Left to right: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) are asking to be recognized to speak as Jane Lumm (Ward 2) gives her views on public art. (Photos by the writer.)

Public art was featured in two specific agenda items. One was a presentation of the annual public art plan given by Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the city’s public art commission. The council gave the presentation a basically positive reception.

But the second agenda item required a vote – on a $150,000 piece of art proposed by Ed Carpenter, to be hung in the lobby of the new Justice Center. The city’s public art commission had selected Carpenter from responses to a request for proposals. A vote on the artwork, a piece called “Radius,” had been postponed from the council’s April 2, 2012 meeting over concerns about public access to the Justice Center lobby, where the sculpture will be hung.

A nearly one-hour debate unfolded about the Carpenter piece, with the specific artwork serving as a kind of proxy for a rehash of previous council debates on the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The ordinance requires that all city capital improvement projects include 1% for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project. For capital projects that aren’t suitable to have public art incorporated into them, the 1% is “pooled” for use in some other public art – which must be related to the purpose of the funding source. For example, the fountain outside the new Justice Center, designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, is funded with money pooled from 1% of some sanitary sewer projects, drinking water projects, and stormwater management projects.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that would have canceled Carpenter’s project and appropriated the art project funds to invest instead in the city hall building. That amendment failed, but piqued mayor John Hieftje into announcing that he’d be sponsoring a future resolution to take $50,000 from public art funds, and deposit that amount into the general fund. That move is susceptible to the same critique made by several councilmembers as well as the assistant city attorney against Lumm’s amendment: The public art ordinance prohibits transfer from public art funds to other funds. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he would be content for the council simply to violate that ordinance. Carpenter’s sculpture eventually was approved over the dissent of Kunselman and Lumm.

Besides public art, the council approved the city’s portion of the State/Ellsworth traffic roundabout project, which includes an improvement for a water main connection – to pipe water from a well on the property of Ann Arbor’s municipal airport to the city’s water treatment plant. The airport also made it onto the agenda in the form of a resolution that settled outstanding legal issues surrounding the construction of hangars on the property.

Prompting extended discussion by the council was a resolution that invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits for vendors in a specific area around Main Street between Huron and William, whenever Main Street is closed down for special events.

The council delayed action on a tax abatement for the battery technology company Sakti3, pending review by the city council’s budget committee. And the council authorized another five-year extension of its contract with Waste Management to haul the city’s trash to a landfill.

The council also heard its usual range of public commentary. The public hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget enjoyed light participation. The council will vote on that budget, and any amendments, at its May 21 meeting.

Public Art

The council had two public art-related items on its agenda: a presentation of the art commission’s annual plan, and the approval of a $150,000 sculpture for the new Justice Center. Submission by the public art commission of an annual plan to the city council is a requirement of the city’s public art ordinance.

From the ordinance:

The oversight body shall … by April 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year; …

Public Art: Annual Plan

The council received a presentation on the public art commission’s annual plan from Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the commission.

The city’s public art commission had discussed the public art plan for FY 2013 at its March 28, 2012 meeting. The plan describes projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan].

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The first objective – developing a master plan – included details on its purpose. The intent of the master plan is to: (1) guide AAPAC’s efforts to include public art throughout the city, involve community groups and create substantial visibility for public art as an integral part of community life and a city asset; (2) train commissioners and task force members with the goal of increased community knowledge, engagement and advocacy for public art; and (3) better integrate the public art administrator with every city department with the goal of increasing public art in the city.

Simbuerger concluded her presentation by thanking Aaron Seagraves, who provides staff support to the city’s public art commission as the city’s public art administrator.

Public Art: Annual Plan – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about the public art budget and request for proposals that’s connected to the East Stadium bridges project – $400,000. Simbuerger clarified that the 2014 date in the annual plan was not the date that the RFP would be issued, but rather the date of anticipated completion for the public art associated with the bridge project. The RFP is currently under review by the city attorney’s office, Simbuerger explained.

Lumm said the reason she was asking about it is that a lot of people see architecture as art. The Broadway bridges are like that, she ventured. She said she’d been told that the East Stadium bridges can’t be that nice, because there’s not enough money. She wondered if art could be incorporated into the bridge design.

Simbuerger indicated that the bridge design is done, so there’s some room for flexibility on only a few things, like railings or sidewalks. The art commission can’t influence the basic design of the bridge anymore, she said. Art could be added to the bridge, she said, and there’s also a park next to the bridge as well as a fence that leads up to the bridge along Stadium Boulevard – which could potentially serve as locations for public art.

Lumm concluded her remarks by commending the planned mural project at Allmendinger Park, for involving the community. The project, by local artist Mary Thiefels, will incorporate found objects into a mosaic on the pillars of the park’s bathroom building.

Later in the meeting, Lumm cited those earlier remarks she’d made – to argue against mayor John Hieftje’s contention that she was attacking public art. That discussion centered around the second public art-related agenda item – approval of a $150,000 piece of art for the lobby of the new Justice Center. The Justice Center is also known as the police-courts building. The overall construction project for the new building, which connected city hall with the new Justice Center, is also known as the municipal center building project.

Justice Center Art: Background – Building

The proposed public art project would be located in the lobby of the new municipal building called the Justice Center – on the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The sculpture is called “Radius” by Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon. Previously council had postponed approval of public art funds for Carpenter’s project at its April 2, 2012 meeting.

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

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations that led to the postponement on April 2.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion at the April 2 as well as at the May 7 meeting.

At the May 7 meeting, before the council began its deliberations on the Justice Center lobby art, city administrator Steve Powers indicated to the council that the question of public access to the lobby and art had been reviewed by city staff. He suggested that he was prepared to go into detail on that issue, or that the information could be reviewed by the city council’s building committee. He noted there are some details on use of the building by the police department that have an impact on its 24/7 accessibility. Powers also said that staff had some answers about the visibility of the art itself from the exterior of the building. The visibility of the art and the accessibility to the building, he said, are two separate issues. He noted that moving the security checkpoint would have a budgetary impact.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Carpenter for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists.

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

Ann Arbor’s public art funds come from the application of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, which requires that 1% of all capital projects (up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project) be set aside for public art.

Justice Center Art: Background – Ordinance

There was confusion on the part of councilmembers about how the public art ordinance actually works and where the money for Carpenter’s sculpture had originated. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was convinced that the source of funds for the Dreiseitl fountain – located outside, on the side of the building facing Huron – was the same as the source of funds for the interior piece. Kunselman pointed to the metaphor of the “rippling” effect that Carpenter’s sculpture was supposed to mirror, which was similar to the “water theme” that is supposed to justify the expenditure of sewer, stormwater and drinking water funds on the project. He also pointed to the original interior art pieces commissioned from Dreiseitl, which were planned to tie thematically to the fountain with lit blue spheres. [Those pieces were proposed but not authorized to be created, because of budgetary concerns.]

By way of background, the ordinance describes two ways that pieces of public art can be funded. They can be funded as pieces of art that are integrated into or stand on the site of some capital improvement project. The budget of all such projects must include 1% for public art.

But not every capital improvement project lends itself easily to the integration of public art or even a piece of art that can stand on the site of the capital improvement project. It’s also possible that the size of a capital improvement project would not generate adequate funds to contemplate funding a piece of art. In those cases, the 1% of the project’s budget is “pooled” together, and can be spent on a piece of art that is “related to the purposes of that fund [which paid for the capital improvement project].”

From the ordinance:

1:834. Inclusion of public art as part of a capital improvement project …
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund shall be accounted for within that fund and may be used as part of that capital improvement project for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art incorporated as a part of the capital improvement project, including art located on the site where the project is located.

(4) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund may instead be pooled in a separate public art fund within that fund. Public art funds that are held within a city fund other than the general fund shall be expended only on projects that are related to the purposes of that fund.

(5) Funds in pooled public art funds may be used for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art for display in public spaces or facilities; for extraordinary maintenance, repair or refurbishment, including structural reconstruction, and for relocation, alteration and removal of public art.

The funding strategy for the Carpenter sculpture contrasts with that of the Dreiseitl fountain, which used “pooled” funds. The fountain had an initial budget created from pooled funds from other capital improvement projects – projects that were paid for out of drinking water ($210,000), sanitary sewer ($510,000) and stormwater ($30,000) funds.

In contrast, the Carpenter sculpture is funded from the Justice Center (aka police-courts or municipal center) building fund. The amount initially available for public art from that project was $250,000. One percent of the project budget would have been more than $250,000, but the ordinance caps the total public art allocation from any project at $250,000.

That building fund stemmed from various sources. At the council’s Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, then-public services area administrator Sue McCormick said that ordinarily, city staff would not go back and trace how much of that $250,000 could be attributed to various sources. However, because they’d been asked to do that by councilmembers, McCormick said that of the $250,000, around $50,000 could be “associated” with the general fund.

That $50,000 was a number batted back and forth by councilmembers at their May 7 meeting – it’s the amount that mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting that he wants to take out of public art and put back into the general fund. He said he wanted to settle that issue once and for all.

Hieftje’s proposal came in response to a gambit by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the resolution on the Carpenter sculpture – to cancel the project and to put the public art money into city hall building renovations. Either proposal would founder on the language of the public art ordinance, a portion of which assistant city attorney Mary Fales wound up reading aloud, in an apparent attempt to ground the council’s discussion in the options that are legally available. From the section that Fales read aloud:

1:835. Disbursement of public art funds.
…
(3)Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project or that are part of a pooled public art fund may be not be transferred to any other fund, encumbered or utilized for any purpose except the purposes specifically set forth in this chapter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he did not believe it is necessary for the council to follow its own ordinances. Ordinances are there for the staff to follow, he suggested, not for the council.

Justice Center Art: Initial Council Deliberations

Major John Hieftje opened the council deliberations by saying he’d be happy to vote for approval of the piece of art that evening, leaving the issue of access to the lobby for future resolution.

City administrator Steve Powers. Behind him is a poster for getDowntown's Commuter Challenge, which runs through the month of May.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that her concern, dating back to a few weeks ago, was not about the art, but rather the use of the lobby space in the Justice Center. She’d talked with city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. She said she was not opposed to voting for the artwork; however, she was concerned about the possibility that the council’s building committee came back with a recommendation to change significantly the use of the lobby space. Will that piece of art still be the right piece of art for that location? She said she had every intention of asking that a council building committee be re-appointed.

Higgins asked interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy about possible changes to the use of the lobby space – to use more of the floor area in a utilitarian way. Hupy indicated that the piece of art is suspended from the ceiling, so it’s well above the floor space. His concern would be with the lighting of the piece. Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves explained that there’s internal lighting as a part of the artwork itself.

Higgins asked if the building committee determines that the proposed location in the lobby would not be the best place for the sculpture, is there another spot in the building where it could be installed? Seagraves indicated that for a suspended piece, that corner of the lobby is the best, or the only location, because there’s a drywall recess there – the rest is a plaster ceiling. It’s also the most visible corner, he said. He suggested it would be an option for the public art commission to fund an additional piece of art for the Justice Center.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the piece of art has been designed to be viewed from outside the building. She noted that the location of the art is dependent on its size, so she asked if there’s a basic diameter for the sculpture. From the center to its farthest point, Seagraves said, the piece is 37 feet. Briere followed up by asking if the piece is “circular.” Yes, said Seagraves. Based on some ensuing confusion, it was clear that Briere intended the question to include the symmetric properties of “circular,” not just the rounded qualities.

Briere ventured that the piece was 74 feet across – no, said Seagraves, more like around 50 feet, because it’s not symmetric. [It's not clear if the participants in the exchange appreciated the irony of the name of the piece – "Radius."] Briere wanted to know if it would fit into the city hall building [which is adjacent to the Justice Center.] Hupy indicated that it wouldn’t be a matter of just moving the artwork over to another building – the suspension points would need to be adapted. Briere ventured that the piece of art had been designed specifically for the proposed location, a sentiment with which Hupy agreed.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said her initial concern had not been about the piece of art itself or where it is located. Rather, her concern was about the intended use of the Justice Center lobby and the ability of the public to see the art from inside the building. That had been the reason she’d asked for the postponement of the issue, she noted. Smith wondered if reappointment of the building committee would be needed or if city staff would be prepared to answer those questions about use and access.

Powers noted that there is currently 24/7 access to the Justice Center lobby. After hours, people can be buzzed in by the police department. Staff has looked at options of downsizing the footprint of the security checkpoint and relocating it. However, there are budgetary and space challenges, he said. There are four or five different options than can be provided to the city council or to a building committee of the council, Powers said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves on the public art commission, indicated that the piece of art that’s been chosen, the work by Carpenter, is intended to hang in that specific spot. He felt it’s a beautiful use of the building.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she couldn’t imagine people needing to be buzzed in to see the art. She said she wanted to see renderings of the sculpture as viewed from outside the building. Based on what other councilmembers had said, she thought it didn’t sound like the council was heading toward postponing again. She said she’d be fine with appointing a building committee.

Lumm then introduced an amendment to the resolution by saying, “We’ll get this out of the way, I’m sure, but I’d like to make an option here for council to consider.”

Justice Center Art: Lumm’s Amendment

Lumm gave as background to her amendment her understanding of the city hall (Larcom building) renovation project. The bathrooms in the basement and the first floor had been upgraded as part of the municipal center project, she said. But there was no money in the building fund budget for bathroom renovations on other floors. So those renovations would be funded out of general fund money over two years, through the facilities budget in the public services unit.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reacts with body language to the proposal by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to cancel the $150,000 Justice Center lobby art project.

Lumm noted that the council had approved the first phase of the upgrade to bathrooms on other floors at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting – at a cost of $93,438. Another $165,000 is needed for that project in 2013, she said. The community has been told that no general fund dollars were used on the municipal center, Lumm contended, so she proposed that the public art project be canceled. The $150,000 budget for that public art would, according to her amendment, go back into the municipal center building fund. The bathroom would then be funded out of the building fund.

Higgins said she did not consider those upgrades to be a continuation of the municipal center building project. The bathrooms that were renovated in conjunction with the municipal center renovation were done because of the installation of the new elevator, she said. The renovations now being done in addition are standard upgrades, she said, like those that would be done in any other facility. She appreciated the idea of canceling the art project, but would not support the amendment.

Briere asked under what circumstances the council can cancel a project and reallocate the dollars. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales clarified the funds from a canceled art project have to be reallocated to another art project.

Kunselman, Briere, Hupy and Lumm then engaged in a conversation about the original source of funds for the artwork. Seagraves told them that the Justice Center lobby sculpture by Ed Carpenter didn’t come from pooled funds, but rather from the municipal center building fund.

Hieftje stated that not all the funds generated for public art from the municipal center building fund [a total of $250,000] are general fund monies. He allowed that hypothetically, $50,000 of that $250,000 may have originated as general fund money. Hupy noted that the funds for the Justice Center came from a multitude of funding sources beyond just the general fund – that would have to be analyzed to identify the specific contributions.

