is not about art itself, but rather the method of funding. She called for a fresh start, with a public vote on public art. She told the council they should put a vote for art on the November 2012 ballot. That would provide a clarity for the funding source, she said, clarity on the amount so that it could be counted on, clarity on the duration of the program and clarity on the design – the design of a piece of art could be untied from the purpose of a particular funding source.

Kaplan said that currently the art fund is flush, and the temporary funding reduction would give the commission a chance to “catch up.” Kaplan told the council that it’s the funding mechanism that is tying the community in knots.

Public Art Program: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying that after the council’s last meeting, she had a chance to look at the amendments to which the council had given their initial approval and to think over the implications of the changes for funding and policy. She said she was terrifically impressed with the passion expressed by the public in support of art. For her part, she said what they’re really talking about is the funding mechanism – not particular activities like FestiFools or the art fairs. The council is talking about funding mechanisms and priorities, she said. When the council established the ordinance, it had not clarified what it meant by “capital improvement” and didn’t look 3-4 years into the future to see what kind of funds would accumulate.

If the revision passed, it would allow the public art commission to take a breather and look at how it’s going to implement policies it has established – without amassing as much funding as the program has in the past three years. As proposed, the funding would automatically revert from 0.5% back to 1%, she said. The ordinance also doesn’t affect the fund balance that’s already there – it addresses only funding alloted for public art after July 1, 2012. She characterized it as a very narrow ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reflected on the lively discussion at the previous council meeting, saying that it had added to the discourse on the issue. She agreed with Briere’s emphasis on the funding source. In response to those who questioned where funding for new projects could come from if the funding were reduced, Lumm suggested partnerships with the private sector.

Councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the start of the Dec. 5 meeting.

Lumm said she’d support the temporary reduction to 0.5%. Lumm responded to the rhetorical tactic from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) at the last council meeting, when they’d said you can’t claim to support public art at the same time you reduce funding. She agreed with the remarks of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) from the previous meeting, who’d noted that the council had also said it supported public safety at the same time the council reduced funding for it. Lumm said that’s a black-and-white view of things that is not appropriate. Taxpayers expect adjustments, she said. It comes down to tradeoffs and difficult choices, and she called on the council to get away from emotional demagoguery. A vote to temporarily reduce funding of public art doesn’t mean someone is anti-public art, she said. Lumm said she’d see things differently if the earmark for public art were based on a vote of residents.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important to provide an amount that’s sufficient for the program  to be successful.

Objecting to Lumm’s allusion to public safety, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) felt that conversations about public safety don’t have a place in this context. Bringing up public safety clouds the issue and misleads listeners, he contended. It’s capital money that is set aside – it can’t be used for public safety operations. He said he strived to find with this, as with other issues, some measure of balance. When the council had first considered the issue, he said, he was conflicted about reducing the funding temporarily to 0.5%.

The metaphor Taylor had introduced at the last meeting was one of pruning a plant. Taylor said it’s a useful metaphor, but he’d begun to doubt it’s applicability. What benefit would accrue to the program? he asked. He had yet to hear of a capital project that couldn’t be put forward, due to the public art program. He felt the program would benefit from an increased focus on staffing and administration, but had come to doubt that the temporary reduction would be useful.

Because Taylor did not feel the reduction would be useful, he said he would be proposing two amendments – to eliminate the temporary reduction in funding, and to eliminate the requirement that the money either be encumbered within three years, or else returned to its fund of origin.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Taylor and said that Taylor’s remarks had encapsulated a lot of his own thinking. It would be a step backward, said Derezinski, who also serves on the public art commission. What kind of signal would it send? He said he was in favor of keeping the funding level at 1%. He suggested that an administrative solution needed to be found.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d twice supported the reduction of funding for the public art program. [At the council's Dec. 21, 2009 meeting and at the council's May 31, 2011 session, she'd voted for a reduction in funding.] Smith said she felt she’d been pretty consistent with the way she carries votes forward. The more she reflected on why she felt the way she did about the art program, the more she thought it might be because of a lack of more obvious progress.

The more Smith read about how to turn a place around and the reasons why people are drawn to a place, the more she wondered if reducing the funding was the right move. An epiphany came to her, she said, when crunching through the numbers and seeing the funding levels for the next three years for 1%, 0.5% and 0.25%. The difference between them, she said, is about “a buck and a quarter” per resident.

In talking about proposing an amendment, Smith said, Taylor had beaten her to the punch.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he supported the amendment, because maintaining funding at 1% is the right thing to do. He weighed in against executing a strategy to do everything at absolute minimum cost. He noted that Lumm had pointed out that having a conversation about the amount of funding shouldn’t be taken as support for art or not – up to a point. He said if someone were to suggest supporting 1/1000th of a percent, then that would not count as support for the art. Hohnke said he wanted Ann Arbor to be among the cohort of communities that leads.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated what had been said. As far as freeing up funds by reducing the percentage, she said, she didn’t know what the funds would be freed up for. It isn’t about art appreciation, she said. Ann Arbor has wonderful art fairs and people claim Ann Arbor is an artistic Mecca, but the city doesn’t really support art at all, she claimed. The Percent for Art ordinance is the mechanism to support public art, she said.

Councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

People had described some great ideas about what the city could do with the arts funding, Teall said, but the city wouldn’t achieve any of the great ideas if the funding were cut.

With Smith and Taylor dropping their support, Briere appeared to understand that she’d likely lose the vote. She noted that her colleagues would remember that she didn’t propose the temporary drop in funding to 0.5%, but that she’d brought forward the resolution at the request of other councilmembers. [Her original proposal had been to leave the funding level at 1% but to exclude projects funded with the street repair millage.]

Briere indicated she appreciated the desire to return to 1%. The reason she could not support it, she said, is because the council had been engaged in “this dance” for three years. The council talked about it, but then backed away.

There’s absolutely no denying that art is important, Briere said. She reflected on the fact that it’s possible for the council to have a three-hour discussion that has little impact on individual budgets. Briere alluded to the council’s 45-minute debate in May 2009 on a $7,000 item for Project Grow funding. Using Smith’s analogy, that’s 6 cents per resident, she said. The council had recently approved a $25,000 appropriation for the Delonis Center warming center – that’s 22 cents a person, she said.

Over the next three years, the reduction from 1% to 0.5% takes funding from around $900,000 per year to almost $450,000, Briere said. She said she was hard-pressed to believe it would cripple a program that currently has around $1.5 million to spend. And if it were to cripple that program, we’d know it, she said, because the council would hear about it. She stressed that it’s a temporary three-year cutback. She did not think the temporary reduction would prevent someone from settling in Ann Arbor or expanding their business here. People come to places where there are jobs and housing, with well-maintained streets, she said – to places that take pride not just in art, but also in infrastructure.

This is the third time the issue has come back to the council, Briere said, and she felt that fact represents a real dissatisfaction with something about the program. She again stressed that she’d brought it forward at the request of other members on the council. If the council does not act, she said, councilmembers would face the same situation again in a year.

Lumm noted that the difference between the roughly $900,000 that 1% would generate and the $450,000 that 0.5% would generate was significant. The issue has to do with funding priorities, she said.

Taylor had voted for the reduction from 1% to 0.5% at the council’s first reading, in the same way he’d voted for the reduction at the first reading in 2009. He allowed that Briere raised a good point about the persistence of the council’s conversation. It’s one about which he was torn. The past two weeks had been illuminating for clarifying his thoughts.

Teall noted that permanent public art is costly, if it’s constructed as a life-long legacy to stand the test of time. The program doesn’t have an administrator, she said, and it’s a young program. [The city's current public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, started the job in May. It's a part-time position.] To “cut it off at its knees” is a mistake, Teall said. Reducing it would be a rollback at a time when the city is trying to institute things that don’t come to fruition in a short time.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed some frustration, saying that as she listened to the debate, people always want to tie it to being for or against public art. The discussion is really about how to fund it. Higgins said that Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the public art commission, brought up a great point during public commentary when she’d said that the program has a lot of money right now, but nothing guarantees it in future years. If we want this place to be a Mecca for art, Higgins said, then let’s figure out how to fund it. The council was dancing around the question.

Higgins talked about the need for the art commission to know how much money it would have and for how long. She wondered if $400,000 for the next 30 years, funded by a millage, would be one way to go. She noted that people say they don’t want general fund dollars to go towards public art, but she wondered how administrative support is paid for.

Higgins said she’d like to see the resolution tabled for four to five months so that the council could have a serious conversation about it. On the issue of the general fund, she wondered if some money for art shouldn’t come from the general fund. If it’s a priority for the community, she asked, why not?

Hohnke allowed that the dollar amount generated is significant over the next three years, whether the percentage is 1% or 0.5%. The elegance of the program, based on a percentage, is that it’s a reflection of the investments made in the built environment. The program provides resources relative to the investment in the built environment, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said people had made many good points. One of the points is that there are strings attached to the way public art money is spent, and he supported loosening the strings to the extent it’s legally possible. If there is any general fund money in the public art fund, he said, it’s not enough to make it an issue of public safety. The question is whether to fund art.

Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor’s water and sewer rates are some of the lowest in the state. He assured people that they’d see some aggressive spending of street millage funds next year – the city had been holding them back as a contingency to help pay for the Stadium bridges replacement project. Hieftje revealed that he was a sponsor of the resolution to reduce the funding from 1% to 0.5% at one point. But in looking at public art as economic development and reflecting on that, he found that 1%, up to the $250,000 limit per project, is okay. He found himself in favor of the amendment to keep funding at 1%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) complained that the legality of the transfer from the street fund to art had never been explained in a written opinion from the city attorney. Alluding to Hieftje’s mention of “strings,” he said if the council is going to talk about strings, the strings should be written down.

Describing a millage pitched by Tuscola County to its voters, Kunselman said Tuscola County assured voters that there could be no transfer of special millage funds to another account. That’s what Tuscola County says, so what do we say, Kunselman wondered. He suggested the new city administrator ask for a written opinion from the city attorney. Then there could be certainty, he said.

Kunselman liked the idea of an art millage. Not acting meant punting it down the road to a future council in a way that could end up in a lawsuit, he said. Ann Arbor is the only city in Michigan that has a Percent for Art ordinance, Kunselman said, and the city doesn’t even have it written down why it’s legal.

Outcome on amendment restoring the 1% level of funding: The council voted to eliminate the original amendment, thus restoring the funding level to 1%. Dissenting were Lumm, Kunselman and Briere.

Taylor then went on to propose eliminating another amendment, already given initial approval, that money be returned to its fund of origin if not encumbered within three years. He said he’d initially thought it was a reasonable way to incentivize spending money with deliberate haste. He felt there were complications with the provision, despite the fail-safe that allowed the city council to extend the three-year deadline for funds in six-month increments.

Teall thanked Taylor for bringing forward the amendment. She feared the original proposal would have the effect of rushing the public art commission into spending money.

Briere noted that any time you talk about deadlines, there’s a valid concern it would result in hasty, ill-considered decisions. Responding to the issue of money in some funds accruing slowly, she noted that money is pooled and could be put together with other funds. Briere noted that the idea of placing a temporal deadline had come from public services area administrator Sue McCormick, who oversees the public art program. Briere said that placing a finite deadline on the accrual of funds would help focus attention. The idea is not to rush to judgment, she said. It’s to focus attention. It allows the city to keep better track of things.

Councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margaret Parker, a member of the public art commission.

Higgins said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment, pointing out that she’d heard Marsha Chamberlin say at the podium that the three-year period is reasonable. Higgins also noted that it’s not just one six-month period of extension – it’s an indefinite number of six-month extensions that are available. It’s an easy check and balance.

Smith noted that one of the things that affects her thinking about the public art ordinance is that there’s at this point very little public art to see. The original change that the council approved may help push projects along, so she was not in favor of reversing it. It’s important to have some sense of urgency, she said.

Derezinski said he’d proposed and voted for the amendment that allowed the council to grant an extension because it made the overall proposition less bad. He said it related to the issue of process and how the public art commission operates. If the commission had the right staff, he felt, it would be possible to address the issue through the procedures of the commission. Writing a requirement into the ordinance is using “too large a club,” he said.

Lumm said that the three-year provision did not amount to a hardship. She called it simply a very good discipline and said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment.

Outcome on amendment removing requirement that funds be encumbered within three years: The amendment passed on a 6-5 vote, with approval from Derezinski, Taylor, Teall, Hohnke, Anglin and Hieftje.

Public services area administrator Sue McCormick was asked how the administration for public art would be charged. She described it as analogous to the way that engineering projects are charged to the project management group at the city.

In her concluding remarks, Briere noted that other communities with Percent for Art programs restrict the money in some way. When the Ann Arbor city council had originally passed its ordinance, it had not restricted the money. That made it problematic to manage. She hoped her colleagues would allow some restrictions going forward by passing the resolution as amended. [The surviving changes included the prohibition on using money from the general fund and the definition of capital improvement projects to exclude sidewalk repair.]

Lumm expressed frustration, commenting: “This thing is really watered down!” [Briere subsequently told The Chronicle that she'd gotten out of it what she'd wanted – an agreement to restrict the funds in some way.] Lumm said she’d started paying attention to it when Higgins had proposed a budget amendment in May of that year. Now, Lumm said, she wasn’t sure what to do.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the two changes to the public art ordinance.

City-County Consolidated Dispatch

On the agenda was a resolution for a $759,089 annual contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to handle police dispatch operations for the city of Ann Arbor. The five-year agreement is anticipated to start in March of 2012.

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the city of Ann Arbor expects to realize at least $500,000 in savings annually compared to continuing to employ its own dispatchers. The cost savings arise from the fact that not all of the city’s current dispatchers would be hired on by the sheriff’s office – the total number of dispatchers in the consolidated operation would be reduced by six FTEs, compared to the two separate operations.

In the separate but co-located dispatch operation currently in place, at any given time, one Law Enforcement Information Network support officer is used for each operation – one for the Ann Arbor police department and one for the Washtenaw County sheriff's office.

In more detail, the city’s dispatch operation is currently authorized for 19 dispatching positions, and the county has 17 positions. The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers. It also calls for 10 part-time dispatchers.

A significant reduction in the FTE number (5.25 positions) is achieved in the consolidated operation by using just one LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network) officer, instead of using one LEIN officer for each dispatch operation (for a total of two) at any given time.

The way these efficiencies were gained was laid out at the council’s Dec. 5 meeting, as they had been at a work session in September, by Kerry Laycock, a management consultant hired to help with the consolidation. [Laycock has been tapped for assistance on many of the city's reorganizational moves over the last several years, including most recently the Ann Arbor housing commission.]

Of the 19 budgeted city positions, one dispatcher retired this fall, leaving current staffing at 18. Two dispatchers are currently on approved leave. As a result of the consolidation, 4-5 Ann Arbor dispatchers who currently have full-time positions would not have a full-time job under the consolidated operation.

In addition to the cost savings that accrue from employing fewer people overall, it emerged during council deliberations that the difference in compensation between city and county dispatchers averages around $9,000 per year – Ann Arbor city dispatchers earn more. That can translate into around a 20% pay cut for Ann Arbor city dispatchers, who earned $44,000-$56,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.

The contract with the county for dispatch services is offset by a $12,520 facility use fee paid by the county to the city. The Washtenaw County sheriff’s office is already co-located with Ann Arbor police dispatch, in a facility above the city’s Fire Station #1 on South Fifth Avenue just across the street from the municipal center. The sheriff’s office also currently handles dispatching services for Northfield Township, Michigan State Police, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and the city of Ypsilanti. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax. The distribution of a portion of the state sales tax to local units is based on the fact that in Michigan, local units have limited ability to generate revenue through taxes.

Consolidated Dispatch: Public Commentary

Anne Daws-Lazar told the council she was a life-long Ann Arbor resident and that she’d worked 24 years as a dispatcher and would be retiring in February 2012. She characterized the proposed move not as a merger but as a “takeover.” She questioned the ability to take more calls with fewer people. She noted that currently the two operations are co-located. Before co-location, she said, Ann Arbor dispatchers answered more than 48,000 911 calls. After co-location, she said (adding the county sheriff’s operation) Ann Arbor dispatchers answered 85,000 calls. That’s because Ann Arbor dispatchers are answering Washtenaw County calls. [In the dispatching operation, there are two distinct functions performed by separate people – a call-taking function and a dispatching function.] So the Ann Arbor dispatching staff is already assisting with the Washtenaw County workload, Daws-Lazar concluded.

Ann Arbor dispatchers have more experience than county dispatchers, she said. Of the current 16 Ann Arbor dispatchers, nine have over 10 years of experience, and nobody has less than six years of experience. On the county side, she said, six out of 14 have less than four years experience. She accounted for the reduced experience on the county’s side by pointing to the conditions they work under and their treatment by their administration. She said she felt that very few people will be transitioned – Ann Arbor dispatchers will have to apply for a job. She felt very few Ann Arbor dispatchers will actually do that, because they’ve seen firsthand the conditions that the county dispatchers work under, which in turn will lead to a less-experienced dispatching staff.

Among the conditions the county dispatchers work under, Daws-Lazar pointed to a difference in their contracts – Ann Arbor dispatchers aren’t allowed to work 16 hours, unless it’s an extreme emergency. But county dispatchers work 16-hour days regularly, she contended. And they do that often two to three days in a row. That comes at a price, she said, including officer safety.

Danyelle Tucker introduced herself as a current employee at the dispatch center. In June of this year, she contended, all 18 dispatchers had been sent letters saying they would be laid off due to a lack of funding. She alluded to an alternative proposal, that would create revenue for the city instead of costing the city $759,000 per year, including the loss of PSAP (public safety answering point) funds totaling over $600,000 per year.

She contended that during a May 11, 2011 meeting of a the county-city collaboration task force, attended by assistant city attorney Nancy Niemela, city of Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford, and deputy police chief Greg Bazick, they discussed the best avenue for getting around a full city council vote. As members of the city council, she said, they should question why secrecy would be needed, if it were the best plan for the city. Why would Bazick raise the possibility of the consolidation process to be stopped by an injunction? she asked. She said there was a reason why the police department administration did not want the council to see the alternative proposal.