The city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, essentially agreed with Higgins’ earlier description of the bathroom renovations as not part of the scope of the municipal center building project. There’s been a lot of deferred maintenance on the building, he said. One of the expectations is that there’d be a higher level of regular maintenance needed.

Kunselman wanted to revisit the issue of the theme of Carpenter’s sculpture – to which fund’s purpose was the art’s theme related? Seagraves reiterated that it wasn’t funded with “pooled funds,” so there’s no requirement that it be related in theme to some specific fund’s purpose. It was funded out of public art money generated by the center’s building fund.

Based on some remarks by Crawford, Hieftje said he’d be interested in a resolution to take $50,000 and put it into the general fund – to resolve the question of whether general fund money was used for public art.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to achieve some clarity on the question of what the legal, possible uses of the sculpture’s budget would be if the project were canceled. He ventured that even if the sculpture were voted down, the money would be required to be spent on public art. So he concluded that the whole notion of monies going back and being applied for a different purpose would be tantamount to overturning the Percent for Art ordinance.

Given that the money could not be spent on something other than art, Hohnke asked Lumm what the point would be of canceling the sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. Lumm indicated that the point was so that the money would not need to be spent on a piece of art. Hohnke responded by saying that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance is on the books, what Lumm is saying simply isn’t true.

Crawford confirmed that once money goes into a specific fund, it’s not just a normal budget action – once the money gets into that fund, it has to be used for that purpose.

Derezinski equated the conversation around the table to a debate on the approval of the allocation of funds under the Percent for Art ordinance. The council had already had this debate, he said, and the people who were opposed to cutting funds for the program lost. He characterized what was going on at the table that night as an attempt slowly to kill off the Percent for Art program. [The council last debated revisions to the public art ordinance at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, which resulted in some revisions, but not a reduction of the specific percentage from 1% to 0.5%.]

Briere responded to Lumm’s amendment by saying that it could be reduced to three questions: (1) Should the sculpture be canceled? (2) Can money allocated to the public art program be allocated to a different capital improvement project? (3) Does either of those reflect support for public art? With respect to the first question, Briere said that if the council voted the project down, that would cancel it. With respect to the second question, she felt that it wasn’t legal to reallocate the public art money in the way Lumm wanted to.

Smith added a fourth issue, which was an attempt to revisit the decision to build the Justice Center: “I gotta say, it’s there and it’s operating!” Reflecting on the Larcom building’s age, and the need to renovate bathrooms, she ventured that at 49 years of age things start to break that need to be fixed.

Higgins noted that the money that’s been budgeted has to be used on public art, even if the project is canceled. She thought the city has spent enough money on art at the Justice Center location – given the Dreiseitl sculpture. She suggested some other location in the city could be found.

Kunselman agreed that too much money had been spent on art at the Justice Center and repeated his belief that the Justice Center lobby sculpture budget had drawn on water funds, given the allusion to the “rippling effect” the sculpture was supposed to have. He observed that bathrooms also have a theme of water.

Kunselman then stated that although the public art ordinance is an ordinance, the council did not need to follow its own ordinance.

Hieftje picked up on Derezinski’s earlier point, by stating that it would be a more honest approach to attack public art directly instead of the way that Lumm was proceeding. The council had twice before had that direct debate, he said.

Hohnke added that if the council wanted to cancel the project, as Lumm’s amendment stated, then the council could just vote the project down.

Outcome on the amendment: Lumm’s amendment canceling the project and reallocating the money to renovate bathrooms failed, with support only from Lumm and Kunselman.

Justice Center Art: More Deliberations

Lumm responded to Hieftje’s characterization of her lack of support for the specific project as an attack on the public art program. She felt that was “an outlandish claim.” She pointed out that earlier in the meeting, she’d asked questions regarding the East Stadium bridges project about incorporating art into that project and had praised the Allmendinger mural project. She allowed that she’d voted in the past to reduce the percentage allocation in the public art ordinance. But her opposition to the project was not based on opposition to the public art program, she said, but rather based on how much the city is spending on the Justice Center building. She expressed her disappointment that the artist who was selected was from out-of-state.

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying it wasn’t a vote against the project that he was calling an attack on the public art program, but rather Lumm’s attempt to reallocate the public art money to a different purpose.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had opposed the construction of the Justice Center. But he noted that the proposed piece of art was different from the history of that building. He stated that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance exists, councilmembers should support public art. He described how someone could get access to the lobby after hours by getting buzzed in by police. He said the issue of better access could be pursued in the future and it’s important to do that. Given the amount of money that had been spent on art on the site, it’s important to figure out a way to draw the public in to view the art, he said.

Kunselman was not inclined to accept the idea that because the council had previously discussed the issue of the public art ordinance, the council could not or should not continue to discuss it. “We’re always going to be talking about this.” People could say it’s been discussed and voted on and that the majority rules and that councilmembers need to move on – but he cautioned against that. “Every council is different and there will be new councilmembers and this discussion will carry on for years until a methodology of funding public art is done that can be universally embraced.” He mentioned the possibility of a millage just for public art, or the removal of restricted funds from the public art program.

Kunselman indicated he would not support the project. Among the reasons he gave were horizontal bands of etched glass on the windows that won’t allow people to see it from outside, he contended.

Smith said she’d support the art project, but wanted to see the issue of the security checkpoint addressed as well.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) rearranges a chair before the May 7 meeting started.

Briere said that for her, the issue is whether the lobby can be casually available for a group of visitors who don’t want to go through the security checkpoint, emptying their pockets and taking off their shoes. Part of the reason that’s unclear is that there’s a cost factor involved, she said. She feared that the council would approve the art project, only to discover that the council is not also willing to fund the cost of making the art accessible.

Briere was not willing to let go of the concept that the lobby to the Justice Center should be available to the public. For that reason, she hoped to have the cost information available before the council votes on the fiscal year 2013 budget – a vote that will be taken on May 21. She said she is not against this piece of art, and she believes it can only be observed well from inside the building.

Hieftje indicated he’d support the piece of art, but also said work needed to be done on opening up the lobby of the Justice Center to make it more accessible. He mentioned three different receptions that have been held in the lobby without the security checkpoints.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the artwork. But he wanted to address the issue of the “ownership” of the building. He said it’s been suggested that it’s only a limited few who benefit from the building – that it’s city workers and councilmembers around the table who benefit from changes to city hall. He disputed that wholeheartedly. He said it’s obviously core public space that is important to the city – of government, courts and police. It’s also the place people come to do a wide variety of business for various purposes, he said.

Outcome: The sculpture “Radius” by Ed Carpenter was approved by the council over dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout

The council considered an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County road commission for a $2.52 million roundabout project at State and Ellsworth.

Roundabout design for State and Ellsworth. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf)

The current design calls for a roundabout that is 150 feet in diameter. All four approaches to the roundabout have two lanes entering and two lanes exiting, except for the northern approach from South State, which will include a third lane. The planned design features include non-motorized paths that connect with the existing sidewalk system and new on-road bike lanes. Underground electrical conduit will be installed for the possible future addition of advanced pedestrian-activated crossing signals (HAWK) or rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB). [.pdf of State/Ellsworth roundabout layout]

Of the total $2.52 million project cost, $2.17 million is for the intersection improvements per se, and the remaining $350,000 is for a city water main improvement. That will replace a 20-inch water main, which serves to pipe untreated water from the Steere Farms wells on the Ann Arbor municipal airport property to the city’s water treatment plant.

The city of Ann Arbor is paying for the water main portion of the project as well as contributing $135,000 to the intersection improvement. The remaining cost is paid by the road commission ($135,000), Costco ($500,000) and a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant ($1.4 million). Costco is building a store near the intersection that’s expected to open this summer.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked that the item be pulled out of the council’s consent agenda, saying it’s a big deal and a big change. [Consent agenda items are voted together all in one go. The consent agenda includes those items considered to be routine, with contracts under $100,000. It's not clear how the roundabout qualified for inclusion under the consent agenda. In any case, an item must be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration if any councilmember requests it.]

Lumm asked Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management at the city, to review the background, which he did. He noted that State and Ellsworth is a very busy intersection.

By way of background, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) website provides a database of traffic counts for various intersections. For example, data available from that database shows that the northern leg of the intersection of State and Ellsworth was studied in November 2009 and showed a total two-way, 24-hour count of 26,733 on the north segment of State out of the intersection. That compared with a two-way count of 17,566 on the south segment of State, measured about seven months later. To get an idea of whether those counts are a lot or a little, here’s how that stacks up with counts from another intersection that many drivers would likely consider “busy” – Main and Stadium. The most recent counts available from WATS date from over a decade ago, in 1999 – 23,957 for two-way traffic on the north segment of Stadium out of that intersection.

Pirooz described the Washtenaw County road commission as having taken the lead on the project. He highlighted the jurisdictional issue – the fact that two legs of the intersection are locate in the city and two of them in Pittsfield Township. The two legs in the city are the State Street section north from the intersection and the Ellsworth section east of the intersection.

The city’s share of the intersection work, Pirooz said, is estimated to be $135,000. The plans are completed, he said, and a public meeting was held a few months ago. As usual, Pirooz said, some forum attendees were excited and others had reservations. [For Chronicle coverage of that public forum, see the March 6, 2012 planning commission meeting report.]

Lumm ventured that the forum was well-attended. She wondered about the inclusion of provisions for non-motorized infrastructure, wiring for pedestrian activated crossing beacons. She allowed that Pirooz is the expert, but she had difficulty understanding how it’d be safer for pedestrians and drivers. The idea of a roundabout is that traffic is expected to flow continuously – but motorists might be expected to stop for pedestrians. She asked for an explanation if that’s typical.

Pirooz explained that the roundabout is designed so there’s adequate distance between cars. He said that statistics of roundabouts show an improvement, measured by accident rates. He cited the new roundabout at Nixon and Huron Parkway as an example, noting there’d been concerns similar to Lumm’s that had been discussed before that roundabout was constructed. Pirooz explained that vehicles entering a roundabout are simply forced to slow down – you can’t go through a roundabout at 45 mph. He concluded that roundabouts are safer than standard signalized intersections.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added his personal observations, saying that he’d worked with Pirooz when some roundabouts in Ward 2 were first proposed – Nixon and Huron Parkway, and Geddes and Earhart. Derezinski said a lot of people who opposed the roundabouts came to believe in them. The traffic through Geddes and Earhart now flows through beautifully, he said. It really is “a win,” he said, and there’d been a couple of requests for more roundabouts.

Pirooz commented that one of the new roundabouts is right at the entrance to Concordia University, and the school was concerned before construction about pedestrians on campus crossing the street to get to an athletic field. But the university is very happy with the roundabout, Pirooz reported, and feels that pedestrians are now safer.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated the use of roundabouts and noted that everyone had likely driven through them. But the Ward 2 roundabouts have a different environment than the State and Ellsworth location, she contended. There’s a lot of truck traffic that goes through the State and Ellsworth intersection, she said. The proposed roundabout design is 150 feet in diameter. She wanted to know if that design took into account the size of the trucks that go through the intersection, noting there are many major corporations located south of Ellsworth on State.

Pirooz responded to Higgins by starting to describe the alternative to a roundabout, which would be to add more lanes. Higgins interrupted Pirooz, telling him she was not asking for more lanes, but rather was just making sure that the entrances to the roundabout can accommodate trucks. Trucks add another dimension to the traffic challenge, she said, and there’s a tremendous amount of truck traffic that goes through the intersection. Higgins told Pirooz she just wanted him to tell her he’d look at that issue. Pirooz replied, “We have and we will,” and Higgins indicated that was all she needed.

Pirooz indicated that he would expect trucks to be in the right lane as they navigated the roundabout. The roundabout is designed with the understanding there’s a large amount of truck traffic on the roads, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution on the State and Ellsworth roundabout.

Ann Arbor Airport Hanger Project

The council considered two change orders totaling $46,238 to resolve all remaining issues related to a lawsuit that CMA Design/Build Inc. had filed against the city in connection with the construction of hangars at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The original contract was approved by the city council on May 5, 2008 for $2.39 million, of which $1.101 million was for the local share. Because CMA failed to complete the project, Ann Arbor terminated the contract and CMA’s bonding company, North American Specialty Insurance Co., finished up the work. CMA filed suit against the city; and one of CMA’s subcontractors filed suit against CMA. Claims by CMA involved costs it incurred due to stop work orders issued by Pittsfield Township (where the airport is located) over jurisdictional questions between the city and the township.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the airport hangar change orders.

Landfill Contract

The council considered approval of the third five-year agreement since 2002 with Waste Management of Michigan – to dispose of the city’s trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill in Wayne, Michigan. For years 11 through 15 of the contract (2013 through 2017) the rates are as follows: $12.99/ton; $13.28/ton; $13.57/ton; $13.87/ton; and $14.18/ton. The increases reflect a 2.3% escalator. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that those rates don’t include the additional transfer charge of $12.12 a ton, paid to ReCommunity, which operates the city’s materials recover facility (MRF) and transfer station.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city disposes of 62,000 tons of trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill per year. The city’s street sweepings and seasonal wastewater treatment sludge are also disposed there.

In 2002, the city council first approved the five-year contract, and then approved a five-year extension in 2007.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Waste Management.

Sidewalk Permits

The council considered a resolution that, beginning June 1, 2012, invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits and solicitor/licenses for a specific area of the downtown on occasions when Main Street is closed for special events between William and Huron streets. The special events include, but aren’t limited to, the Taste of Ann Arbor, Rolling Sculpture Car Show, the Children’s Holiday Parade, Green Fair, and FestiFools.

The area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated is the interior of the rectangle defined by Huron Street on the north, Fourth Street on the east, William Street on the south, and Ashley Street on the west. [.pdf of the area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated]

The resolution doesn’t apply to businesses that have been issued permits for permanent locations.

Council deliberations were driven by a request from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to amend the resolution. She did not want to allow the resolution to prevent the city from granting permits for use of the Palio parking lot at Main and William or the parking structure at Fourth and William. In the context of the Connecting William Street planning project, being managed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Smith did not want to tie the city’s hands on uses for the two lots.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered what kind of uses Smith had in mind. [Both Hieftje and Smith also serve on the DDA board.] Both areas Smith had identified are within the geographic scope of the Connecting William Street project. People had talked about ways to use the Palio lot as open space. Non-parking activity on the lots might “leak out” into the sidewalk, she said. She just wanted to leave options open for the city.

From left: Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, talks with councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, was asked to the podium to clarify. She described such a resolution as being on a “wish list” for the MSAA for a long time. She stressed that it would invalidate sidewalk permits only when the streets are closed – for specific events. Further, she said, it applies to sidewalk and peddler permits. For activity on the Palio lot or in the Fourth and William parking structure, she ventured that approval could be obtained from the DDA, but there’d be no sidewalk permit or peddler permit involved.

Asked by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) if Smith’s amendment impeded her, Thompson indicated she was mostly confused by it. When 7,000 people visit Main Street for Taste of Ann Arbor, she said, the more control over management she has in that area, the safer it is. The resolution is looking out for businesses that are open 365 days a year. She described how undesirable it would be for the owner of a bookstore, which contributes dues to the MSAA to help put on a special event, to have to watch a sidewalk peddler selling books in front of their bookstore.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if the DDA proposed some non-parking use of a public parking lot, whether the city council would have something to say about that. He was not sure that the DDA’s contract with the city, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, allows for that.

Smith indicated that she wasn’t at all opposed to the resolution. She was just trying to protect the city’s right to do something that it hasn’t thought about yet. She ventured that the DDA has no evil plans to take over the downtown for special events.

Derezinski suggested that the DDA and MSAA get along pretty well and the two organizations could work out things informally if they needed to.

Outcome on amendment: Smith’s amendment got support only from Smith.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the concept behind the resolution is to encourage people to frequent the businesses that are there year round, not just for an event. So she said she supported the resolution – because it might make a difference in how people spend their time and money when they go downtown for an event.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution invalidating sidewalk permits when Main Street is closed.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

After a public hearing held at the May 7 meeting, the city council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

A conversation during a May 7 council meeting recess, from left to right: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), city administrator Steve Powers, Ann Marie Sastry of Sakti3, and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000. The council had voted to set the public hearing on the tax abatement at its previous meeting, on April 16, 2012.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge asked that mayor John Hieftje ensure that there’s an introduction to every public hearing by having a councilmember or the city administrator explain the substance of the resolution, before asking people to come forward to speak about it. Partridge asked Hieftje if he would do that with the Sakti3 resolution. When Hieftje did not respond, Partridge told him that Hieftje’s silence spoke for itself. Hieftje then told Partridge that the city attorney had informed Hieftje that Partridge needed to stay on the topic of the public hearing. At that Partridge said he was then ready to speak specifically to the requested tax abatement. Partridge said that Sakti3 and other companies need to justify their request, and he opposed the resolution – unless the company agrees to terminate the exemption when it can find finances on its own. He also warned that we should be cautious about battery manufacturing, due to the toxic chemicals that are used.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the council’s budget committee, asked that the tax abatement request be postponed, until it could be reviewed by the budget committee.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stressed that there would be an expedited meeting of the council’s budget committee [on Wednesday, May 16 at 5:30 p.m.]. Sakti3 had developed a whole new technology, he said, and was quite worthy as a candidate for a tax abatement. He noted that representatives of the company had been present earlier in the meeting. He said he’d like to show Sakti3 the council’s ability to act quickly.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ request to postpone. Lumm said an analysis had been provided to her on the impact of the abatement, and the city of Ann Arbor actually does very little of this. She felt postponing was fine.

Outcome: The council postponed the tax abatement for Sakti3 until its May 21 meeting.

Street Closing: Monroe

There were several separate resolutions to approve street closings for special events. Mayor John Hieftje said he would lump them all together for one vote, unless someone objected. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted separate consideration of a request from the University of Michigan law school to close Monroe Street for its dedication weekend, Sept. 7-8, 2012.

Smith indicated that she did not have an objection to the Monroe Street closing – that was not the reason she was requesting separate consideration. She wanted to highlight the fact that UM would like it closed on a permanent basis. Instead of a permanent closing, she said, she’d prefer to see requests for closing come before the council for specific occasions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – who’s a UM law school alum and has served as an adjunct professor at the school – responded to Smith by saying he loved part of her sentiment. [Derezinski has worked out of public view to facilitate a permanent granting of the public right-of-way on Monroe Street to the University of Michigan. See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine"] He highlighted the fact that the dedication would be attended by Elena Kagan, justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the meeting, Thomas Partridge suggested that when Kagan comes to Ann Arbor for the dedication ceremony, she should take cognizance of the willful disregard for justice here locally, and the total disregard – during an historic recession – of the needs for the most vulnerable, and for working residents who actually keep Ann Arbor operating on a day-to-day basis.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Monroe Street closing, along with all the other street closings on the agenda.

Street Repair: Willard, et al

The council had on its agenda an item to approve a $206,900 contract with the E.T. MacKenzie Company for a project to reconstruct Willard Street, using permeable pavement. It’s a 21-foot wide, 700-foot long street that runs between East University Avenue and South Forest Avenue. The project covers replacement of curb and gutter, sidewalk ramps and installation of a permeable asphalt pavement.

The general topic of street repair was discussed by the council early in the meeting, during communications time.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered about Madison Street from Seventh to South Main – when would it be resurfaced? He felt that there could be more deterioration on streets where public buses travel due to vehicle weight. He felt that the buses are an important service, but could also be an annoyance, because of the impact they have on roads.

Back and forth between mayor John Hieftje and Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management, indicated Madison is in very poor condition, so it needs to be rebuilt from scratch – which would take a whole summer. The city is also resurfacing Seventh Street, and Madison is serving as a detour, so it’s a coordination problem, Pirooz said. But Madison is definitely on the list for 2013, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he thought that Madison had been done within the last 10-15 years – why is the city doing it again? Pirooz was not sure when the last time Madison had been reconstructed. He told Kunselman it’s possible it was just resurfaced, not rebuilt. Kunselman wanted the documentation on that. He picked up on Anglin’s comment about buses, by saying it’s also the bigger city trucks that are causing more rapid deterioration. The road along Madison is sloughing downhill, he said. Pirooz pointed out that resurfacing alone doesn’t help the road base.

When the council came to the Willard Street reconstruction, Kunselman questioned city engineer Nick Hutchinson about the cost of permeable pavement compared to regular pavement. Hutchinson indicated that the cost of the asphalt itself is about 1.5 times regular pavement; however, given the complete reconstruction required, the cost of the permeable asphalt as a component made the project more expensive – but not 1.5 times as expensive.

Hutchinson reviewed the number of permeable pavement installations in the city: (1) Easy Street, which has permeable pavers lining the sides; (2) Sylvan Street; (3) an alley in Burns Park; and (4) Willard Street. Kunselman noted that University of Michigan buses run for one block on Willard – how does permeable pavement hold up under heavy weight? Hutchinson said he believes the pavement will hold up very well – it’s designed in a heavy duty way. Kunselman wondered if permeable pavement might last even longer than traditional pavement, because there’s less freeze-thaw. Water drains through the courser material instead of being trapped inside it.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Willard Street permeable pavement project.

FY 2013 Budget Hearing

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the hearing on the city of Ann Arbor’s FY 2013 budget by noting it will be on the council’s agenda at its next meeting, on May 21. According to the city charter, he observed, the budget needs to be approved by the city council by the end of its second meeting of May. [Last year, the second meeting in May was conducted in multiple sessions, stretching until the end of the month.]

Thomas Partridge said that despite Hieftje’s pronouncement that the budget is available on the Internet, he did not see a rush of residents to speak at the public hearing. He called for the budget resolution to be reviewed again by the individual city departments, before it’s put forward for passage at the council’s next meeting. Partridge stated that he is convinced the budget is based on the undemocratic principle of one tax rate for all, that it victimizes senior citizens and lower-income people, and people who need vital public services, which will not be provided by this budget. He called the proposed millage rates “conservative right-wing millage rates.”

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident. He thanked the council for placing all the documents online.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor, who wanted to address the declining quality of fire safety in Ann Arbor in the context of the budget. He began by telling the council a story about his nine-month-old daughter, who was baptized on Sunday, April 29 at St. Mary’s downtown. During the baptism, across the street in a residential high-rise building, there was a fire in the upper story of the building, he said. [According to an AnnArbor.com news report, a publication for which Ranzini writes op-ed pieces, an April 29 fire in the Maynard House – located at 400 Maynard St. – originated in a garbage chute located in the basement. It spread up to the first and second floor sections of the chute, according to the AnnArbor.com report, where firefighters were able to contain the fire. According to the report, firefighters also discovered a small fire on the 11th story, that had resulted from a resident leaving the stove on after hearing the building's fire alarm and evacuating the building.]

Ranzini said that while the firefighters responded in a timely way, they were not able to bring the tower truck or ladder truck to reach upper stories, because the trucks are currently out of repair. As a result, he contended, firefighters and residents were placed in harm’s way.

Ranzini called for the budgeting and hiring of 88 firefighters, not just the 82 in the currently proposed budget – of which only 76 positions are now actually staffed. Commenting on a proposed new station model for the department [which would use three stations instead of the current five], Ranzini cited a poll by AnnArbor.com that indicated overwhelming opposition to the three-station model. Rather than continuing to study that station model, he called on the city council to hire the full complement of firefighters who are budgeted, add six additional firefighters to this year’s budget, and replace or repair the tower truck and the ladder truck.

He described the current staffing levels as an “experiment with public safety” by the mayor.

Ranzini said he knew about the fire on April 29, not because of the fact that he was nearby, but rather because he’d received an anonymous communication from a firefighter. That communication was anonymous, he contended, because the fire chief has ordered firefighters not to talk to the press. Ranzini indicated that the executive director of the ACLU of Michigan has told him that if the city administrator does not correct that situation, a lawsuit might ensue.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler and Darren Schmidt had also addressed councilmembers on the topic of “smart meters” at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting.

Gerler told the council that five other communities in Michigan have passed resolutions and bans on smart meters and she called on the Ann Arbor city council to do the same. The current installation by DTE Energy is going rapidly, she said, with 30 trucks working six days a week. She contended that DTE is not maintaining a list of opt-out requests. She went on to describe that many residents haven’t received notification or a knock on the door to alert them of the installation of the meters. Installation has occurred over people’s protests, she said. The utility company has accepted no responsibility for people’s health, she said.

Schmidt said he supports a halt to installation of smart meters. He described several patients with a history of symptoms that are hard to get rid of. After stumbling around looking for solutions, he said they found that many of their symptoms could be attributed to electromagnetic fields. While it’s possible get rid of other consumer wireless devices, people can’t get rid of smart meters, he said.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

David Foster told the council he lives in the Lansdowne neighborhood a few houses down from the Fisher family, who’d addressed councilmembers at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting. He described how his own house had received severe water damage during the March 15 storm. He described how there’d been a “river effect” on the streets, rendering them impassable. On the west side of his house, he reported, the water had flowed up over some block and into the basement egress window – a window that is required by the city. His basement had water seven feet deep, he reported. He noted that he’s 5-10 and his son is 4-2 – so the water would have been well over their heads, if they’d been home at the time. And they would have been in the basement, he said, because they’d have been seeking shelter from the tornado. He asked that the council acknowledge that a problem exists. It’s not a question of whether similar events will occur in the future – it’s a question of when, he concluded.

Responding to Foster’s comments, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know if there could be an update on the meetings that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated had taken place between residents and city staff. Higgins, who represents the ward where this localized flooding is located, told Lumm that staff are still analyzing the situation and that there’s nothing ready to report yet.

Comm/Comm: Advocacy for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat and grandfather and a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County – an advocate for those who can’t attend the meeting, the vulnerable people who are disconnected from the multimillion-dollar projects on the agenda. He called on the council to advance human rights, and public transportation, to give priority to the need to end homelessness and poverty and to provide access to expanded shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing. That should take precedence over talk about art commission projects, he said, which are unnecessary to the cause of human rights.

Comm/Comm: Energy Production

Kermit Schlansker opened by telling the council that every furnace now being sold is obsolete. He observed that heat is a byproduct of making energy, so furnaces could manufacture energy while generating heat. He described the process of “co-manufacturing” heat and energy.

Comm/Comm: Warpehoski’s Ward 5 Candidacy

Henry Herskovitz said that the report that the director of the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice had entered the race for the Ward 5 seat on city council had come as a shock to members of the former ICPJ Middle East task force. [Herskovitz didn't name the director, but he was referring to Chuck Warpehoski.] Under the leadership of Warpehoski, Herskovitz said, the task force was summarily disbanded by the ICPJ’s board of directors. The task force had voted unanimously in 2006 to support the Palestinian call for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel. Herskovitz attributed the disbanding of the task force to a few powerful supporters of Israel on the ICPJ board of directors. The task force, Herskovitz continued, had sought to resolve the dispute with outside professional mediation. Herskovitz characterized the board’s action, supported by Warpehoski, as overrunning democratic procedures. Voters in Ward 5 deserve representation by someone who embraces democratic ideals, Herskovitz concluded.

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

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Monday, May 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers 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 Justice Center, a new building next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. Previously council had postponed the approval of public art funds at its April 2, 2012 meeting.

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations that led to the postponement on April 2.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion at the April 2 as well as at the May 7 meeting.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Carpenter for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists.

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

Ann Arbor’s public art funds come from the application of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, which requires that 1% of all capital projects (up to a limit of $250,000) be set aside for public art.

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]

From left: Dave Konkle and Tim Jones spoke to the Ann Arbor public art commission about their Whirlydoodle project. Jones invented the device, which is on the table between them and is designed to highlight wind energy. Many others are already installed on light poles and elsewhere throughout downtown Ann Arbor. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners approved a $150,000 budget for artwork at the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery – called Argo Cascades. A task force recommended that the artwork have a “water” theme, and use the bulk of $155,561 that has accumulated from the city’s Percent for Art funds from water-related capital projects. The city will issue a request for artists to submit a statement of qualification (SOQ), and from those submittals a smaller number of artists will be paid $1,000 each to submit formal proposals.

In a separate vote, commissioners approved issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for artwork at the East Stadium bridges. They had previously set a budget of $400,000 for that project, which potentially will incorporate multiple locations on and near the reconstructed bridges.

Several other projects were discussed at the April 25 meeting, but no formal action was taken. During public commentary, commissioners heard from Dave Konkle and Tim Jones regarding a large Whirlydoodle installation they hope to build. The devices were invented by Jones as miniature wind generators, with LED lights that vary in color depending on wind speed – about two dozen are currently placed around the downtown area. A large-scale installation would help people to visualize wind currents and prompt a discussion about alternative energy, he said.

Konkle is the city’s former energy coordinator who now does consulting work for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as energy programs director. He told commissioners that a display of 1,000 Whirlydoodles – possible at the former landfill at Platt and Carpenter – would result in Ann Arbor having more wind generators than any other city in the world, and would bring the city national attention. The two men asked AAPAC to endorse the proposal, but commissioners did not act on it or discuss it in depth at the meeting.

They did discuss the status of a glass sculpture that AAPAC recommended for the lobby of the Justice Center, which awaits city council approval. At their April 2, 2012 meeting, councilmembers postponed a vote on the $150,000 project until their May 7 meeting, hoping to address concerns about access to the lobby. Visitors must pass through a security checkpoint to enter, and some councilmembers hope that the checkpoint can be relocated. AAPAC commissioners talked about the need to decouple the artwork approval from the broader concerns about access to the lobby, so that the art project can move forward.