Tucker also expressed concern for citizens of Ann Arbor who are accustomed to a certain level of service from a dispatch center. Under the proposal, she said, citizens would be relying on Washtenaw County to maintain a full-staffed dispatch center. According to meeting notes obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, full staffing would require 33 full-time employees, Tucker said. Currently the Washtenaw County dispatch operation has 14. To date, through 2011, the current level of staffing by the county has led to 5,000 hours of overtime, forcing current staff to work double shifts multiple days of the week, she said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Management Review

Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones was invited to the podium by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) to give an overview.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and chief of police Barnett Jones.

Jones reviewed his time as chief in Ann Arbor, which began six years ago. After four months on the job, he said, he’d been told he’d need to reduce staff. Since then, it’s been six years of reducing staff. In the course of those reductions, he said, he didn’t touch dispatch. It’s one of the core areas – patrol, investigation and dispatch. He reminded the council that he had presented the buyout option to the council to induce early retirements in 2009, which they’d approved. That had resulted in 26 people taking early retirement, two of whom were dispatchers. Those positions were then replaced, he said.

For this round of reductions, he said, he’d tried to come up with a way to keep his people employed. He first called the sheriff to explore the possibility that Ann Arbor could take over the sheriff’s dispatch, to perhaps generate revenue through the dispatch operation. Jones alluded to statutory mandates that prevent the sheriff from doing that. So they had looked at it the other way – with the sheriff taking over Ann Arbor’s dispatching operation. Later during council deliberations, sheriff Jerry Clayton said the proposal was cost-neutral from the county’s perspective.

Jones told councilmembers they’d seen some of the notes – alluding to the information that had been described during public commentary. When you brainstorm, he said, you throw every idea you can think of on the wall. The point is to try to save jobs, he said. Of the current Ann Arbor dispatchers, 13 or 14 of them would be employed under the consolidation, he said. His reality is that he faces a $1.2 million deficit. To meet that target without consolidation, he’d need to eliminate some dispatchers and officers, he said.

[Later during deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) invited a dispatcher to comment from the podium, who noted that on either scenario, with or without consolidation, she'll be losing her job.]

Jones presented the consolidation as good public policy because it helps keep patrol officers on the street.

Clayton also contended that the dispatch consolidation is good public policy. His office was there to assist the city, he said. He compared Ann Arbor’s situation with that faced by Ypsilanti previously. Ypsilanti was faced with the choice of laying off a police officer or firefighter. In that instance, Ypsilanti dispatchers applied for jobs to the county and they were brought in to the county dispatching organization, Clayton said. The approach in Ann Arbor would be similar, he said. He confirmed that if a decision is made to consolidate, those who are laid off from Ann Arbor dispatch would not be guaranteed a job.

He described how there would be a transition period of around six months while separate dispatching would continue as the dispatchers are cross-trained – county dispatchers for the city of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor dispatchers for Washtenaw County.

Responding to comments made during public commentary about the quality of service, Clayton allowed that right now the sheriff’s office doesn’t have enough staff. Even under those conditions, he said, county dispatchers deliver excellent service.

Consolidated Dispatch: Budget Context

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted the $1.2 million projected shortfall for the police department for the FY 2013 budget year, and compared that to the projected $500,000 annual savings from the consolidated dispatch operation. That still leaves $600,000-$700,000 to make up. She wanted to know how Jones proposed to cover the remaining shortfall. Chief of police Barnett Jones indicated that he did not have a proposal, except to hope the council found another way.

The context of the budget to which Jones alluded during his remarks has changed as the result of a new contract signed by the police officers union (AAPOA) in September of this year. The city’s position is that the layoff of four officers would not have been necessary, if the police union had made concessions on their contributions to health and pensions benefits before June 30.

During deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the $1.2 million projected shortfall in the public safety services area had been based on the analysis of a previous city administrator [Roger Fraser]. Kunselman said he was interested in getting a budget analysis from Steve Powers, the new city administrator.

Another change in the context for the $1.2 million projected shortfall is on the revenue side. From the city’s CFO Tom Crawford, Kunselman elicited Crawford’s expectation that property tax revenues next year could show an increase compared with this year.

At multiple points during the evening, including deliberations on the consolidated dispatch, mayor John Hieftje talked about a plan to preserve police officer staffing levels – it currently appears that nine officers will retire around the beginning of the year. The city is looking to rehire the officers just recently laid off. For the remaining five positions, there are around 400 applications for those jobs. The savings from the new AAPOA contract and the anticipated savings from the consolidated dispatch, Hieftje said, get the city where it needs to be to preserve current staffing levels.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) drew out the fact that there would be transitional costs associated with the consolidation of somewhere between $300,000-$500,000 in the first year.

Consolidated Dispatch: Adequacy of Service

At one point, Hieftje asked Jones to confirm that dispatching services would be adequate under the consolidation. Jones provided that confirmation. He said he’d gotten a lot of grey hair over this decision. Part of his comfort, he said, was based on the continuing liaison that would exist between the police department and the consolidated dispatch.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for a review of some of the metrics that would be used to determine if performance was being maintained. Jones gave the basic industry standard that 90% of calls should be answered in less than 10 seconds. The consultant Kerry Laycock also indicated that one component of performance can be monitored by calling back citizens who make calls to 911 to get a measure of their satisfaction. A final component is to get feedback from officers who are dispatched. That part is still under development.

Smith wanted to know what happens if the metrics show the consolidation is failing. Jones indicated that the whole process of gradual consolidation would need to be undone in reverse. That’s why this has to work going forward, he said.

Higgins confirmed with sheriff Clayton that the city could get performance metrics as often as it liked – the city is the customer, Clayton said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Human Resources

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) got clarification that 13-14 Ann Arbor dispatchers would be able to apply for jobs under the consolidated dispatch operation. He got confirmation that their pay would be less than they currently make. From the audience someone called out the question: “How much less?” Although Hieftje admonished attendees not to interrupt the meeting that way, the figure was tracked down in response to the question: On average, county dispatchers make $9,000 less than city of Ann Arbor dispatchers.

Hieftje allowed that it’s not a slight but rather a significant difference. Higgins noted that dispatchers are not the city’s highest paid employees. [Dispatchers earned $44,000-$56,000 for FY 2010].

Higgins also wanted to know what the difference in benefits is between the county and the city. Laycock said that human resources staff had described them as comparable. Sheriff Clayton said that among county workers, the dispatchers had very good benefits. Higgins was assured she’d be provided with a benefits comparison.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Bid to Postpone

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) made a bid to postpone the vote, based on uncertainties associated with the changing budget picture. Asked by Kunselman, city administrator Steve Powers said that with respect to timing, the contract did not need to be approved that night.

Kunselman invited one of the dispatchers in the audience to comment from the rank-and-file staff perspective, given that the council had just heard at length from the management side. [It's not common that the council invites an audience member to address the body outside of time set aside for public commentary, but the council's rules explicitly provide for that possibility.]

Mayor John Hieftje’s response to Kunselman’s gambit was first to note that the council had already heard from dispatchers during public commentary, but he quickly adopted the position that he had no objection to hearing more.

The dispatcher who approached the podium reviewed how the current operation is already co-located and that the call-taking function [which is a different task from dispatching] is already merged. She suggested that the two operations should truly be merged instead of the sheriff’s department taking over the Ann Arbor dispatching. The dispatchers themselves, she said, were out of the loop. She said they’d been told they’d all be laid off – that had shaken up people’s lives.

She told the council that dispatchers are extremely frustrated. Although there are dispatchers who have worked over 20 years, she hadn’t worked that long, so she noted that she’d lose her job regardless of the consolidation. She invited councilmembers to take the time to see the dispatch center. She told them they couldn’t make an educated vote without seeing it for themselves.

Kunselman’s motion to postpone nearly died for lack of a seconding motion, but that eventually came from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city administrator Steve Powers if during a delay on the vote, Powers could think of a reason that would change his mind. Powers said he doesn’t approve an agenda item for the council’s consideration unless he supports it. He said it’s unfortunate that there’s disruption for dispatchers and a difference in compensation. For reasons that had already been enumerated, Powers said he supported the consolidation. Responding to the invitation the council had heard to visit the city’s dispatch center, he encouraged them to visit other dispatch centers where consolidated dispatch was already being done – fire, police, and EMS. Consolidated dispatching is being done all over, and it makes sense for the city at this time, he concluded.

Hieftje, noting the length of time that the proposal had been in the works, said he wouldn’t support postponement.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was confident that Powers and Jones will ensure that response times are maintained. She pointed out that the sheriff’s office has experience doing shared dispatch. She also pointed to the fact that the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax.

Lumm and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if postponing the vote would affect the city’s opportunity to qualify for the MEVIP. City CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city’s application needed to include items that the city had already accomplished and things that are planned. It would be described to the state as “planned” in any case, he said, even if the vote were taken that night.

Crawford also indicated it’s not clear what the state will do next year. He said it’s become clear that there was an impression that communities are not doing much in the way collaboration. Crawford said the state is learning that Ann Arbor as well as many other communities have a long history of collaborations. Crawford gave towing as another possible example of collaboration with the county.

Outcome on postponement: Only Kunselman voted for postponement, and the motion failed.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Finale

There were no substantive deliberations after the vote on postponement.