During the meeting, two other potential projects were introduced: (1) an art loan program, to select work from individual artists or galleries that would be installed on city-owned property for a temporary period; and (2) a proposal to fund poles in the downtown area that would be used to hang banners over the street. Tony Derezinski, an AAPAC member who also serves on the city council, brought forward the idea for banner poles, to provide an alternative to the current anchors that are affixed to building facades. He described the poles as easels for the banners, which he characterized as artwork. The banners typically are purchased by organizations to promote upcoming events.

Commissioners also received updates on several ongoing projects at their April meeting: (1) the Golden Paintbrush awards, which will be presented in June; (2) a mural at Allmendinger Park; (3) artwork in the proposed city rain garden at Kingsley and First; and (4) signs for the city hall plaza and Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture.

Commissioners also reached a consensus to hold another retreat in May, following up on a four-hour retreat on Feb. 26, 2012, to address the creation of a master plan for public art, among other issues.

Public Art at Argo Cascades

Commissioners were asked to approve a $150,000 budget for artwork at Argo Cascades. The budget includes an artist contract of up to $115,000, as well as $35,000 to cover the following: (1) a 10% contingency; (2) 10% for administration; and (3) honorariums for up to five artists at $1,000 each, to cover the cost of submitting proposals.

Argo Cascades is the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery. A task force for the project recommended first issuing a statement of qualifications (SOQ), then narrowing down the candidates to a maximum of five artists who would submit more formal proposals. The task force identified four potential locations for art, including the bridges on either end of the Cascades. The artist who’s eventually selected would have discretion to choose one or more of the locations for the project.

Malverne Winborne, AAPAC member who's on a task force for public art at Argo Cascades.

The task force also recommended that the artwork have a “water” theme, and use the bulk of $155,561 that has accumulated from the city’s Percent for Art funds from water-related capital projects. The city’s 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.

Artwork funded through the Percent for Art program is supposed to serve the purpose of the fund providing the source of money. The two options for this project had been Percent for Art funds from water-related or parks-related capital projects. The available funds from the parks Percent for Art fund is significantly smaller – only $5,655.

A mission statement developed by the project’s task force states: ”The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the natural river at this location. The public art here will be a marker of the community’s interest in ‘facing the river,’ as it celebrates the river’s water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses.”

Task force members are as follows: AAPAC commissioners John Kotarski and Malverne Winborne; Cheryl Saam, the city’s recreation facilities supervisor for the Argo and Gallup liveries; artist and former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker; Cathy Fleisher, a local resident; Bonnie Greenspoon of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

The project had been on the agenda for the March 2012 AAPAC meeting, but was tabled because neither of the two commissioners who are on the project’s task force – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended that meeting. Other commissioners felt they needed more information before voting on a budget.

At the April 25 meeting, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin said the next steps would include Seagraves working with the task force and the city attorney’s staff to develop the SOQ. When Theresa Reid asked whether the SOQ would be ready for review at AAPAC’s next meeting in late May, Chamberlin said that would be very optimistic, given the length of time it typically takes for legal staff to respond.

Outcome: The $150,000 budget for artwork at Argo Cascades was unanimously approved.

RFP for East Stadium Bridges Art

On the agenda was an item to approve issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for artwork at the East Stadium bridges. [.pdf of draft East Stadium bridges artwork RFP] AAPAC had set a $400,000 budget for the project at its March 2012 meeting.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the RFP was still being reviewed by the city attorney’s office, but that it wasn’t expected to change significantly. Bob Miller, one of the newer AAPAC members who also serves on the East Stadium bridges public art task force, asked how long the attorney’s office had been reviewing the document. Since February, Seagraves said. Miller asked that Seagraves try to firm up a date by which the legal staff would be finished.

Of the project’s $400,000 budget, a maximum of $360,000 will be available for the artist. The remainder is set aside for contingency costs, honorariums for finalists, and administrative expenses.

Bob Miller, an AAPAC member who serves on the task force for public art at the East Stadium bridges.

Goals for the artwork include: (1) unifying an area that has highly diverse uses, including single-family homes, apartment buildings, student housing, retail, and university sports facilities (such as Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center); (2) creating awareness for art with multiple audiences – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, residents, out-of-town-visitors; and (3) creating multiple pieces that are tied together by a unifying theme.

Possible locations for the artwork include the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium; the end of White Street, which intersects with East Stadium; the north side of East Stadium Boulevard; the underpass and staircases at South State Street; and the East Stadium bridge abutments, sidewalk and railings.

Two AAPAC commissioners – Wiltrud Simbuerger  and Bob Miller – serve on a task force for the project. Other task force members are Nancy Leff of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association; Jim Kosteva, University of Michigan director of community relations; David Huntoon, a principle of Intalytics; and Joss Kiely, a UM graduate student and community member.

The tentative timeline for the project includes a June deadline for responses to the RFP, with up to five finalists selected. Those finalists will be given $2,000 honorariums for a full proposal. A full proposal deadline is set for September, followed by a recommendation from AAPAC and a vote by the city council in November. The project would be implemented in 2013.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the request for proposals (RFP) for the East Stadium bridges artwork.

Whirlydoodle Project

During time set aside for public commentary, Dave Konkle and Tim Jones spoke to commissioners about their Whirlydoodle project. Konkle, the city’s former energy coordinator who now works for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as energy programs director, began by noting that perhaps commissioners had seen the “strange things that have been showing up around town.”

Two Whirlydoodles mounted on a pole in a surface parking lot near the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

Jones described the Whirlydoodles as miniature wind generators, with LED lights that vary in color depending on wind speed. The project has a lot of scientific value not just for kids, but also for adults, he said. A large-scale installation would be a spectacular way to visualize wind currents and prompt a discussion about alternative energy.

Konkle said when Jones brought the project to him, he thought it was cool. They decided it would be fun if the Whirlydoodles just started to appear around town, he said. When they approached Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, she was enthusiastic about putting them up in the DDA district, Konkle reported.

Now, they’d like to do a large-scale installation of 1,000 or more Whirlydoodles on a hillside, Konkle said, where you could literally see the wind currents as they activate the devices. He noted that they had submitted an application to AAPAC for a project on the city’s closed landfill at Platt and Carpenter roads, on the south side of Ann Arbor facing the Swift Run dog park. [.pdf of Whirlydoodle project application]

They estimate the project will cost about $100,000. Konkle said that Big George’s, a local appliance store, has committed to contributing $10,000 and now they’re looking for additional funding. He said he realized there were obstacles. They’ve tried to understand the city’s Percent for Art funding rules, he said, and it’s hard to see how the project would be eligible, given the constraints on the types of projects that can be funded.

So instead of funding, Konkle said it would make their job easier if AAPAC would endorse the project, even without funding. That endorsement would help them raise money from other sources. He concluded by saying that the project would result in Ann Arbor having more wind generators than any other city in the world, and it would bring the city national attention. It’s “whimsical, serious and fun,” he said.

Whirlydoodle Project: Commission Discussion

There was no action taken regarding the request, and minimal discussion among commissioners. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin observed that the commission had never been asked to endorse a project in this way.

Justice Center Artwork

Commissioners discussed recent city council action on a recommended art installation at the city’s new Justice Center. At their April 2, 2011 meeting, councilmembers postponed a vote on the use of $150,000 for a public art project in the lobby of the new building at the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center, next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. The postponement was for one month, until the council’s May 7 meeting.

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

Because it houses the district court, the Justice Center features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Councilmembers cited concerns about accessibility by the public to the artwork, and some expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the building’s lobby. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion among councilmembers.

AAPAC, at its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, had unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal – a sculpture called “Radius” – from three finalists.

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

At AAPAC’s April 25 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin said she’s talked with several people and her understanding is that the security checkpoint is the main concern – councilmembers still support the art installation, she said. Tony Derezinski, a Ward 2 city councilmember who also serves on AAPAC, reported that almost everyone on council said they weren’t against the project, but wanted the area to be more accessible to the public. He noted that he has an artificial hip, and it’s not wonderful going through security.

Derezinski also observed that the council is deliberating on the fiscal year 2013 budget now. “That’s always a tender time, when the city is making decisions,” he said.

Connie Brown expressed concern that the rug is being pulled out from under the project for a reason that wasn’t previously voiced by councilmembers. She said she’d like to figure out a way for those kinds of issues to be raised earlier in the process, so that the project isn’t delayed at this point.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin.

Derezinski replied that there should be some deference shown to the judgments of “sub-entities” to the council, including AAPAC. But it takes a while to build confidence that things are working well, he noted, and for a long time the criteria for art selection wasn’t known or understood well by the council. He also said that for artwork, there would likely always be some second-guessing of decisions.

There was some uncertainty among commissioners about how much information council had received prior to April 2 about the Carpenter piece or the selection process. Theresa Reid observed that there needs to be a specific process that each project follows, and documentation for when the steps – such as informing city council – have been completed.

Cathy Gendron said her understanding is that the council is reconsidering the artwork, not just postponing it because of the security issue. She wondered if there was a way that AAPAC could ensure that the selection moved forward. Derezinski offered to talk with mayor John Hieftje. He said there’s no doubt that councilmembers like the project.

Chamberlin felt like there were two separate issues: (1) the selection of the artwork itself, and (2) access and security in the Justice Center lobby. The second issue is not one that AAPAC can influence, she said, adding that the lobby isn’t the most hospitable environment.

Reid advocated to decouple those two issues, and wondered whether commissioners should contact councilmembers directly to express that view. Derezinski suggested that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, raise that point through staff channels, but he also indicated that t it might be good for commissioners to speak during public commentary at the May 7 meeting. He said his main concern is the timeline for the contract with the artist.

Bob Miller expressed similar concerns, and asked Seagraves whether there are any financial obligations with the artist at this point. Seagraves replied that there’s not yet a contract with the artist, because the council hasn’t approved the project. The original plan was for the work to be installed in December of 2012.

Chamberlin asked Seagraves to update her on his discussions with city staff. She said that if the item is on the May 7 council agenda, it’s important for AAPAC to have a written statement prepared in support of it.

Art Loan Program

As an item of new business, AAPAC commissioner Bob Miller proposed starting an art loan program, selecting work from individual artists or galleries to be installed on city-owned property for a period of 2-5 years. He suggested that the artists or galleries would pay for installation, insurance, maintenance and other costs, while the city would provide the location and possibly build a base for sculptures, for example. [.pdf of art loan proposal]

Miller said he modeled his proposal on a similar program that’s been successful in Sante Fe, New Mexico. It would be a great opportunity to bring more art to the public at little or no cost to the city, he said, adding that he didn’t see a downside but welcomed feedback.

Theresa Reid expressed support for the concept, and suggested forming a task force to develop a full proposal. Marsha Chamberlin agreed that a task force could address issues related to such a program. For example, the city has in the past been reluctant to accept donated art because of liability concerns, she said. Chamberlin noted that both Canton and Brighton run art loan programs.

Cathy Gendron also supported the idea, but observed that it appeared to conflict with a different program the commission has previously discussed – buying art outright, directly from artists or galleries. But perhaps a loan program is a better alternative to the city buying art, she said.

Miller didn’t think the two approaches were conflicting. Artwork that the city borrowed would likely be from artists who aren’t at the same level as artists that the city would buy from, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to form a task force, chaired by Bob Miller, to develop a more detailed proposal for an art loan program.

Tony Derezinski, an Ann Arbor city councilmember who also serves on the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Poles for Street Banners

Tony Derezinski, an AAPAC member who also serves on city council, brought forward a proposal to fund poles in the downtown area that would be used to hang banners over the street. He introduced the item by noting that banners hang across downtown streets about 40 weeks out of the year, primarily on Main Street, East Liberty and South University. The banners have been hung on anchors affixed to buildings, but with strong winds, those anchors are pulled and can damage the building’s facade.

Groups like the Main Street Area Association and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are working on this issue, he said. One idea is for the Percent for Art program to fund poles from which banners can be hung. The poles could be considered as permanent easels for the banners, which he characterized as art.

The proposal submitted by Derezinski states that the city estimates a cost of $12,000 per pole. [.pdf of pole proposal]

Connie Brown pointed out that most banners promote upcoming events. Derezinski again stated that the banners are artwork.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin suggested that they table the discussion until a more specific proposal is presented.

Communications

Several opportunities arose during the meeting for commissioners and the public art administrator to give updates and raise topics for discussion. There was also opportunity for public commentary. The only public commentary at the April 25 meeting regarded the Whirlydoodle project, reported above.

Communications: Golden Paintbrush Awards

During his administrator’s report, Aaron Seagraves told commissioners that five nominations had been received for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, which recognize local contributions to public art. He said he would set up an online poll for commissioners to vote, with the awards to be presented at a June meeting of the Ann Arbor city council.

Later in the meeting, Cathy Gendron of the commission’s PR committee reported that the committee is going to rethink the awards in terms of staging them in a different way to better highlight the artists.

Communications: Kingsley Rain Garden

A task force has been formed for public art in a proposed rain garden at the corner of Kingsley and First. Members include: AAPAC commissioner Connie Rizzolo-Brown; Claudette Stern and John Walters of METAL, a design and fabrication studio on Felch Street; Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum, which is under contract with the city to build the rain garden; Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator; and David Murabito of Beal Properties, also located on Felch.

During his administrator’s report, Aaron Seagraves noted that the group has met once and brainstormed about project criteria. They plan to meet again in the first half of May.

By way of background, the city recently bought 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, in part by building a rain garden there.

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] AAPAC approved the art portion of the project at its November 2011 meeting.

Communications: Dreiseitl Signs

At their March 28, 2012 meeting, commissioners had discussed the need for descriptive signs for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall. On April 25, Aaron Seagraves reported that Quinn Evans Architects – the Ann Arbor firm that designed the new municipal center, which includes a renovated city hall, the adjacent new Justice Center building, and the front plaza area – is being asked by the city to design a railing for the north side of the pedestrian bridge over the rain garden in front of city hall. Quinn Evans has offered to include a sign platform as well, and to design the signs, he said.

Commissioners had several questions about the effort, including whether the Percent for Art program would be covering the cost of the signs. Several commissioners stressed the need to coordinate the information on the signs for the Dreiseitl sculpture with the signs for the overall project, which would include information about the stormwater management aspects of the building and rain garden.

When Seagraves reported that a sign committee exists, consisting of city staff members, commissioners proposed that Cathy Gendron attend those meetings as a representative of AAPAC. An update will be included as an agenda item on AAPAC’s May 23 meeting.

Communications: Allmendinger Park Mural

Aaron Seagraves, during his administrator’s report, told commissioners that the Ann Arbor city council hasn’t yet formally accepted a $7,000 contribution from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation to help pay for a mural at Allmendinger Park. That will likely be an agenda item for the council at one of its May meetings, he said. After the contribution is accepted, the city can move ahead on a contract with the artist who’s been selected for the project – Mary Thiefels of Treetown Murals.

The total budget for the project is $12,000, with $5,000 coming from the Percent for Art program. AAPAC had approved the selection of Thiefels for this project at their January 2012 meeting. It will be the first mural in a program that’s intended to eventually add multiple murals throughout the city each year.

Communications: Master Plan, Retreat

At several points throughout the April 25 meeting, commissioners raised issues that they felt needed further discussion – including work to develop a master plan for public art, adjustments to the way that minutes are kept, how projects are developed and tracked, and what items to include in monthly meeting agendas.

They reached a consensus to hold another retreat in May, with a date to be determined. They most recently held a four-hour retreat on Feb. 26, 2012. In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Aaron Seagraves reported that a tentative date for the retreat is Saturday, May 19.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: John Kotarski, Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Regular voluntary subscriptions support a percentage of The Chronicle’s artful 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.

Argo Cascades is the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery. A task force for the project recommended first issuing a statement of qualifications (SOQ), then narrowing down the candidates to a maximum of five artists who would submit more formal proposals. The task force identified four potential locations for art, including the bridges on either end of the Cascades. The artist who’s eventually selected would have discretion to choose one or more of the locations for the project.

The task force also recommended that the artwork have a “water” theme, and use the bulk of $155,561 that has accumulated from the city’s Percent for Art funds from water-related capital projects. The city’s 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.

A mission statement developed by the project’s task force states: ”The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the natural river at this location. The public art here will be a marker of the community’s interest in ‘facing the river,’ as it celebrates the river’s water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses.”

Task force members are: AAPAC commissioners John Kotarski and Malverne Winborne; Cheryl Saam, the city’s recreation facilities supervisor for the Argo and Gallup liveries; artist and former AAPAC chair  Margaret Parker; Cathy Fleisher, a local resident; Bonnie Greenspoon of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

The project had been on the agenda for the March 2012 AAPAC meeting, but was tabled because neither of the two commissioners who are on the project’s task force – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended that meeting. Other commissioners felt they needed more information before voting on a budget.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Of that $400,000, a maximum of $360,000 will be available for the artist. The remainder is set aside for contingency costs, honorariums for finalists, and administrative expenses. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, noted that the draft RFP is still being reviewed by the city attorney’s office, but he hoped that they would make minimal changes and that the RFP could be issued soon.

Goals for the artwork include: (1) unifying an area that has highly diverse uses, including single-family homes, apartment buildings, student housing, retail, and university sports facilities (such as Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center); (2) creating awareness for art with multiple audiences – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, residents, out-of-town-visitors; and (3) creating multiple pieces that are tied together by a unifying theme.

Possible locations for the artwork include the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium; the end of White Street, which intersects with East Stadium; the north side of East Stadium Boulevard; the underpass and staircases at South State Street; and the East Stadium bridge abutments, sidewalk and railings.

Two AAPAC commissioners – Wiltrud Simbuerger  and Bob Miller – serve on a task force for the project. Other task force members are Nancy Leff of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association; Jim Kosteva, University of Michigan director of community relations; David Huntoon, a principle of Intalytics; and Joss Kiely, a UM graduate student and community member.

The tentative timeline for the project includes a June deadline for responses to the RFP, with up to five finalists selected. Those five finalists will be given $2,000 honorariums for a full proposal. A full proposal deadline is set for September, followed by a recommendation from AAPAC and a vote by the city council in November. The project would be implemented in 2013.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Ann Arbor city councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). (Photos by the writer.)

Neither of the other two resolutions involving direction to staff got much support on the council. Failing on a 3-7 vote was a resolution that would have directed the city attorney to provide a written opinion on the transfer of funds from the city’s street millage fund to the public art fund. The resolution got support only from its sponsors, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who were joined by Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The council postponed a separate item that would have authorized $150,000 for a piece of art that the public art commission has recommended for the lobby of the new Justice Center.

Failing on a 4-6 vote was a resolution related to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. It directed city staff to “to review, analyze, and report on the compliance of the DDA provided TIF calculation and capture amount” – an issue that relates to excess capture of taxes identified last year. The three who supported the resolution requesting an opinion on public art were joined by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) in supporting the TIF resolution. Only 10 councilmembers attended the meeting – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was absent. But even if Higgins had voted for the two resolutions, they still would have failed.

Generating some controversy were two items involving automobiles. The council gave final approval to changes in parking regulations that include a provision allowing the developer of a downtown project to meet minimum parking requirements without building parking spaces on site. The alternative is to make a payment in lieu of building parking spaces, or to sign a long-term contract to purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system. Anglin voted against the ordinance change as well as the specific policy governing the payments in lieu of parking.

On another automobile-related item, Anglin was joined by Lumm in opposing a resolution that made a formal request to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to convert a segment of Jackson Road between Maple Road and South Revena from four traffic lanes to three. That request will move forward. In another road-related item, the council unanimously approved a $3,647,344 construction contract for the first set of streets to be repaired in the 2012 program. That will be followed at the council’s next meeting, on April 16, by a second contract for an additional set of streets.

The council also gave approval to three different site plans – for Arbor Hills Crossing on Washtenaw Avenue, Les Voyageurs near Argo Pond, and Noodles & Co. on West Stadium Boulevard.

Public commentary at the end of the meeting featured several speakers who called the council’s attention to April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

Public Art Legal Opinion

In front of the council for its consideration was a resolution that would have directed the city attorney to provide a written legal opinion on the transfer of funds from the dedicated street millage fund for use in the city’s public art program. In a separate item, the council voted to approve the first part of the 2012 street resurfacing program, which is funded out of the street millage fund.

Public Art Legal Opinion: Background

The city’s Percent for Art ordinance stipulates that 1% of all capital project budgets be allocated for public art, up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project. The legal basis for the program, which relies on taking monies from dedicated millages and fees to serve the purpose of public art, has been sharply questioned.

Since being hired as city attorney, Stephen Postema has bypassed the Ann Arbor city charter requirement that written legal opinions be filed with the city clerk (thus making them public) by contending that his written opinions are “advice memos” and thus not technically opinions. The city responds to requests under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act for the content of such advice memos by asserting attorney-client privilege.

By Ann Arbor city charter, the city attorney is under the direct supervision of the city council. So the resolution considered by the council would have forced Postema to produce a written opinion. The resolution was brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and co-sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). [For additional background, see: “Council Preview: Marijuana, Art, TIF.”]

Public Art Legal Opinion: Deliberations

In his remarks introducing the resolution, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) proceeded to read it aloud in its entirety. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if that were necessary, but mayor John Hieftje indicated that if Kunselman wanted to use his time-limited speaking turn to read it aloud, he could do that. Kunselman asked Briere playfully, “Do you mind?” and indicated that he knew he just had five minutes. He then read the rest of the resolution.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned whether the amount of time allotted to the city attorney was adequate to produce the opinion – the resolution specified delivering the opinion by April 16. Kunselman responded to Lumm by saying he felt that the attorney already had the material prepared.

Lumm said her concerns with the public art program were not so much legal concerns but rather a matter of steering capital dollars away from the projects they are supposed to be funding. She noted she wasn’t on the city council when the ordinance was approved [in 2007], but she believed that the city attorney was consulted and provided advice on the ordinance at the time.

Briere observed that for at least two years, the council has regularly heard concerns about whether the funding mechanism for the public art program is legal. The city attorney has said he can only provide a written opinion if the council requests one, she noted. So she was co-sponsoring the resolution – in order to put the issue to rest. “Let’s either ask him to give us a written opinion, or we vote this down,” she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that he’d vote against the resolution. An opinion does not mean “the thoughts of an attorney.” In this context, he said, it’s intended for third-party reliance. In his view, the council had received advice from the city attorney on the topic, and he said he was satisfied with it. He felt there is no reason for having a formal opinion for third-party reliance. The notion of “jumping the gun” on something like this is not appropriate for the context, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) supported Taylor’s contention that the opinion was not necessary. He then went on to describe how there have been opinions before with respect to components of the ordinance. He said he was not on the city council when the ordinance was approved, but didn’t feel it was necessary to ask for “yet another opinion.” So he was going to oppose the resolution.

City attorney Stephen Postema was quick to jump in to disagree with Derezinski’s statement, saying that he hadn’t provided any opinions, but rather advice. [It's critical for the city attorney not to call his written advice an "opinion" because the Ann Arbor city charter requires that written "opinions" be filed with the city clerk's office, thereby making them public.]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was satisfied with the material she’d received and the information she already had.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that as councilmembers they were involved with these issues, they understood the issues. But he said he’d wanted some backup for his support of the Percent for Art program. By voting for an opinion to be written, it was allowing the voters and taxpayers of the city to understand the Percent for Art program better. He felt that would be something the council should want to do.

In support of what Anglin said, Briere observed that often the public asks the council: Why did you make that decision? The reason for asking that an opinion be written is not that councilmembers are doing it for themselves – it’s for the public. Some things are more contentious than others, she said, and the public art funding mechanism has been contentious. Asking for a written opinion is not for the council, but rather for the public. A decision about whether to ask for an opinion should be based on two things, she said: (1) Does the council think it benefits our role as members of council? and (2) Do we think it benefits the public?

Kunselman said he wanted to make clear he didn’t recall ever receiving an advice memo on the transfer from a dedicated millage account to the public art fund. So for councilmembers who are saying they’re satisfied, he said, Tuscola County had publicized a document as part of a voter information program in advance of a millage stating that it wasn’t possible to transfer money out of a dedicated millage fund to any other account. Kunselman ventured it might be possible to pay for art out of the street millage fund, but you just can’t transfer it to another fund. He felt there are some fine details in there that should be clarified. The question of whether it’s legal or not to transfer money out of a dedicated millage account is a simple question, he said, and the public deserves an answer.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said the council had received clear input from the city attorney on issues surrounding public art and he said he was satisfied with that. The purpose of an opinion is nothing more than to give third parties a formal understanding of how they might be impacted by the city’s orientation to particular legal issues. Even if the issue were about reassuring the public, he said, “that ship has sailed.” That would have been an appropriate conversation to have when the council was considering implementing the Percent for Art program [in 2007]. He said that as he talked with people, he’s gotten a lot of reassurance from people when he’s told them that the council has received very clear advice on the public art.

Lumm said she’d come to this late, but that to a latecomer it was clear that the city attorney had been consulted. She felt that if it were considered illegal then the council would not have approved the ordinance. She felt like the issue had been addressed.

Outcome: The resolution failed on a 3-7 vote, with support from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Justice Center Art

The council was asked to vote on the use of $150,000 for a public art project in the lobby of the new municipal building called the Justice Center, located on the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center, located next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

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

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building.

Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for the $150,000 project in the Justice Center’s lobby. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists. It’s a sculpture called “Radius.”

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

At the council’s April 2 meeting, public art administrator Aaron Seagraves described the piece of art.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called the design “cool,” but she had concerns about the area not being accessible to the public. She wanted to know if the idea had been considered to move the security gates back into the building so more people can access the lobby.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the ability to move the security gates is tied to the overall building project budget. There’ll be a report soon to the council’s building committee on the project budget, he said, and at that point there could be a more informed decision about moving the security systems. There are budgetary impacts to that. Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, described the financing information as close to being wrapped up and almost ready for discussion.

Smith said she didn’t feel really strongly about tying approval of the art to the moving of the security gates, but wondered if there were any harm in postponing until that discussion is held? Hupy said he didn’t think so. The art was anticipated to be completed by the end of December. At some point the artist’s proposal would have to be reviewed for changes due to inflation. If it’s a matter of 30-60 days, he didn’t think it would have an impact. Because Smith felt the discussion was fairly imminent, she was inclined to delay for a month. Seagraves didn’t have a problem with that.

Mayor John Hieftje agreed with taking the time to think about it some more. He’d looked at the location with Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and while he felt that the public art commission had done a good job in designing something that would be visible from outside the building, it would be nicer if the lobby could be opened up to the public. That should be investigated, he said. The issue of the placement of security should be revisited, he concluded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also supported the postponement. She felt that going forward, public art decisions should include the idea of access to the public.

Briere said she supported the postponement but really supported the opportunity to review the security checkpoint. She reminded the council that people who’d selected the art believe that it’s to be viewed from outside the building, rather than from within the building. It’s a beautiful open space that should be used for meetings, weddings, parties, and receptions – the things that civic spaces should be used for. But because of measures that are there to protect the community, the public had lost access to the space.

Hieftje said it did muddy the issue of the art, which was being delayed while the council took a look at the security issue, but he stressed that the public art commission and the task force for the piece of art had done a good job.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated support for the postponement, but said she’d had very complete discussions with the building’s architect about what the security would entail. She felt it was already decided that there wasn’t a lot that could be done. She was on the committee to select the art and the placement. The committee felt that the corner of the building needed to be enlivened from the outside. She said that if people want to see the art, they can go through security and view it, or stand outside and look at it. She didn’t want people to get their hopes up about moving the security checkpoint or tying that to the art.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) clarified that it’s possible to get buzzed into the lobby by the police after hours, and ventured that once they let you in, it’s “unsecured.” Hupy said he didn’t know if people were tracked once they came in. Teall supposed that at night the best place to see it would be from outside.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also serves on the public art commission, said he felt there was a consensus about the validity of the art project. He felt that it’s important to convey that message back to the public art commission, and he’d support the postponement because it wouldn’t hurt the project. He felt the artwork would add beauty to the building.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d also support the postponement. But he responded to the talk about how the sculpture will be viewed from outside by wondering if the artist could show the etched glass on the window as part of the nighttime rendering. He didn’t feel it would be visible with the clarity that was being portrayed, and that it would be obscured.

Lumm said she’d support postponement, but said she was not comfortable with siting it in the Justice Center building, even with adjustment of the security checkpoint. She described the spending on the building as extravagant. She was troubled that “we’re spending it on ourselves.” She wondered if this is the best use of public dollars. She wanted some clarification about how much of the artwork’s budget was going to fabrication and whether the fabrication would be done locally, given that the selected artist is from Portland.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the $150,000 Justice Center artwork. The postponement will be until May 7.

DDA TIF Capture

The council was asked to consider a resolution that would have directed city staff to verify the compliance of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with the city’s ordinance that governs how the DDA’s tax capture works.

DDA TIF Capture: Background

When city financial staff pointed out the implications of the city ordinance in May 2011, the result was a computation of excess TIF (tax increment finance) capture of over $1 million. The city of Ann Arbor waived its share, which amounted to $712,000, but the other taxing authorities in the district (Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County) received a total of $473,000 in reimbursement for last year and previous years.