Outcome: Kunselman joined his colleagues in the unanimous vote for dispatch consolidation. The consolidation will also require approval by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries

Before the council for its consideration was final approval to a change in the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

The council approved the addition of the southwest and northeast corners to the greenbelt-eligible area. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The area in and around Ann Arbor eligible for land preservation under the greenbelt program is defined in Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code. The council has expanded the boundaries once before, in 2007. The current proposal is essentially to square-off the area by adding a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, the 2007 expansion and the proposed expansion]

Another amendment to Chapter 42 was also considered by the council. It would allow a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting. The council gave the changes initial approval at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

Since the start of the greenbelt program, roughly $18 million has been invested by the city of Ann Arbor in protecting open space. That has been matched by roughly $19 million from other sources, including the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, surrounding townships, Washtenaw County and landowner donations. That funding has protected roughly 3,200 acres in 27 separate transactions.

Thomas Partridge spoke during the public hearing on these changes, calling for priority to be given to affordable housing.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, led off discussion with the introduction to some essentially administrative amendments to the wording. He stressed that the boundary change alters the total area of the greenbelt-eligible properties by 6%. He characterized the change as “normalizing” the boundary changes that were already approved in 2007. At that time, the area now to be included was not added, because of the limited willingness of townships in those areas to participate in the greenbelt program – Salem and Lodi townships. However, those townships are now interested in participating.

A breakdown of percentage contribution of different entities to the 26 greenbelt land transactions that have been completed to date. Of the 26, 12 did not include any township contributions. Two of the 12 transactions did not have any other governmental source, but had landowner donations. (Image links to higher resolution file. Chart by The Chronicle)

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) drew out the fact that there are two components to the amendment of the boundaries. Only one of them makes sense, she said – the one regarding properties that are adjacent to the boundary.

Lumm said she did not support the other component, which is the expansion of the area. She said that conceptually the arguments were similar to those the council had discussed during the debate about public art. It’s not about all or nothing, she said – it’s about making adjustments. She stressed the difference between the voter-approved millage and the Percent for Art program.

She asked: Is there any point at which the council believes the boundary goes too far? At what point, she asked, would asking voters about repurposing the millage revenues be considered? Annual revenues from the millage proceeds exceed by $1 million the bond payments. [The strategy was to take out a bond using future millage proceeds to pay for it, so that there would quickly be cash on hand to take advantage of land deals as the opportunities arose, instead of waiting to accumulate the cash through the millage.]

Lumm noted that this is the second proposed expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area. The original compact with voters, Lumm said, was to spend 1/3 of the millage proceeds inside the city and 2/3 outside. The goal had also been to achieve matching contributions for acquisitions that would make the city’s contribution 1/3 of the cost. But to date, she said, 27% of the investment has been on parkland inside Ann Arbor, and on average Ann Arbor has contributed 49% of the cost – higher than the 1/3 target.

In the meantime, Lumm said, Ann Arbor’s own city parks are starved for funds. She thanked Hohnke for bringing forward a smaller proposed expansion than what some people might have wanted. She said the council owes it to taxpayers to monitor the spending. At what point, she asked, are we spending money because it’s there? Until there’s clarity about that, she said, she wouldn’t support the boundary expansion.

From left: Dan Ezekiel, chair of the city's greenbelt advisory commission, and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Hohnke said that Lumm raised some good points. He said he appreciated her desire to maximize fiscal resources. He contended that the “slight” boundary expansion does that, by providing for additional opportunities that would serve the original purpose of the millage. It would also give the city the opportunity to leverage additional funds, to invest in open space of high quality, and it’s a way to help tax dollars go further.

Mayor John Hieftje also said good points had been raised. He suggested that this would be the final and last expansion of the boundaries. The corners of the area represent unique opportunities and a chance to find new partners. Hieftje cited the language on one of the main pieces of literature from 2003 millage campaign, which had referred to “other sources” of funding. That was one of the things that has changed, he said – the state of Michigan previously had a program and that’s the difference in the city’s ability to achieve the 1/3 goal.

Hieftje noted that the amount of funding from outside sources is actually more than equal to the city’s contribution. Hieftje stated that Ann Arbor had been very fortunate in that 90% of federal farmland protection money that’s awarded throughout the state of Michigan comes to the Ann Arbor area.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed that the proposed changes are minor, but looking at the map, the boundaries completely avoid Ypsilanti Township. She wondered if there could ever come a time when people look at that irregular boundary and consider expanding.

Hohnke indicated that he did not think there was really high quality land there that would be worth considering and that’s not likely to change, he ventured, because it’s an already-built environment. From the audience, greenbelt advisory commission chair Dan Ezekiel and Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staff member who helps administer the program, nodded their agreement with Hohnke’s assessment of the missing southeast corner of the greenbelt-eligible area.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area, as well as the adjacent property provision, over dissent from Lumm.

“No Newspaper” Law

On the agenda was a resolution revising the city’s littering and handbill ordinance that is meant to give residents the ability to regulate the kinds of newspapers that are deposited onto their property. The ordinance was aimed in part at publications that are delivered free in the community. The ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to deposit a newspaper on someone’s property, if a notice forbidding delivery of that specific newspaper is posted on the front door. The misdemeanor is punishable by a combination of a fine up to $500 and 90 days in jail. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

The ordinance would also create liability not just for the person who might deposit commercial handbills or newspapers onto someone’s property, but also for the corporate entities who “cause” that activity to take place.

First Amendment issues raised by the city’s attempt to restrict unwanted delivery include the possibility that the proposed ordinance has created a content-based distinction between newspapers and commercial handbills. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a right of residents to regulate the degree to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their property. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)] And in a more recent New York Supreme Court case, the court ruled that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

The initial consideration of the ordinance had been postponed already at the council’s previous meeting, and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the measure, indicated that another delay would be requested. His remarks suggested that some publishers had responded in such a way as to alleviate some of the concern that had prompted the perception that an ordinance was required.

Some back and forth ensued about tabling compared to postponing to a specific date. The council settled on tabling. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) cautioned that according to the council’s rules, if a resolution is not taken back up off the table for consideration in six months, the measure is considered demised.

Responding to Briere’s concern, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who co-sponsored the ordinance, indicated that the ordinance was expected to be taken up again sometime in January 2012.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the revision to the ordinance on handbills and littering.

New Investment Policy

Before the council for its consideration was the authorization of a new investment policy. The item had been on the council’s agenda at its Nov. 21 meeting, but was postponed at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted to have the council’s budget committee review the policy first.

Highlights of the policy changes include the extension on maturity timelines for several different instruments: U.S. Treasury Obligations (from seven to 15 years); Federal Agency Securities (from seven to 10 years); Federal Instrumentality Securities (from seven to 10 years), Certificates of Deposit (from three to five years), and Obligations of the State of Michigan (three to 10 years).

Balanced against those extensions were some changes to portfolio restrictions that prevent the city from having too many longer-term maturity instruments: no more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities greater than seven years, and no more than 12.5% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities more than 11 years.

During the scant deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for providing answers to her questions about the policy changes. She supported the policy changes because they would allow the city to be less reactive.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the investment policy.

Dexter Avenue Sidewalk Special Assessment

The council was asked to consider a special assessment on property owners along Dexter Avenue east of Maple Road for a total of $11,651, to pay for sidewalks. The one-time payments by the individual property owners are due June 1, 2012. Required payments range from $30.57 to more than $3,000. The project has a total cost of $92,955 – $74,364 of that amount will be paid with federal money. For the north side of Dexter Avenue, the project includes construction of a new sidewalk for a portion of the stretch, as well as a new curb and gutter for the street across from Veteran’s Memorial Park. For the south side of the street, the project includes a new curb along Veteran’s Memorial Park.

The council started the multi-step process for levying the special assessment at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

Because of the special assessments, the Dexter Avenue sidewalk improvements do not require a portion of the project budget to be allocated for public art. From the city’s public art ordinance: “A capital improvement project funded by special assessments or improvement charges is not subject to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.”

During the required public hearing, Thomas Partridge asked that the resolution be postponed so that it could be re-examined.

During the brief council deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that when special assessments are imposed, those whose property is subject to the assessment are typically resistant. [For example, for the special assessment that funded part of the non-motorized pathway along Washtenaw Avenue, which was held in September 2010, several property owners spoke at the public hearing, expressing their opposition.] He allowed that the relatively small amounts involved may have affected the lack of resistance. [Many property owners were assessed as little as $30.57.]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the special assessment.

Council Housekeeping

The council handled several housekeeping items, as it does every year shortly after the new edition of the city council is elected. That includes appointment of council subcommittee membership as well as council representatives to other organizations. It also includes the adoption of council rules.

Council Housekeeping: Committees

Some assignments are for subcommittees of the council, while others are for city council appointments to other public bodies.

Compared to last year, the most significant change to the council’s committee structure was the separation of the joint administration & labor committee into a council administration committee and a council labor committee. On the labor side, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was slotted in for Stephen Rapundalo, whom she defeated in the Nov. 8 election. Shuffling among other councilmembers, who all returned to this edition of the council, included the replacement of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) on the labor committee by Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

The council administration committee retains the same membership as the former administration and labor committee, except for Rapundalo, who was replaced by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor also took over Rapundalo’s council appointment to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board. [Google spreadsheet contrasting 2011 with 2012 city council appointments]

Changes to committee assignments were on the whole relatively minimal. That was due in part to the fact that Lumm was given four of Rapundalo’s previous committee appointments, including labor budget, liquor control, and the housing & human services advisory board. Lumm was also assigned to represent the city council on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) partnerships committee, relieving Margie Teall (Ward 4) of that duty.