The DDA board’s current legal position, subsequently adopted, is that it had not been necessary to return the money to the other taxing authorities in its district, but the board has not pressed for return of that money to the DDA.

For this year and into the future, the interpretation of the ordinance and the method of calculation will have an impact of several hundred thousand dollars a year in the amount of taxes the DDA could rightfully capture from other taxing authorities in its district. [See “Column: Tax Capture Is a Varsity Sport”]

In relevant part, the ordinance passage from Chapter 7 reads [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]

By way of general background, a tax increment finance (TIF) district is a mechanism for “capturing” certain property taxes to be used in a specific geographic area – taxes that would otherwise be received by the entity with the authority to levy the taxes. So in the DDA’s TIF district, the DDA doesn’t levy taxes directly. Rather, a portion of the property taxes that would otherwise be collected by taxing units (like the library, community college and the county) is instead used by the Ann Arbor DDA for improvements within its boundaries, covering about 66 city blocks downtown.

For additional background specific to the current situation, see “Council Preview: Marijuana, Art, TIF.”

DDA TIF Capture: Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) summarized the background on the DDA TIF capture issue. After describing the situation, he then ventured that having the DDA verify its own compliance was like having the fox guard the henhouse.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that sometimes she and Kunselman did agree on things, and in this case it looked to her like this was a matter of “Show your math.” She felt that it would not make a difference to the DDA, and given that she didn’t think it would make a difference to the DDA, it will be a reassurance that nothing has been forgotten this year. She said she was okay with asking that the math be shown.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the DDA board, said it seemed to her like the council was doing a lot of directing of staff through resolutions when staff can do it through a request by email. She said she was just confused about the “litany of demands” that the staff perform something when they hadn’t simply been asked whether or not they’d do it. She looked at it as a time-waster and wondered if there weren’t something else that the council should be doing instead – she introduced the possibility of changing the relevant ordinance [Chapter 7]. That would be legitimate, Smith said. She found that if a simple request [not through a resolution] were made of staff, they’d be good at providing the information to the council.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she’d support the resolution, but distanced herself from Kunselman’s general view of the DDA’s role in the city.

Outcome: On a 4-6 vote, the resolution failed with support only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Street Resurfacing Program

A resolution on the April 2 agenda asked the council to award a $3,647,344 construction contract for its 2012 street resurfacing program to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. The engineer’s estimate for the project was $3,850,835. Barrett’s was the lowest of three bids. Ajax Paving Industries Inc. had bid $3,757,748 and Cadillac Asphalt LLC had bid $4,029,089. The money for the project comes primarily from the city’s street resurfacing millage. This is the first of two contracts that the council will be asked to approve – the next one with additional streets will be presented to the council at the April 16 meeting.

Ann Arbor 2012 street resurfacing program. Image links to Google Map.

The 2012 resurfacing program includes the following major streets: Huron Parkway (Hubbard Street to Glazier Way); Fifth Avenue (Huron Street to Liberty Street); Liberty Street (Seventh Street to First Street); Glen Street (Huron Street to bridge over railroad tracks); and Geddes Avenue (Awixa Road to Apple Way).

The 2012 resurfacing program also includes the following local streets: Pineview Court (Riverview Drive to the end of Pineview); Canal Street (end to end); William Street (Fourth Street to Ashley Street); N. Fifth Avenue (Depot Street to Beakes Street); Fourth Street (William Street to Liberty Street); Third Street (William Street to Liberty Street); David Court (Traver Boulevard to end); and Hatcher Crescent (Miller Ave to Hatcher Street).

Street Resurfacing: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off the deliberations by asking Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, how the streets were selected for inclusion in the program. Pirooz described a rating system used by the field services department – from 1-100 – but he said no street was ever at the very bottom of the scale. Any street less than 70 was put on a list and around October of each year, the streets rated less than 70 are driven to confirm that they need to be included. Around this time of year, in the spring, the staff might recognize that a street rated 71 or 72 might also need to be added to the list. After publication of the list this year, he said, they’d heard from members of the public and added some streets to the list on that basis.

Jones Drive was one that wasn’t on the list initially, but had been added. There was a plan to replace the water main and after contacting the water utilities department, they’d learned that plan had changed, so it could be resurfaced. He’d also had a request to look at Forest, Pirooz said. That street also seems to need the work, and a decision will be made in the next few days. The contract they’d vote on that night was Group A. In two weeks, there’d be another 20 streets in Group B.

Lumm asked if the city was biting off a big chunk of those that are rated less than 70. Pirooz said that by 2013, after this current cycle, there would be additional streets that are rated less than 70. Overall, he said, over the last eight or nine years, the city is gradually improving the condition of its streets. But right now, he said, the city is not resurfacing many of its streets that are rated more than 70.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked for confirmation from Pirooz that the money being spent on resurfacing this year would have been spent on the East Stadium bridges project, if the federal money had not come through. Pirooz explained that for the last two or three years, the city had been very careful about expending money from the street millage, just in case the city had to undertake the Stadium bridges repair by itself, with no federal aid. That turned out not to be the case. The city had received $13 million in federal aid, so the city was able to accelerate its street repair project.

Lumm responded to the political point Teall was making by recalling her prior service on the council, when the city had set aside money to repair the two Broadway bridges and did work on the Huron Parkway bridges plus a lot of streets. She said that the city was able to do that with federal money, state money and local street millage dollars – because that’s the way it’s typically done. What’s being done with Stadium bridges is not unique – it’s a matter of making it a priority, she contended. All along the city could have done both, she said.

Pirooz responded to Lumm by saying there was a lot less transportation available now than five or ten years ago. When the Broadway bridges were in the planning stage, he said, he thought the city had received close to $19.5 million through the state’s local bridge program. For the Stadium bridges, the city had receive only around $2 million. There’s been a substantial change in the amount of money the state had available. Lumm allowed it was a point well taken.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) complimented city staff on their responsiveness on the Jones Drive issue. On the Stadium bridges issue, Briere said she remembered reading how some people felt the city should go ahead and take on the reconstruction using local dollars, but the city had instead pursued federal dollars. The city was ultimately successful but it took time – time during which the public became impatient. It was desirable, she said, for the staff to conserve the street millage dollars for the last few years as a contingency for the possibility that federal dollars didn’t materialize.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he vaguely remembered the city missing out on the first round of TIGER grants because the city did not have a shovel-ready project for which it could apply. Pirooz said that wasn’t entirely true. The city did have a shovel-ready project, but the federal government had other priorities, he said. Kunselman expressed interest in adding to the list some streets in “my neck of the woods.” Pirooz said that the city likely had the money, but perhaps not the time. Kunselman told Pirooz he was referring to the Springbrook subdivision.

Mayor John Hieftje then reviewed the same historical material on the Broadway and Stadium bridges that Lumm, Briere and Pirooz had already reviewed.

Related to that, Pirooz reported that the Stadium bridges project is about a month ahead of schedule.

Outcome: The Group A contract for the 2012 street repair program was unanimously approved.

Jackson Road: From Four to Three Lanes

The council considered making a request to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to convert the segment of Jackson Road between Maple Road and South Revena from four traffic lanes to three.

Jackson Road: Background

The request to MDOT will be shared with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If the FHWA were to approve the proposed lane conversion, it would be implemented by MDOT, when the length of Jackson Road is resurfaced by MDOT from the I-94 interchange to Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor. That project is scheduled for 2013 or 2014.

Segment of Jackson Road recommended for 4-to-3 lane conversion. Image links to Google Map.

Benefits of the lane conversion cited in a staff memo accompanying the resolution include: (1) safe deceleration in the middle lane for left turns; (2) elimination of lane weaving; (3) uniform speeds and the resultant traffic-calming effect; (4) reduction in number and severity of crashes in a number of categories; (5) potential extra width for bicycle lanes; and (6) potential creation of additional marked pedestrian crossings.

The memo mentions several successful 4-to-3 lane conversions in Ann Arbor: South Main (Ann-Arbor Saline to Eisenhower); Platt (Packard to Ellsworth); Packard (Stadium to Jewett); Huron Parkway (Nixon to Plymouth); West Stadium Boulevard (Seventh to Pauline); and Green (Plymouth to Glazier Way). All of those segments have an average daily traffic (ADT) flow of less than 15,000.

Roadway segments with greater than 15,000 ADT, like Jackson Road with 15,500, require a greater level of analysis and public involvement. And to that end MDOT held a public meeting at Slauson Middle School on Feb. 2, 2012.

Jackson Road: Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the project would not be done until 2013 or 2014. He said it had been described to him as simply changing the painted lines on the street. He contended that public input was limited. He said that Liberty had been reworked and reduced in size but characterized it as “not a major carrier.” Once you exceed the 15,000 ADT threshold, a 4-to-3 lane reduction requires more analysis, he noted, and the section of Jackson in question is right on the limit – with 15,500 ADT. He pointed out that there would be buses on the street.

Anglin noted that Dexter Avenue was being redone this year with bicycle lanes and that Miller Road was scheduled to be done with bicycle lanes next year, so he felt there will be enough entrances and exits into the city for bicyclists within two blocks. He described Jackson as an extremely dangerous road due to the number of vehicles. He allowed that he was initially in favor of the lane change, but as he thought more about it, he was afraid it would result in putting people into situations that aren’t as safe as he’d like. It would be asking drivers to be acting quickly to reduce lanes. He contended that the more challenging a road layout is, the more difficult it is for drivers to maneuver and to watch for cyclists.

He floated the idea of postponing the motion. The road won’t be wider, he said. He criticized what he called not enough public input on the project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Homayoon Pirooz of the city’s project management unit to come to the podium. She asked why it was advisable to reduce from four lanes to three on a “trunkline.” Pirooz explained that it’s not a matter of whether it’s a trunkline, but rather it’s the number of cars that determines how many lanes are needed. He described how four-lane roads were very common 30-40 years ago. Traffic engineers have found that’s not the best configuration. He described the reduction of conflict points that results from a reduction from four to three lines.

As an example, he pointed to Platt Road, which was reduced to three lanes. Residents, he said, had a lot of concerns about that, before it was implemented, thinking they wouldn’t be able to get onto the road from sidestreets. Looking at the data for accidents, he said, the number of accidents per year was 20-30 per year. But in the last two years it’s down to 6-7. The number of cars on that stretch is 14,000. That compares with 15,500 along the stretch of Jackson Road under discussion.

The city asked MDOT to do the traffic analysis and modeling, and that was presented to the public. Based on MDOT’s own analysis, it’d be relatively easily to do a 4-to-3 lane conversion, Pirooz said. He explained that the reason the city had asked MDOT to do the analysis was that the existing lanes on that stretch are very narrow – they’re 10 feet wide. MDOT won’t build roads with lanes that narrow any more – the minimum is 11 feet and the preference is 12.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he lived near the area and could confirm the narrowness of lanes, and said that narrowness is a concern for a lot of people. Hohnke noted that the four-to-three lane reduction would even out the traffic flow, allow for deceleration, and possibly add bike lanes – that sounds too good to be true, he said. He said he understood that the staff feels the benefits outweigh the costs, but he wanted to know what the costs were – congestion, air quality?

Pirooz allowed there are no guarantees for anything. He said staff is 95% confident that this will work. It’s planned for resurfacing for 2013 or possibly 2014. Once the street is paved, that’s the time to do lane markings. With all projects, he said, staff goes back one year later, and if ever a project like that doesn’t work, it’s as easy to change as grinding off the old paint and putting new paint down.

Hohnke drew out the fact that there could be some additional queuing time, but not that much.

Lumm came back to the issue of the traffic load of the segment of Jackson Road. She noted that in response to a question she’d asked before the meeting, the ADT was projected to be 18,500 in 18 years. She wondered if the city would be looking back then, wondering why this change was made. Pirooz noted that the current level is 15,000 ADT, which is closer to 15 than 20 – and the 18,500 projected in 18 years is still less than 20,000. By then, Pirooz said, the city would be looking at another resurfacing at that time. If you have to change it after 15 years, he said, that’s the nature of traffic engineering.

Mayor John Hieftje and Briere both mentioned the fact that the lane changes are reversible. In an apparent bid to wrap up discussion, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that he himself is not a traffic professional, but the city’s traffic professionals say that there are safety benefits, it’ll be reviewed in a year, and it’s fully reversible – so he’d be supporting the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if the impact on the Platt Road change had been to cause motorists to find alternative routes – he felt like traffic on Platt was lighter since the 4-to-3 conversion. Pirooz told him there hadn’t been a decrease.

Anglin asked about accidents along the stretch. He also pointed out that the decision would affect a lot of people who don’t live in Ann Arbor, who are using the road to come into town.

Outcome: The 4-to-3 lane reduction resolution was approved over the opposition of Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Immediately after the vote Thomas Partridge, called out from his seat in the audience, saying the vote was “unbelievable,” which prompted Hieftje to tell him to be quiet.

Parking Ordinance

At its April 2 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to changes to the city’s off-street parking code.

Parking Ordinance: Background

The first change reduces the exceptions allowed for front open-space parking for sites that have more than one front lot line. Currently, a site with three frontages can have a parking area for two of the frontages – between the building face and the public right of way. The code revision would limit parking areas to a single frontage.

The second change requires that any new driveways serving drive-up windows in the front open space of a site be no wider than 12 feet and provide a raised sidewalk with bollards where the sidewalk crosses a drive-up lane. The change is meant to improve pedestrian safety.

The third change relates to minimum off-street parking requirements in the downtown districts, zoned D1 and D2. Developers currently have the option of making a payment in lieu of providing the required parking. The revision to the ordinance would add the option of signing a contract for parking permits in the city’s public parking system.

During the public hearing, Thomas Partridge called the amendments unclear and confusing. He contended that they deny property owners the ability to use the area in front of their property for parking.

Parking Ordinance: Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by asking for the projected impact on existing and prospective construction. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described the proposed changes in the context of the relatively new area, height and placement revisions (AHP) in the zoning code. In the context of reduced setback requirements for AHP, the proposed amendments were a way to preserve the remaining green space and to prevent it from becoming all driveway. Most existing drive-throughs are not an issue, she said. It’s really just the new proposals – like the like Tim Hortons site plan that would come before the council in a couple of weeks.

City administrator Steve Powers (left) and councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he had a lot of concern about the arrangement by which a developer could contract for spaces in the public parking system. He alluded to a proposed development at 618 S. Main, for which the developer is proposing to build two floors of parking – twice the amount required. He felt the city shouldn’t allow the use of public parking spaces to satisfy the minimum requirement. This is not a good thing as far as he was concerned. He contended that it was tantamount to public bonding.

Rampson explained that when the A2D2 zoning changes were adopted, there were options provided to meet the minimum parking requirements through an easement, or through a formula. Contracting for parking permits is one option that a developer can take that may or may not make sense, she said. In the case of the proposed 618 S. Main project, it doesn’t make sense to the developer, so he’s opted to provide parking on site. One of the benefits to contracting for monthly permits is that it assures a revenue stream for the parking structures, Rampson said. The policy that the council would be considering later in the meeting, as a separate agenda item, allows for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to determine whether parking is available within the public system. It’s not mandatory that the DDA grant the permits, if not enough spaces are available.

Anglin asked Rampson to give an example of a building that has provided its own parking and is successful. Rampson offered Zaragon Place, located on East University. Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, described the special parking permits that are available to downtown residents – the permits cost $30 a month, which allows residents to use the system in an “off-peak way.” She described how some of the users of the $30 permits are restaurant workers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) worried that a contract could be just one year and that it wouldn’t meet the intent of the ordinance. He was curious about how it’s expected to play out. Rampson noted that the proposed policy the council would be considering cited a contract term of 15 years. Kunselman wondered why that wouldn’t be written into the ordinance instead of considered as a separate policy. Rampson explained that if the council wanted to change the policy it would be easier to change it if it’s a policy as opposed to going through the process of an ordinance change. [An ordinance change requires two readings before the council and a public hearing. ]

Kunselman then asked why the city didn’t make the all development in the downtown area exempt from parking requirements. Rampson explained that the issue was well-debated for two years, as part of the A2D2 rezoning process. She noted that there is only a parking requirement for bonus square-footage. Whatever can be built “by right” is parking exempt.

Kunselman said he was not comfortable contracting out the requirement using the public parking system. He contended that makes it into a quasi-private system.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Pollay to describe contracts with existing developments for parking space – Village Green City Apartments, Cornerhouse Lofts, McKinley Towne Center and others. Briere concluded that what was being proposed was not novel. Pollay concurred that it’s going on now. Mayor John Hieftje added that it’s a use of the parking system as an economic development tool. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said the proposal made sense to her – it addresses the basic objective of providing for the parking needs of projects and it provides flexibility.

Outcome: The council gave final approval to the parking regulation change, over dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Payment in Lieu of Parking

Also in front of the council for its consideration was the policy by which the minimum required parking component of developments in the downtown D1 and D2 zoning districts can be satisfied off-site from the development. The city is using the acronym CIL for “contribution in lieu” to describe the option. The idea could be familiar to some readers as PILOP, or “payment in lieu of parking.”

If not provided on-site, the policy allows some of the minimum required parking spaces to be provided with one of two basic strategies: (1) commit to a 15-year contract with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to purchase monthly permits in the public parking system at a rate 20% greater than the ordinary price; or (2) pay $55,000 up front before a certificate of occupancy is issued. [.pdf of parking payment in lieu policy]

The Ann Arbor DDA board had approved its recommendation of a PILOP policy over a year and half ago, at its July 7, 2010 board meeting. The DDA’s involvement in the policy formation stems from its role as operator of the city’s public parking system, under contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Part of the methodology in the CIL policy entails that the DDA will research the availability of spaces in the public parking system, when a developer applies for permits under the CIL option.

Outcome: Without deliberating explicitly on the item, which the council did not reach until nearly the end of the meeting, the council approved the policy over the dissent of Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Arbor Hills Crossing Revisions

The council was asked to consider revisions to the building plans for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces.

According to the planning staff memo accompanying the resolution, the buildings are proposed to remain in the same configuration that the city council approved at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting. But now, more brick and masonry surfaces and less steel is being proposed. In the city planning staff’s view, the changes – which also include some changes to windows and vertical elements – could not be made as administrative amendments, and needed the city council’s approval.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed that some of the new material included full brick, with some split-faced block. He asked for some additional clarification about decisions to use certain materials in certain locations.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that with more brick and masonry, it appears to be a nice improvement. Given that there were no staff comments on it, she wanted to know what planning manager Wendy Rampson’s thoughts were. Rampson said there weren’t standards for these changes – but she characterized the new materials as “less edgy.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Arbor Hills Crossing changes.

Noodles & Co. Site Plan

On the April 2 agenda was a site plan for a new Noodles & Co. restaurant at 2161 W. Stadium Blvd. – site of the former Sze-Chuan West, a building adjacent to Bell’s Diner and Stadium Hardware.

The proposal calls for demolishing the existing 4,300-square-foot restaurant and building a new 2,679-square-foot one-story restaurant with a 615-square-foot enclosed patio at the front of the building. The 1.15-acre site is located on the west side of West Stadium, south of Liberty. The project would also reconfigure the existing parking lot and provide additional landscaping.

The planning commission had given a unanimous recommendation for approval at its March 6, 2012 meeting.

During the project’s public hearing, Thomas Partridge said the city should require businesses to contribute to public transportation for seniors and handicapped people.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if the future use of the parcel would be as a restaurant, something that planning manager Wendy Rampson confirmed. He asked her if she thought 27 parking spaces was adequate for a restaurant. She confirmed that 27 spaces would meet the minimum requirement.

Anglin asked what zoning would be applied to the parcel once is was divided, as proposed in the site plan. Rampson explained that the zoning wouldn’t change. The division of the parcel would be between the carwash and the restaurant site. The zoning wouldn’t change – it would reconfigure the ownership of the parcel.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Noodles & Co. site plan.

Les Voyageurs Site Plan

Another site plan was on the agenda – for a renovation to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge, owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs.

The site had also required a rezoning, which the city council had approved at its March 19, 2012 meeting.

The property owned by the society, at 411 Long Shore Drive near Argo Pond, had been previously zoned public land, even though it’s owned by a private entity. The council approved the rezoning as a planned unit development (PUD), which would allow the group to build a 220-square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the existing lodge, on its east side. The site plan for that addition was the subject of the council’s April 2 action.

The nonprofit society is a University of Michigan student and alumni club, focused on nature and the outdoors. Named for French-Canadian voyageurs of the Great Lakes fur trade, it was founded in 1907 and is one of the university’s oldest fraternal student groups. The lodge was built in 1925 – about the same time as the city’s first zoning ordinance and zoning map. Five student members live at the lodge, and society alumni gather there for potluck Sunday dinners from September to April.

During the public hearing, Thomas Partridge criticized Les Voyageurs, contending that it didn’t live up to its public responsibilities. He called it a semi-secret society. At a previous meeting, he’d criticized the group based on its French name.

Partridge’s comments led mayor John Hieftje to share his memory of paddling in a canoe on Lake Superior during a historical reenactment. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) made a quip about the society being “elitist” – a reference to Partridge’s remarks.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Les Voyageurs site plan.

Police Detective Vehicles

The council considered the authorization of the purchase of a total of four vehicles for police detectives for a total of $97,383. One of the vehicles was sourced from Red Holman Buick/GMC – a 2012 GMC Acadia for $28,620. The other three were purchased from Signature Ford – a 2013 Ford Explorer for $26,951, a 2013 Ford Taurus for $24,098 and a 2012 Ford Fusion for $17,714.

The city’s contract with the police unions requires that vehicles used by union members will not be driven more than 80,000 miles or six years, whichever comes first. And in the case of the four vehicles being acquired, they’ll replace vehicles that will reach the six-year age limit in the next year. The vehicles that are being retired will be sold at the next city vehicle auction.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council approved the purchase of the detective vehicles on two separate votes.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health

In front of the council for its consideration was initial approval to changes to the employee retirement system to accommodate recent changes in the collective bargaining agreement with the city’s police command officers union and firefighters union. The council also considered initial approval to changes to the retirement health care benefits to reflect changes to those collectively bargained agreements.

Changes to the retirement system include: (1) increasing the pension contribution of command officer members to 6% from 5%; (2) implementing a pick-up feature as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code for the pension contributions of firefighters and command officers, converting their 6% pre-tax contribution to a 6% post-tax contribution; (3) increasing the vesting and final average compensation requirements for firefighters hired after July 1, 2012; and (4) implementing a federal provision that allows eligible retired public safety officers to pay qualified health insurance premiums directly from their pensions.

The change to the retiree health care system will stipulate that new hires after July 1, 2012 will be eligible for an access-only health care plan at the time of their retirement, instead of a city-paid retiree health care plan.

As changes to the city’s ordinances, the resolutions passed by the council on April 2 will require a second and final approval after a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to both employment issues without discussion.

0.17 BAC as Separate Crime

The council considered initial approval to a change in its traffic ordinance to adopt a provision of the Michigan Vehicle Code that establishes driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of more than 0.17 as a separate offense from operating under the influence.

Ann Arbor operating under influence by month (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The Michigan legislature had previously changed the MVC, which Ann Arbor has adopted, to include the separate charge for the very high BAC of 0.17. However, the legislature did not at that time change the Home Rule Cities Act to allow cities to impose the greater penalty of 180 days in jail and/or $700 fine that comes with the BAC 0.17 charge. But in February 2012, the legislature made the change to the Home Rule Cities Act that allows for that penalty. Ann Arbor is making the change to its local ordinance in order to be able to charge drivers with the 0.17 offense.

Records from January 2010 through February 2012 provided to The Chronicle by CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System) show three instances of 0.17 offenses – which could not be charged as a separate offense. The CLEMIS records for the same time period also show three reports for the moderately higher BAC level of .08, which could already be charged separately from operating under the influence.

Ordinance changes must receive an initial approval by the Ann Arbor city council, followed by a public hearing and a second and final approval at a subsequent meeting.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the BAC ordinance change without discussion.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Litigation, Praise for City Attorney

During communications time, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) mentioned that the city had received very good news, having won some recent rounds of litigation. That included an appeal of a lawsuit originally filed against the city on Oct. 12, 2009 by HDC – the entity whose proposal had been selected in response to a request for proposals for development of the Fifth & William site of the old YMCA building (which has since demolished). The original purchase option agreement for the land was approved on Sept. 6, 2005. The YMCA building formerly offered 100 units of single resident occupancy (SRO) units. When the city council had previously made the decision to purchase the property from the YMCA, many councilmembers expressed a commitment to preserving those 100 units of affordable housing. Subsequently, the building became uninhabitable and the residents had to be relocated. Affordable housing units were part of HDC’s William Street Station proposal.

After encountering various difficulties and attempting to modify its project, HDC and the city agreed to a new purchase option agreement that included specific milestones. That new agreement was signed on Oct. 12, 2007. It included the milestone of obtaining a demolition permit from the city by Oct. 15, 2007. When HDC filed its application for the permit, it contends it was informed by city staff that only the owner of a property could be granted a demolition permit – so HDC could not obtain the permit because it was not the owner. The city still owned the property. HDC complained that the condition was one that was impossible to meet.

A resolution considered by the city council on Nov. 5, 2007 to modify the purchase option agreement by extending it failed on a 5-6 vote. On the side of extending were councilmembers Joan Lowenstein, Leigh Greden, Margie Teall, and Wendy Woods. Against extending the agreement were John Hieftje, Bob Johnson, Ron Suarez, Stephen Rapundalo, Stephen Kunselman, and Christopher Easthope. The failure to extend was the basis of one of the counts alleged in the lawsuit filed in 2009 – that the city failed to act in good faith and deal fairly. In broad strokes, the court said that HDC, as a sophisticated developer, should have known better than to sign an agreement with an impossible condition, and that the city had not breached its contract.

When asked to summarize the case, which the city also won on appeal, city attorney Stephen Postema did not mention the issues involving good faith, but focused on another aspect of HDC’s allegations, which involved a claim that the city was motivated to terminate HDC’s purchase option, in order to prevent handicapped people from living at the site. The court found that the set of facts that HDC had pled did not warrant further discovery. Postema called it a “complete exoneration of the council.”

As a part of his communications, Derezinski asked his colleagues to give Postema a round of applause – for prevailing in the lawsuit as well as for an award he’d received from the Michigan Municipal League.

Comm/Comm: Connecting William Street

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) gave an update on the Connecting William Street project. She indicated that the survey was closed, and while the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had expected to get around 1,000 responses, they’re received almost double that. They’d heard from around 200 organizations, as well as individuals. The process would continue in an information-gathering phase, she said, before going into a scenario-building phase. The project status is described in detail on the Ann Arbor DDA website.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Alan Haber told the council that he was distressed by the characterization that Smith had given about the survey responses and contended that what people had actually called for was more open space, more green space and more space for people to gather.

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) revisited a topic he’s brought up recently during communications time – Fuller Road Station. He complained that while there’s been no official vote on the overall project, taxpayer money is still being spent on the project. He pointed to an Oct. 9, 2009 Fuller Road Station Concept Plan report prepared by the consultant JJR, which identifies two utility systems as needing relocation. [The council voted on the sewer project on June 20, 2011 and reconsidered it at Anglin's request on July 5, 2011. The first vote was unanimous in support, while Anglin dissented on the second vote.] He criticized the failure to identify on the agenda the relationship between the sewer relocation project to the Fuller Road Station project. And he contended that the sewer work was motivated by the Fuller Road Station project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responded to the remarks Anglin made by saying that the answer the council had received from city staff was that the work – replacing the sewer lines – needed to be done. Staff had acknowledged that they had moved the timing up a year or two. Many of the councilmembers had supported the work, she said, because it needed to be done.

Comm/Comm: Taxicab Board

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the taxicab board had met the previous Thursday. It had only three members – they’re looking for two more. He made a plea to the public to step up and serve.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor Democrat, an advocate for the most vulnerable in the city and the state. He called attention to a lack of affordable housing, transportation and health care. He also lamented the lack of enforcement against illegal drugs. What would Jesus advocate on the eve of Easter? he asked. Under the first African American president of the United States, we need to press for the building of a Great Society with access for all to public transportation, free or low cost health care services, and low cost housing, he said.

Comm/Comm: Women’s Rights, Sexual Assault Prevention

Esperanza Orozco began by saying that the subject matter of her remarks was very sensitive. She introduced herself as a survivor of sexual assault. She told the council that her assailant had been locked up for a few days but he’d then been let back out on the streets of Ann Arbor. She said that the man had violated a personal protection order (PPO) several times. She reported that she and some friends of hers had posted flyers with a picture of the man with the intention of alerting the public to the fact that he’s a rapist and a batterer.

But the police showed up and threatened them with charges, Orozco contended, and posed a question: What if the man put up flyers saying she was a prostitute? Orozco said that neither of her friends had been sex workers. In any case, she objected to the comparison of a batterer and to a sex worker. She asked if the city was okay saying, “Shut up, woman!” and silencing victims of rape. She asked if were okay that “the city won’t do shit and if we do something, then we’re vigilantes.” She answered her own question by saying, “If ya’ll don’t do something, I guess we should.” She concluded by saying, “Rape needs to be dealt with. Cut it out or cut it off.”