Teall will also no longer represent the council on the Washtenaw Metro Alliance – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will pick up that responsibility. Of the veteran councilmembers, Teall’s committee assignments reduced the most, as she’ll also no longer serve on the city environmental commission – a spot also picked up by Briere. At the meeting, Teall indicated that she’d taken herself off the environmental commission, saying she would miss it, but would keep in touch. She said she was delighted that Briere would fill that spot. Teall expressed appreciation for everything that environmental coordinator Matt Naud and commissioners have done through the years. She said she felt that her departure would also open up the communication so more people know what’s going on.

Teall – along with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – will also no longer need to serve on the committee established by the council to negotiate a new contract with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. At the Dec. 5 meeting, the council formally dissolved the committee, the parking contract having been signed in May.

Council Housekeeping: Rules

Also before the council was the adoption of its rules, which included essentially one change. Included in council minutes currently are all emails received by councilmembers on their government accounts. The revision to the rules stipulates that only those emails related to the subject matter of the meeting will be included in the meeting minutes.

Council Housekeeping: LDFA

The council was asked to consider three appointments to the board of the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone local development finance authority (LDFA): former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, current councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Eric Jacobson.

Of the positions on the 9-member LDFA board, the city of Ann Arbor appoints six and the city of Ypsilanti appoints three. One of the six Ann Arbor spots is for a member of the Ann Arbor city council, which had been held by Rapundalo, until he was defeated in the Nov. 8 general election by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Taylor is thus replacing Rapundalo as the city council representative. Rapundalo’s appointment is to fill an existing additional vacancy on the board.

Jacobson was also appointed to the LDFA to fill a vacancy on the board.

The local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism for the same geographic district as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authorities. The LDFA currently receives no revenue from the Ypsilanti portion of its district. The taxes on which the increment is captured are local school taxes. The impact of the LDFA tax capture is spread across school districts statewide, due to the way that local school taxes are pooled by the state of Michigan and redistributed to local districts.

Based on data available through A2OpenBook, in fiscal year 2011, the LDFA generated $1.475 million in tax capture. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator.

Council Housekeeping: AATA Board

Also at the Dec. 5 meeting, the council handled an appointment unrelated in its timing to the new edition of the council. Mayor John Hieftje nominated the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. On confirmation by the city council, Cooper would fill the vacancy on the AATA board left by Sue McCormick.

McCormick is leaving her post at the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. McCormick’s last day on the job is Dec. 16. City administrator Steve Powers announced at the Dec. 5 meeting that the city’s head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, will fill in for McCormick on an interim basis. Powers reported that Hupy had no interest in the permanent position.

Cooper’s city position as transportation program manager falls under the city’s systems planning unit. The council previously appointed Cooper to serve on the AATA board on June 20, 2005. He served through June 2008, and was replaced on the board by current board chair Jesse Bernstein.

There is not a spot reserved for a city of Ann Arbor employee on the AATA board. When Cooper previously served on the AATA board, along with McCormick, their service prompted an op-ed in The Ann Arbor News criticizing the appointment of city employees to citizen boards. [.pdf of "Let's Stick With Autonomous Appointees for Citizen Boards"]

Outcome on all city council housekeeping items, including appointments: The council voted unanimously to approve its rules, calendar, and all committee appointments, many of which were made with separate resolutions.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Several people signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, to address the council on the topic of establishing a 24/7 warming center. People who sign up in advance for one of the reserved spots are given priority if they’re addressing an agenda item. Those who signed up to speak about the warming center cited the minutes of the Oct. 19 Ann Arbor housing commission meeting (attached to the agenda as a communication item from the city clerk) as the agenda item they wanted to speak about. The main business of that meeting was the hiring of the new executive director, but speakers did not address the subject matter of the housing commission meeting in any obvious way.

The tactic could be explained in part by the experience of University of Michigan student Orian Zakai at the previous council meeting, who had been unable to claim one of the 10 reserved public commentary slots, partly because several people who wanted to advocate for public art funding, which was an agenda item, had signed up for a reserved spot and had priority over her. Zakai had stayed until the end of that meeting, when unlimited unreserved public commentary is allowed, in order to deliver her remarks.

Again at the Dec. 5 meeting, Zakai addressed the council on the topic of establishing a warming center that would operate 24 hours a day. She ticked through the proposed policies of such a center and asked the council for assistance in finding a space to locate it.

Arthur Endsley introduced himself as a research scientist living and working in Ann Arbor. He told the council he’d toured the Delonis Center, as well as a homeless encampment, Camp Take Notice, and the breakfasts sponsored by St. Andrews.

It should be obvious, he said, that winter is upon us. He thanked the council for the $25,000 they’d appropriated to keep the warming center at the Delonis Center open this year. He wondered what will happen next year. He described those who needed a warming center here in Ann Arbor as global economic refugees living in our own community. He contended that the Delonis Center had a 80% recidivism rate. [According to Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which operates the Delonis Center, the 80% figure refers to the percentage of people who move from the Delonis Center to sustainable housing and who are still housed after one year.] Permanent solutions are needed, Endsley said. Responding to proposed cuts of the public art program, he said, some had contended that if we cut art, we are cutting down our own image. Endsley wondered what it says about our image if some of our residents are freezing to death in the streets.

Lily Au asked the council to support the effort to establish a warming center.

Alan Haber addressed the council in support of the warming center, in the guise of addressing the revision to the handbill and litter ordinance that was on the agenda. He had a leaflet, that supported establishing a warming center, among other things. He read it and asked the council if the leaflet was legal under the handbill ordinance. A leaflet like that, he said, should be able to go anywhere.

Three people also stayed until the end of the meeting, well past midnight, in order to address the council.

Judy Bonnell-Wenzel spoke in favor of support for a warming center.

David Coleman told the council he’d been living in the city about five months as a musician and artist. He told them he spoke from the standpoint of someone who is homeless, who has nowhere to go. The homeless are not all addicts or alcoholics, he said. He read aloud a hand-written statement.

From David Coleman's statement he read aloud to the council towards the conclusion of the Dec. 5 meeting. The warming center is intended to be "a place to go that's inviting, safe and warm, a place that rescues, rehabilitates, enlightens, edifies and empowers ..."

University of Michigan student Alexandra Hoffman addressed the perception that perhaps a 24/7 warming center did not need to be opened or that it was too large a project to accomplish. She encouraged the council to think positively. The group had thus far been frustrated with real estate issues – they haven’t found a location for the center. But as for staffing, volunteers are ready. She suggested the vacant Georgetown Mall and former Borders store on East Liberty as possible locations. She told the council she’s from Toronto, and their youth shelter is right on the main street of town – it’s something to be proud of, not something to be swept under the rug, she said.

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took up the suggestion of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, noting that it’s a publicly owned facility. He ventured that perhaps the council needed to direct the creative use of the property.

During her communications, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the city spends significantly more than 1% of its money on housing and human services. She also noted the emergency allocation the council had made to the Delonis Center to keep its warming center open. She rejected the idea that there’s a choice to be made between funding art and funding human services.

Responding to Kunselman’s call for the exploration of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, mayor John Hieftje made clear he didn’t think that was a realistic possibility. He reported that he, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had been working with the Arts Alliance and the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy to turn 415 W. Washington into a community art center and greenway park. The real problem they can’t get around is the condition of the building, he said. It’s filled with asbestos and jagged pieces of metal. It would take more than $1 million to make the building usable, he said. The Arts Alliance would likely withdraw from the project.

Comm/Comm: Deportation

Lourdes Salazar Bautista appeared before the council to appeal for their support in her fight to stay in the U.S. She faces deportation on Dec. 27. Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) also spoke in support of Bautista. Sanders noted that Bautista had been in the U.S. for 14 years, she works and pays taxes and has never committed a crime. Sanders attributed Bautista’s imminent deportation on Dec. 27 to Ann Arbor’s proximity to Canada, and the need for federal immigration official to meet deportation quotas. In the next few weeks, she said, the council would be asked to sign a letter of support.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary during his communications by saying that it’s not possible to do very much with local legislation. But he noted that the council could give its input. He said that by executive order, Bautista could avoid deportation.

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s local policy on federal immigration policy is expressed in a 2003 city council resolution, which among other things calls on the AAPD to “limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the Chief of Police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern.”

Comm/Comm: Budget Retreat

City administrator Steve Powers suggested that the council hold its budget retreat for 2014-15 in June 2012. Mayor John Hieftje said he did not think it’s necessary to have a retreat in December.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalks

Kathy Griswold told the council she had a masters degree in public policy and an MBA from the University of Michigan and had served 15 years on the transportation safety committee. Still, she said, she’s not qualified to make traffic laws – she’s not a professional engineer. She criticized the council’s revision to the crosswalk ordinance in 2010, which the council is now revising further, as giving pedestrians a false sense of security.

Griswold told the council that transportation engineering is not always intuitive. She described a pamphlet available in the city hall lobby as a creative marketing tool, but contended that in fact, “pedestrians don’t rule.” She’d spoken to a driver education instructor, who had told her the ordinance is a major problem. She pointed councilmembers to a 30-minute program she’d recorded for CTN as well as to the website she’d created: seekids.org.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called for expanded access to affordable housing, transportation and education and made complaints about illegal discrimination.

Comm/Comm: Sewage

Kermit Schlansker called for the use of sewage in the creation of energy.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The reduction would have applied for just the next three years, from fiscal 2012-2015. That three-year timeframe was a key part of a sunsetting amendment to the public art ordinance – but that sunsetting also did not survive final approval on Monday night. The sunsetting amendment would have required that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance must be encumbered within three years. Money that was unspent or unencumbered after three years would have been required to be returned to its fund of origin. The language of the amendment would have made  it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months. But the sunsetting amendment did not win approval.

The unsuccessful sunsetting clause had been proposed in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

The two amendments that did receive final approval by the council on Monday included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments also excluded the public art ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are rare. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) characterized the limited set of amendments, compared to the original proposal, as “watered down.”

As with all changes to city ordinances, a public hearing was held before the council took its second vote on the public art ordinance amendments. The majority of speakers spoke against the idea of reducing the 1% funding. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Administrative Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Role of AAPAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Coda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Votes: Kingsley Rain Garden, DIA

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

Project Votes: Kingsley Rain Garden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Votes: DIA Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

Project Updates

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

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

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

Project Updates: “Street Art Spots”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December Meeting: Working Session Follow-up

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

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

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims.

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

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

The reduction in the allocation would apply for the next three years, from 2012-2015. The three-year timeframe is also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to the public art ordinance, which was also given initial approval on Monday night. That amendment requires that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance must be allocated within three years. Money that is unspent or unallocated after three years must be returned to its fund of origin. However, an amendment offered from the floor and approved at Monday’s meeting makes it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

The sunsetting clause comes in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years, just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

In addition to the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5% and the sunsetting clause, the set of amendments approved by the council included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments also excluded the ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are rare.

As with all changes to city ordinances, the amendments to the public art ordinance will need a second approval from the council, following a public hearing.

A common approach for councilmembers to take to ordinance revisions is to approve them on first reading, reasoning that it’s important for the public hearing to take place before voting down a proposal. However, on Monday night, the measure was opposed by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and  Mike Anglin (Ward 5). [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

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]

The city of Ann Arbor’s current public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art. [.pdf of originally proposed ordinance amendment] [.pdf of possible revision to the ordinance amendment]

The revised amendment would not, as the original amendment does, exclude the street repair millage fund from use for public art. However, in the revised amendment, the definition of capital improvement project would still exclude sidewalk repair.

The original amendment was first considered at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting and postponed until Nov. 21. The city’s public art program was the subject of a Nov. 14 council working session. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Revenue to public art by fund, broken down by expended amounts and remaining balance. The black portion of the bars represents expenditures to date. The gray portion of the bar represents remaining balance. The overall height of the bar corresponds to total revenues to the public art fund from a particular origin fund. (Chart by the Chronicle. Image links to a higher resolution file.)

The proposed amendments to the public art ordinance were first considered by the council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, with action postponed until Nov. 21. Key features of the amendment include: (1) exclusion of projects funded by street repair millage funds from the ordinance requirements; (2) addition of requirements that would return public art money to its fund of origin, if not expended within a specific time frame; (3) explicit exclusion of general fund dollars from ordinance requirements.

At the Nov. 14 work session, Sue McCormick – the city’s public services area administrator – provided city staff recommendations to the council that implicitly responded to the main elements of the currently proposed ordinance amendments. While specific mechanisms and alternatives for implementing (2) and (3) were provided, a general recommendation was made against narrowing the base of funding streams for public art, as (1) would do.

Staff recommendations also included a suggestion to increase the value of the contract for the public art administrator (not currently a city employee) by up to $35,000 a year.

Any changes the council makes to the ordinance on Nov. 21 will receive only initial approval. It’s possible that on Nov. 21, the council could consider approaches to amending the public art ordinance that are different from those currently proposed. For example, in the past, the council has contemplated, but rejected, a simple reduction in the amount of funding – from 1% to 0.5%. 

Background: Past History of Attempted Revisions

By way of background, the public art ordinance has been somewhat controversial since its approval in 2007. [.pdf of ordinance text as approved on Nov. 5, 2007] As far back as Feb. 1, 2009 at a council Sunday caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) publicly expressed her concern about the large amount of money the program was generating.

Later that year, at a Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, the council gave initial approval to an ordinance revision that would have reduced the allotment from 1% to 0.5%. But at the council’s following meeting, on Dec. 21, 2009, the council voted down the ordinance revision, with councilmembers citing art as key to Ann Arbor’s identity.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Malverne Winborne waves to the council as members of the commission are introduced. Seated in front of Winborne is Margaret Parker. In the next row up (striped shirt) is Aaron Seagraves, the city's public art administrator.

The legality of the program has been questioned by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), because it taps funds that are restricted in their use – dedicated millage funds, and funds that receive revenue from fees. Kunselman has repeatedly asked that the city attorney make public an opinion that would provide a legal basis for the use of restricted funds for the public art program. Kunselman has cited a city charter requirement that such opinions be made public. To date, city attorney Stephen Postema has declined to provide a written opinion for public inspection.

Most recently, in connection with approval of the fiscal year 2012 budget in May 2011, Higgins brought forward a budget amendment that would have directed the city attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment to reduce the percentage in the public art ordinance from 1% to 0.5%. That attempted amendment failed on a 4-7 vote, with support only from Higgins, Kunselman, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

The outcome of the Ward 2 city council election two weeks ago, in which Stephen Rapundalo was defeated by Jane Lumm, could start to shift the balance in favor of some kind of ordinance revision. During the campaign, Lumm was critical of city expenditures made on public art during difficult economic times, and Rapundalo was adamant in his support of the program. Margaret Parker, a public art commissioner who was instrumental in starting the Percent for Art program, actively encouraged support of Rapundalo over Lumm.

Background: Context of Current Attempt at Revisions

The currently proposed amendment to the ordinance was first considered by the council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, but postponed at that meeting until the council’s second meeting in November – Nov. 21. The most recent round of city council debate on the public art ordinance actually got a quiet start earlier than Sept. 19 – at the council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting.

Before the Aug. 4 meeting, some councilmembers were prepared to debate the issue in the context of the street and sidewalk repair tax questions, which the council voted that night to place on the Nov. 8 ballot. [Both the renewal of the 2.0 mill street repair tax and the new 0.125 mill sidewalk repair tax were approved by voters.]

At the start of the Aug. 4 meeting, however, mayor John Hieftje  announced that he’d be nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) to serve on the public art commission as a replacement for recently resigned commissioner Jeff Meyers. Hieftje went on to say that in September he wanted to take a longer look at the city’s public art program. That announcement effectively headed off the possibility that the council would contemplate ballot language that would exclude those street/sidewalk repair tax revenues from the requirement of the public art ordinance.

Amendment: Street/Sidewalk Millage

Instead of handling the use of the street/sidewalk repair tax revenues in the ballot language that voters approved on the millage, the council is now contemplating a revision to the public art ordinance that would exclude those millage funds from the requirements of the public art ordinance.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects.

But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision is meant to spell that out explicitly [added language in italics]:

Capital improvement project means any construction or renovation of any public space or facility including buildings, parks, recreation areas, parking facilities, roads, highways, bridges, paths, sidewalks in locations where sidewalks do not already exist or as part of a larger capital improvement project, streetscape improvements and utilities. This definition includes only those projects designed to create a permanent improvement or betterment, and does not include projects that are primarily for the purpose of ordinary maintenance or repair. It does not include sidewalk crack repair, sidewalk cold-patching, sidewalk slab replacement, sidewalk leveling or sidewalk slab grinding. [.pdf of red-lined version of proposed ordinance revision]

An additional amendment to the ordinance would exclude the use of street repair millage funds (as well as general fund dollars) for public art projects under the ordinance [added language in italics]:

1:833. Art funding requirements for capital improvement projects.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, all capital improvement projects funded wholly or partly by the city shall include funds for public art equal to 1% of the construction costs identified in the initial project estimate, up to a maximum of $250,000.00 per project. …
… (4) The requirements of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a capital improvement project or to a portion of a capital improvement project funded with funds from the city’s general fund or with funds from the 2012 Street and Bridge Resurfacing and Reconstruction and Sidewalk Repair Millage.

Since 2008, the public art ordinance has required that a total of $538,596 be set aside from capital improvement projects using street repair millage funds. Of that amount, only $9,344 has been expended, $8,059 of it on administration of the public art commission.

Revenue by year to public art fund due to capital projects funded by the street repair millage. For the five years, the total is $538,596. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

During her successful election campaign, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pointed to the accumulation over the last five years of  $538,596 in public art funds from the street repair millage as roughly comparable to the $563,000 that the sidewalk repair millage is projected to generate, and she questioned the need to levy a sidewalk millage. She suggested that the city could take on the responsibility for sidewalk repair, which up to now has been the responsibility of adjacent property owners. In that context, it’s worth noting that the $538,596 for public art has accumulated over the course of five years, whereas the sidewalk repair millage is expected to generate $563,000 each year.

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, explained at the Nov. 14 work session that the staff recommended the city maintain a broad funding base for public art, which is an implicit recommendation against the ordinance revision excluding the street millage. In connection with that recommendation, McCormick pointed out that the use of the funds is already fairly restricted [from McCormick's PowerPoint slide]:

Maintain a broad base of source funds for public art:

• Public Art is restricted by the requirement to create a ‘permanent improvement’
• Public Art is restricted to be located in public spaces or facilities
• Public Art must be related to the purposes of the (originating) fund

McCormick explained at the work session that if the funding base were eventually narrowed to, say, just the water utilities fund, the city could find itself in a situation where the only public art projects that would be possible are those projects located at water facilities or that have water themes.

Amendment: Sunset Provision

It’s partly due to the fact that virtually no public art has yet been created out of funds accumulated from the street repair millage that has made the street repair millage a target for exclusion from the ordinance.

But at the Nov. 14 work session, Marsha Chamberlin – current chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission – described one way the street repair millage money might be spent on public art. She suggested the possibility of eventually using street millage funds set aside for public art by commissioning artists to create pavement marking for crosswalks and bike lanes, citing examples of this approach in Boston and Philadelphia. The PowerPoint presentation given at the council’s work session included an image of a crosswalk in Boston. [Examples of crosswalk art from: Boston, Washington D.C., Curitiba, Brazil, and in several other cities by the same artist, Roadsworth.]

Part of the proposed revision to the public art ordinance that the city council will take up on Nov. 21 addresses the issue of the accumulation from the street repair millage (with no investments yet in public art) without targeting that fund specifically. Instead, the amendment to the ordinance would require that the funds be spent on public art within three years, or else be returned to their fund of origin, whatever fund it is.

1:835. Disbursement of public art funds.
…
(4) Funds for public art in a pooled public art fund that have not been disbursed or encumbered for an art project for three (3) full fiscal years shall be returned to the fund of origination.

The staff recommendation presented at the Nov. 14 work session was essentially supportive of this part of the ordinance revision – if the provision were made that the city council could grant a two-year extension at the request of the public art commission. That kind of extension, said McCormick at the work session, would provide flexibility for unforeseen circumstances and project delays, and would be consistent with other parts of  the city code that allow for extensions to be made with authorization from the council.

Based on discussion at the Oct. 26, 2011 meeting of the public art commission, when commissioners prepped for the council work session, the three-year sunset was not agreeable to all commissioners, but the two-year extension option made them more favorably inclined towards it.

Amendment: General Fund Exclusion

Under the proposed revision to the ordinance to be considered by the council on Nov. 21, not only street millage funds but also money from the city’s general fund would be explicitly excluded from the public art ordinance requirements.

The general fund is what pays for basic city operations – everything from police and fire protection to parks to the city clerk’s office. The main source of revenue for the general fund is the city’s general operating millage, which is levied at a rate of just over 6 mills.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), mayor John Hieftje (standing) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) before the Nov. 14 work session. The session was Lumm's first occasion to participate in a gathering of the council as a newly elected councilmember, though she previously served on council in the 1990s. Taylor and Hieftje supported Stephen Rapundalo against Lumm in his re-election campaign.

From a practical point of view, it’s apparently a moot point. As McCormick pointed out at the council’s work session, the city’s general fund is not typically tapped for capital projects. To the extent that it would be, she said, it would be in the form of a one-time expenditure or a draw on the fund reserve balance and would thus not impact ongoing operations. To date, public services area records show only $13.50 has been spent on public art from the general fund. The general fund makes up around $80 million in a total city budget of over $300 million.

During the Ward 2 election campaign, the nearly zero amount of money drawn out of the general fund led Stephen Rapundalo to characterize the public art program as “budget neutral.”

But during the campaign, Lumm made the point that the fund for the municipal center construction project (aka the police/courts building) was established in part using general fund money, and the financing plan for the project’s bond payments uses money previously earmarked for the general fund. Fees from cell phone companies leasing spaces for antennas from the city came to $350,000-plus a year back in 2008. However, the financing plan for the municipal center called for using the antenna revenues for bond payments instead of depositing that money into the general fund.  [.pdf of Ann Arbor News article, March 11, 2008: "Bonds, Cash to Fund Most of $47 million Project"]

At the work session, McCormick suggested two ways the council could deal with the general fund issue through ordinance revision if it were so inclined – it could either prohibit use of general fund money for public art under the ordinance, or else provide a way to exclude general fund money subject to the council’s consideration on a case-by-case basis.

Recommendation: Increased Staff Support

At the Ann Arbor public art commission’s Oct. 26, 2011 meeting, commissioners identified a lack of city staff support as causing an unreasonable burden for them, which had consequences for the pace at which public art could be commissioned and created. At the Nov. 14 work session, McCormick also explained that providing project oversight was not a role consistent with that of other boards and commissions of the city. It essentially amounted to commissioners acting as their own staff.

McCormick conveyed to the city council a recommendation that would increase the value of the contract – by $35,000 – for the city’s public art administrator, who is not a city employee. Currently that contract is with Aaron Seagraves, who took the job in May 2011. Previously, the part-time position had been vacant for almost a year, after Katherine Talcott, who was hired in early 2009, took the job of art project manager for the city. Seagraves currently has a one-year contract for 20 hours per week. At the Nov. 14 work session, McCormick characterized the proposed $35,000 increase to the contract as bringing it to essentially a full-time position.

At the work session, McCormick alluded to an 8% limit on administrative costs – the costs associated with the functioning of the commission itself (for example, keeping meeting minutes, among other items). [The 8% limit is not a part of the public art ordinance. By way of comparison, the city's greenbelt program operates under the legal limit of a 6% cap on administrative costs, though it has expended considerably less than that.] The 8% limit would still be in effect for public art administrative costs, McCormick explained.

The additional $35,000 would go towards project management. Currently, she said, project management for larger projects is provided by contract or assignment and paid as part of a project. However, for smaller projects – like the mural program – the work of managing projects has fallen to commissioners. It’s the project management of smaller projects that the additional $35,000 would cover, McCormick said.

The city’s public services area records show revenues to the public art administrative account of $165,480 through the end of fiscal year 2011, against only $73,122 in expenditures, leaving a $92,357 balance. So far this year (FY 2012) the public art administrative account shows $42,443 in revenue against just $4,139 in expenditures for a balance of $38,303.

Possible Council Action: Analysis

One possibility that the council might pursue on Nov. 21 is to consider the entire set of revisions currently proposed  to the city’s public art ordinance and vote them up or down as a set. That’s unlikely, given the council’s past pattern and practice.

More likely is that councilmembers would select from the three key elements reflected in the revisions that they want to enact: (1) exclusion of projects funded by street repair millage funds from the ordinance requirements; (2) addition of requirements that would return public art money to its fund of origin, if not expended within a specific time frame; and (3) explicit exclusion of general fund dollars from ordinance requirements.

In the staff recommendations presented at the work session, there seemed to be little enthusiasm for singling out specific funds for exclusion from the program. If that sentiment is shared on the council, then it’s (2) – the sunsetting provision – that is most likely to survive and be advanced to a second reading before the council.

Another possibility that would be consistent with the staff recommendation not to shrink the breadth of funding support would be to reduce the percentage allocated to public art from 1% to 0.5% – an approach the council has considered but rejected in the past.

In any case, whatever the council might approve on Nov. 21 would need a second and final approval at a subsequent meeting, after a formal public hearing, during which an unlimited number of people are allowed to speak. The requirement of two readings and a public hearing applies to any ordinance revision.

The council has a historical practice of not allowing public commentary at its meetings that are designated as “working sessions.” However, at the Nov. 14 work session, the council departed from that practice by providing a slot on the working session agenda for it. Other than the listing on the agenda, it’s not clear that the provision of the unusual opportunity for public participation was publicized in advance. No one spoke during that opportunity.

Although a public hearing would eventually be required if the council gives the ordinance revision initial approval at the Nov. 21 meeting, the council is likely to hear from the public on the issue during the Nov. 21 meeting as well.

For every council meeting, 10 slots are available for public participation at the start of the meeting if reserved in advance by calling the city clerk (734.794.6140). Participation is also allowed, with no advance sign-up, near the conclusion of the meeting. Priority for reserved slots is given to people who would like to address an item on the council’s agenda.

In the past, several supporters of the Percent for Art ordinance have spoken during public commentary at council meetings when ordinance revisions have been considered. So it’s likely that a number of people will sign up for one of the 10 reserved slots at the start of the council meeting to address the issue of the public art ordinance revision.

Update: The proposed amendment was made the subject of a proposed revision on Friday, Nov. 18. Attached to the city’s online Legistar agenda is an alternative amendment that would reduce the amount of city funding from 1% to 0.5% – just for the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015. [.pdf of originally proposed ordinance amendment] [.pdf of possible revision to the ordinance amendment] The revised amendment would not, as the original amendment does, exclude the street repair millage fund from use for public art. However, in the revised amendment, the definition of capital improvement project would still exclude sidewalk repair.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of 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. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

A painting by Alvey Jones, the same artist who draws the Bezonki cartoon for The Chronicle.

I am not a lunatic.

There.

Mostly, when you begin by asserting a lack of mental illness, you’ve already lost the argument. No matter what the argument is. Yet I remain steadfast.

I am not a lunatic.

It’s a testament, I think, to the political skill of Ann Arbor’s elected officials and supporters of public art that I have to begin that way. The majority of these officials and members of the arts community have so far been resistant to calls for revision to the city’s public art ordinance. That ordinance allocates 1% of all city capital improvement projects to fund public works of art.

The current conversation about the city’s public art ordinance is one that makes critics of the ordinance into lunatics.

We are lunatics, because we just don’t understand the value of art to society in general. We are lunatics, because we just don’t understand the importance of art to Ann Arbor’s heart and soul in particular. We are lunatics, because we don’t understand how little money the ordinance generates for art. We are lunatics, because we don’t understand how long it takes to bring a large work of art to fruition. And so on.

Actually, I do understand all of that. And more.

But to convince you I’m not a lunatic, I’d like to begin by sharing a vignette from a significant academic paper on semantics, written by Angelika Kratzer back in 1989. (No, seriously, I’m not a lunatic.) I’m picking Kratzer’s “Investigation into the Lumps of Thought” because it features a dialogue with a genuine, bona fide, authentic lunatic.

That guy, now he’s a lunatic.

By the end of this column, I hope to have convinced you that I’m nothing like that guy.

Of the subfields in the academic discipline of linguistics, it’s semantics, the science of meaning, that is perhaps the murkiest. But occasionally, a semanticist will write something that is accessible even to someone like me and you. In Kratzer’s 1989 paper, she establishes the foundation of an event-based semantics.

And she does it by appealing to everyone’s basic intuition that allows people to distinguish between someone who’s being persnickety (the pedant) and someone who’s flat-out crazy (the lunatic). From Kratzer’s “Investigation into Lumps of Thought“:

Imagine the following situation: One evening in 1905, Paula painted a still life with apples and bananas. She spent most of the evening painting and left the easel only to make herself a cup of tea, eat a piece of bread, discard a banana or look for an apple displaying a particular shade of red. Against the background of this situation, consider the following two dialogues that might have taken place the following day:

Dialogue with a Pedant
Pedant: What did you do yesterday evening?
Paula: The only thing I did yesterday evening was paint this still life over there.
Pedant: This cannot be true. You must have done something else like eat, drink, look out of the window.
Paula: Yes, strictly speaking, I did other things besides paint this still life. I made myself a cup of tea, ate a piece of bread, discarded a banana, and went to the kitchen to look for an apple.

Dialogue with a Lunatic
Lunatic: What did you do yesterday evening?
Paula: The only thing I did yesterday evening was paint this still life over there.
Lunatic: This is not true. You also painted these apples and you also painted these bananas. Hence painting this still life was not the only thing you did yesterday evening.

Kratzer is appealing to a basic intuition: Some things that happen in the world get lumped together in people’s minds as part of the same event; but other things are intuitively understood as separate events. It’s easy to peg the pedant as just that – a jerk who in Kratzer’s phrase is “a captive of his unfortunate character.” The lunatic isn’t a jerk – he’s just crazy. The “event” of someone painting a still life with a banana and an apple, already includes painting the apple and the banana. So a person can’t rationally claim to have done three separate things – paint an apple, paint a banana, and paint a still life with an apple and a banana.

How are “events” relevant to the city of Ann Arbor’s public art program?

First, note that Ann Arbor’s public art ordinance does not require that 1% of revenues to particular funds be spent on public art. What the public art ordinance does require is that 1% of the budget for each capital improvement project be set aside for public art. There must be an “event” of some construction project to which the public art money is tied. So, what the ordinance does is establish legislatively a link between an actual construction project – for which the city has determined there is an independent need – and funding for public art.

The city of Ann Arbor would like, in some sense, to analyze the construction of a project, which it needed to build anyway, as part of the same “event” as the construction of a piece of public art, paid for out of that project’s budget. This was expressed by city councilmember Carsten Hohnke at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, when he suggested that the ordinance simply says something about the way that the city builds the things it chooses to build.

Why is it important for the city to lump the event of constructing a piece of art into the event of constructing, for example, a seat wall in a park? It’s related to the legality of using project budget funds for purposes other than those for which they are legally dedicated. For example, when Ann Arbor residents voted to approve a tax to pay for capital improvements in parks, they did not approve that tax money for any other purpose than capital improvements in parks. In the current local debate on public art, I don’t think there’s any dispute about the idea that money generated by the parks capital improvement tax can’t be used for anything other than capital improvements in parks.

One of two metal tree sculptures at West Park, bookending the top tier of new wall seats for the park's bandshell. The work is by artist Traven Pelletier. (File photo)

What’s disputed, I think, is whether pieces of art like Traven Pelletier’s metal tree sculptures in West Park are really part of the same “event” of the capital improvement project, out of which budget the art was funded. (Pelletier’s trees were planned and built in coordination with a seat wall construction project near the West Park bandshell, as part of a broader West Park renovation. The trees were the first pieces of art to be installed under the city’s Percent for Art program, which was created in 2007.)

At the Sept. 19 city council meeting, Hohnke ventured that the fountain designed by Herbert Dreiseitl, and paid for with public art funds, was characterized by the city’s decision to construct a building with a public plaza. And the way that public plaza was designed and built included a piece of public art. I don’t think that’s actually a legitimate way of describing the “way” the municipal center was designed and built. A legitimate way of describing it includes three events – design and construction of the building, the plaza, and the piece of art.

Similarly, I don’t think that Pelletier’s metal tree sculptures are part of the same “event” as the design and construction of the West Park seat walls. I’m just not buying the idea that it’s even possible to design and build seat walls – a capital improvement determined by the city to be needed – in a metal-tree-sculpture kind of way. But I’m willing to grant that you could build seat walls here, and then you could build metal trees right there – as two separate, distinct projects.

So modifying Kratzer’s dialogues with the pedant and the lunatic to adapt them to the West Park scenario would make for something like the following:

Dialogue with a Pedant
Pedant: What did you do last summer?
Paula: The only thing I did last summer was design and build these seat walls in West Park.
Pedant: This cannot be true. You must have done something else, like travel to the park, pet one of the dogs who run through the park, look up at the sky.
Paula: Yes, strictly speaking, I did other things besides build and design the seat walls in West Park. I played basketball at the court in West Park, watched the swirl concentrators get installed, and washed my clothes of all the construction dirt that accumulated in them.

Dialogue with Lunatic (A)
Lunatic: What did you do last summer?
Paula: The only thing I did last summer was design and build these seat walls in West Park.
Lunatic: This is not true. You also mortared those rocks together and you also leveled off the dirt behind the rocks you had set together. Hence designing and building these seat walls in West Park was not the only thing you did last summer.

Dialogue with a “Lunatic” (B)
Lunatic: What did you do last summer?
Paula: The only thing I did last summer was design and build these seat walls in West Park.
Lunatic: This is not true. You also designed and built a metal tree sculpture next to the seat walls. Hence, designing and building these seat walls in West Park was not the only thing you did last summer.

Lunatic (A) is a lunatic, in the same way that Kratzer’s lunatic is a lunatic. It’s my contention, however, that Lunatic (B) is not a lunatic at all, but rather just a guy who can see what anyone else can: Construction of the tree sculptures isn’t part of the same “event” as the seat wall construction. You can look at the sculpture and tell that; but the fact that the city had to hire an actual artist and create a request for proposals is also a tip-off to the fact that these are separate and distinct projects.

Attic access panel rendered as art by Alvey Jones.

You can imagine situations where the art is somehow more deeply integrated into a project. For example, that painting by Alvey Jones, included as the lead art at the top of this column, is not hanging on a wall. It’s actually the panel that covers the access to the attic of my house.

That was a private capital improvement project undertaken a couple of summers ago.

For that particular project, I can at least entertain the idea that the painting is actually part of the attic access replacement project. One way I can tell is this: If I remove Alvey’s painting, I no longer have the covering to the attic access. By way of contrast, if we were to remove the metal trees in West Park, we’d still have functional seat walls. And if we were to remove Dreiseitl’s fountain, we’d still have a functional public plaza.

If Ann Arbor’s public art projects were integrated in their respective capital improvement projects the same way that Alvey Jones’ painting is integrated into my attic access panel, I think that would go a long way towards a legal defense for the use of the funds. [Ann Arbor city attorney Stephen Postema has for a few years now declined to offer a written opinion for public perusal explaining his view of the legal foundation for the program, which at least on its face violates the prohibition against using dedicated funds for purposes other than which they are dedicated.]

But even then, you’d still have a situation where, by ordinance, the city would be required to make every capital improvement project 1% more expensive than it needs to be. I’m not sure that’s a great public policy position to take.

Something like 5% of The Chronicle’s freelance budget goes to compensate Alvey Jones for the monthly Bezonki cartoon. So I understand the significance and the importance of art both generally and specifically – to the point that I’m willing to reach into my own pocket to add art to The Chronicle, even though that falls outside the scope of our main mission of covering local government and civic affairs.

But I’d be a lunatic to allow my local government to reach into my pocket, even just that tiny little one-percent bit, to acquire pieces of art for us to own as a community, when we voters haven’t authorized the city to do that.

And I’m not a lunatic.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of 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. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detroit Institute of Arts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIA: Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rain Garden Art at Kingsley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Artist Selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Permanent vs. Temporary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Community Awareness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Next Steps

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

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

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

Absent: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Cathy Gendron.

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

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

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.