Orian Zakai spoke in support of Orozco, describing Orozco’s brave decision to leave her partner. The man is still out there and has violated his PPO. When the police report was filed, Zakai said she was perplexed about the way things progressed. Orozco had to tell a difficult story in a public space, with officers coming and going and officers chatting with each other. The front desk officer told her a detective would call a day or two later. Four days later, he had forwarded the prosecutor the file, without making any further inquiry. No charges were filed. She was told to file a report if he violated the PPO, which he did twice. And on the third time AAPD were able to arrest him, but Orozco and her friends were told he would probably be let out in a day or two. They felt frustrated and scared. They were promised a detective would call, when the man was let out. They learned he was out again when they saw him and he waved and smiled.

Alexandra Hoffman alerted the council to the Thursday, April 5 Take Back the Night march. She then read a list of tips for preventing sexual assault that are “guaranteed to work”:

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.
2. If you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone.
3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them.
4. Never open an unlocked door or window uninvited.
5. If you’re in an elevator and someone else gets in, don’t assault them.
6. Remember, people go to the laundry to do their laundry. Don’t attempt to molest someone who’s alone in a laundryroom.
7. Use the buddy system – if you’re not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you’re in public.
8. Always be honest with people. Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you plan to assault.
9. Don’t forget you can’t have sex with sometime unless they’re awake.
10. Carry a whistle. If you’re worried that you might assault someone by accident, you can hand it to a friend so they can blow it for you.

Hoffman noted that the satirical list is meant to show that advice is often directed at victims instead of assailants. No violence is private and there are no innocent bystanders, she said.

Occupy Patriarchy T-shirt worn by Alexandra Hoffman.

Mary Kate Bachler introduced herself as a University of Michigan architecture student and Ann Arbor resident. She reported to the council her experience on March 8, International Women’s Day, participating in a public action in front of city hall. The public demonstration was to raise awareness of International Women’s Day, and issues involving sexual assault.

The demonstrators asked people to hang paper flowers on the “phallic statue” [a reference to the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture] which seasonally is also used as a fountain. The text on the paper flowers asked: What would you do with $750,000 (the cost of the sculpture). The group of 10 attempted to hang the paper flowers around the sculpture. They were met by the chief of police and the mayor, she said, and were told that they had to remove the flowers from the sculpture and a nearby tree, because the sculpture was public art and the tree was public property. Bachler interpreted “public” in that context to mean “off limits to the public.” She ventured that while women walk in fear of being assaulted due to a lack of effective police patrol, the most important players in the city were busy thwarting peaceful protests.

Later, mayor John Hieftje responded to the description that had been given of the International Women’s Day Demonstration. He said that he and then-chief Barnett Jones had told the demonstrators in the nicest way possible that things couldn’t be hung on the artwork. He said he’d reminded people that none of the dollars for that art, as far as he knew, could be spent on a general fund expense. He expressed puzzlement that people would protest against art, and indicated he was still trying to understand that. [Some of the demonstrators carried signs indicating that the city should have spent money on organizations like SafeHouse Center rather than on the Dreiseitl sculpture.]

Thomas Partridge led off his commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, which ended at midnight, by quipping that he felt that way earlier in the meeting it would have been advisable to have a recess to give a few minutes of access to the NCAAA basketball championship game. But there have been some serious issues on the agenda, he said. On the eve of Easter, he said, he was again calling on Ann Arbor to be a friendlier and more respectful society. The story told by the young ladies during their attempt to gain attention on International Women’s Day was shocking, he said. He called for an apology from the mayor and police chief. He called for an effective investigation and prosecution. The disrespectful and insulting treatment of young ladies and the failure to protect the interests of all the young ladies of the city is not something to be glossed over, he said. He called on the council to pass a resolution at its next meeting condemning their treatment.

Odile Hugenot Haber told the council that when she met Orozco, she was shocked to know that when she called SafeHouse, there was no space for her there. [SafeHouse is a shelter for victims of domestic violence.] She talked about the fact that the country was fighting wars that cost so much money, and mentioned her concern that Camp Take Notice, a homeless enclave, might be shut down. As more women are abused and assaulted, she said, there’s no place for them to go. Spending a million dollars on art shows misplaced priorities, she said.

Alan Haber said he was there to support his “sisters.” When a month is set aside to raise awareness of sexual assault, he said, it really does need attention; our vision should be a culture of peace and nonviolence. The need for a demonstration shows that we’re a long way away from that, he said. He attributed the problem to a male patriarchal vision.

Comm/Comm: Speaking Rules

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) made a general request that councilmembers remain aware of the speaking rules and said that she felt the rules were being stretched.

By way of background, those rules include a limit of two speaking turns on any question, with a time limit of five minutes and three minutes for the first and second turns, respectively. As chair of the meeting, it’s the mayor’s responsibility to enforce the rules. However, under Robert’s Rules, which guide the council’s meeting conduct, unless there’s an explicit council rule addressing an issue, any councilmember could interrupt with a “point of order” to force the chair to enforce a rule. Later in the week, Smith showed The Chronicle a stopwatch app that she’d downloaded for her smartphone.

Comm/Comm: Lack of Prosecution

Henry Herskovitz told the council that on Feb. 4, 2012 his group was conducting its weekly vigil (demonstrating against support for Israel outside the Beth Israel synagogue) when he’d noticed someone removing a sign from a windshield of one of his group’s cars and then placing it in his own car. As the man was getting in the driver’s seat, Herskovitz asked him to return the sign. Herskovitz told the council that the man had told him he wasn’t going to get his sign back. So Herskovitz’s group called the Ann Arbor police department dispatch and reported the license plate and car description.

Officer Kevin Kleitsch came out and made a report, Herskovitz said. The case was referred to the detective bureau, assigned to Craig Lee. A month later, Herskovitz said, he looked at a photo lineup and correctly identified the man who’d taken the sign. In spite of the correct identification of the man, and the fact that the license plate was registered to the man that he’d identified, his group had been notified that the city attorney had decided not to prosecute.

Herskovitz described his group as peaceful protestors who’d been in this position before. He then gave other examples, in one case going back to 2006, where offenses were committed against members of his group, and arrests were made, but did not result in prosecution. Without enforcement of such offenses, Herskovitz said that their First Amendment rights are weakened. His group looked to the council to affirm its pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

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

Absent: Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: April 16, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers 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!

Rose White Park, adjacent to East Stadium Boulevard, is one location being considered for public art in a $400,000 budget approved by public art commissioners for the East Stadium bridges project. The blue tarp on the fence in the background serves to separate the park from the bridge construction. (Photos by the writer.)

A task force had recommended that the project be well-funded, because the location would be a highly visible landmark marking an entrance into the city – it’s near Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center, for example. No artist has been selected yet, nor has a request for proposals been issued – that’s under review by the city attorney’s staff.

The artist would have a large role in selecting locations for the artwork. Places for art might include the underpass and staircases at South State Street; the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium Boulevard; or the bridges themselves, spanning over railroad tracks and South State Street. Any final project and budget would require the city council’s approval.

The commission postponed action on a proposal related to artwork at Argo Cascades, the new Huron River bypass near Argo Pond. Neither of the two commissioners who serve on a task force for the project – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended the AAPAC meeting, and other commissioners felt more information was needed before moving forward.

Final touches were put on an annual public art plan for FY 2013, describing projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan] In addition to specific art projects like those for the East Stadium bridges and a mural at Allmendinger Park, the two-page document calls for developing a master plan for public art to guide future decision-making through 2016.

During the meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – noted that nominations are being accepted through April 13 for the Golden Paintbrush awards, which recognize local contributions to public art. A nomination form can be downloaded from the commission’s website.

The March 28 meeting was attended by three people who were not affiliated with the commission, including Jack Urban, a Kalamazoo County commissioner and chair of the Kalamazoo public arts commission. He noted that unlike Ann Arbor, the Kalamazoo public art commission does not have a funding source. So the group is looking to establish itself and seek financial support, he said.

Art Budget for East Stadium Bridges

On the agenda was an item to set the budget for artwork at the East Stadium bridges – currently being rebuilt by the city of Ann Arbor. AAPAC had voted to form a task force for the project at its September 2011 meeting, citing its importance as a gateway to the city. The bridges are located near Michigan Stadium on a major east-west artery.

A request for proposals (RFP) from artists is under review by the city’s legal staff and is expected to be issued in the coming weeks. Goals for the artwork include: (1) unifying an area that has highly diverse uses, including single-family homes, apartment buildings, student housing, retail, and university sports facilities (such as Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center); (2) creating awareness for art with multiple audiences – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, residents, out-of-town-visitors; and (3) creating multiple pieces that are tied together by a unifying theme.

Possible locations for the artwork include the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium; the end of White Street, which intersects with East Stadium; the north side of East Stadium Boulevard; the underpass and staircases at South State Street; and the East Stadium bridge abutments, sidewalk and railings.

Two AAPAC commissioners – Wiltrud Simbuerger  and Bob Miller – serve on a task force for the project. Other task force members are Nancy Leff of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association; Jim Kosteva, University of Michigan director of community relations; David Huntoon, a principle of Intalytics; and Joss Kiely, a UM graduate student and community member.

Wiltrud Simbuerger is an AAPAC commissioner who also serves on the task force for art at the East Stadium bridges.

Simbuerger and Miller said the task force felt strongly that because the location would be a highly visible landmark marking an entrance into the city, the project should be well-funded. About $100,000 is available from the Percent for Art money directly taken from the bridges project. That’s included in a balance of $529,251 that has accumulated for public art from streets-related capital projects. The city’s 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.

Simbuerger originally proposed $350,000, but Miller suggested that even more should be allocated. He made a formal motion for a $400,000 budget.

Commissioners discussed other possible projects that might be coming in the near future, including artwork for the North Main corridor and downtown Main Street. About $1.13 million of Percent for Art funds are currently unencumbered, and more funding will be added to that from upcoming capital projects. For example, Seagraves said that another $109,000 in Percent for Art funding is estimated to come from street projects alone in the next fiscal year.

Theresa Reid calculated that if $400,000 was allocated for the bridges artwork, plus estimated funding for other projects that are already in the works – including the mural program, and art for the Kingsley rain garden and Argo Cascades – that still leaves about $600,000 of the $1.13 million for other as-yet-unidentified projects. “I think that’s healthy,” she said. “We could do a lot with that.”

Outcome: The five commissioners present at the March 28 meeting unanimously voted to set a $400,000 budget for artwork at East Stadium bridges. The final budget and artist contract require approval by the city council.

Argo Cascades Art Proposal

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, introduced the agenda item regarding art at Argo Cascades, the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery. Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of developing an art project for the Cascades, as well as a budget.

No specific location has been identified for the work. A task force recommended instead to issue a request for proposals (RFP) and get input on the location from the artist who’s eventually selected for this project. About $175,000 is available for the project from money that has accumulated in the city’s Percent for Art fund. That money includes $155,561 from water-related capital projects and $19,655 from capital projects in the parks system. The city’s 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.

A mission statement developed by the project’s task force states: ”The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the natural river at this location. The public art here will be a marker of the community’s interest in ‘facing the river,’ as it celebrates the river’s water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses.”

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor's public art administrator.

Neither of the two commissioners who are on a task force for the project – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended the AAPAC meeting. Other task force members are: Cheryl Saam, the city’s recreation facilities supervisor for the Argo and Gallup liveries; artist and former AAPAC chair  Margaret Parker; Cathy Fleisher, a local resident; Bonnie Greenspoon of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

Seagraves told commissioners that originally two parks – Argo and Gallup – were considered for a river art project. But a renovation of the Gallup livery has been pushed back, he said, so the focus is now on Argo.

Wiltrud Simbuerger said she found it hard to vote without a better understanding of the vision for the project. Connie Brown agreed, saying that in contrast, it had been clear what the task force for the East Stadium bridges project had envisioned.

Seagraves brought up another issue. If funds from the water-related capital projects are used, then the artwork’s theme must also be water-related. Parks funding doesn’t come with a thematic constraint, as long as it’s used in the parks. The task force needs to give direction on that, he said.

Other commissioners also felt they needed more information before voting on a budget. Marsha Chamberlin suggested tabling the item.

Outcome: The five commissioners at the March 28 meeting voted unanimously to table action on the Argo Cascades project.

Annual Public Art Plan

The city’s public art ordinance requires that AAPAC submit an annual plan to the city council by April 1, outlining public art projects anticipated for the coming fiscal year. The commission has been working on a public art plan for the city’s fiscal year 2013 – from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. The plan had been the topic of a four-hour retreat in late February.

About an hour was spent at the March 28 meeting thrashing through a draft of the plan, which had been proposed by AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin based on previous discussions. Much of the conversation involved word-smithing of the various objectives.

The final plan includes a list of five objectives for the next fiscal year:

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The first objective – developing a master plan – included details on its purpose. The intent of the master plan is to: (1) guide AAPAC’s efforts to include public art throughout the city, involve community groups and create substantial visibility for public art as an integral part of community life and a city asset; (2) train commissioners and task force members with the goal of increased community knowledge, engagement and advocacy for public art; and (3) better integrate the public art administrator with every city department with the goal of increasing public art in the city.

By way of background, there has been some confusion in past years regarding AAPAC’s annual plan. In 2010, the plan wasn’t approved by AAPAC until its June meeting. Last year, the plan was approved in late April. However, neither of those plans were forwarded to the city council until June of 2011 – an oversight attributed to the transition following the departure of the previous public art administrator, before Seagraves was hired. [.pdf of FY2012 public art plan][.pdf of FY2011 public art plan]

Previous public art plans have also differed in format. The plans previously have been lists of projects that AAPAC intends to work on, with the name of the commissioner who’s leading each project, but no budget amount indicated.

Some specific projects that were included in the past two plans but have not been completed have dropped off the current plan, and there has been no discussion about them at recent AAPAC meetings. Those past projects include: (1) a possible pilot public art program at bus stops in collaboration with the AATA; (2) possible public art associated with the Manchester elevated water tank painting project scheduled to occur in FY 2013; (3) continued exploration of repairs/replacement of the Sun Dragon sculpture at Fuller Pool; and (4) assisting the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in developing a Hanover Park public art project.

Outcome: The five commissioners at the March 28 meeting reached consensus on the draft, with the understanding that some additional revisions would be made by AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin and distributed via email. [.pdf of final FY2013 annual public art plan]

Plaque, Name for Dreiseitl Sculpture

Wiltrud Simbuerger introduced the topic of a plaque for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall. She wanted the commission to start thinking about what kind of sign to put there – something is needed to indicate what it is, who made it, and how it works, she said.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and Connie Rizzolo Brown at AAPAC's March 28, 2012 meeting.

Bob Miller asked for an update on the sculpture – had all the work been finished? Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that there was still some fine-tuning that needed to be done in the spring. At that point, the water for the sculpture will be turned on.

Theresa Reid said that Dreiseitl should be asked to provide a name for his sculpture.

Commissioners then discussed the need for a larger sign that explains how the design of the entire plaza area and building helps manage the flow of rainwater. There was also some discussion about the need to develop a broader communications strategy, with a consistent design across all projects. Marsha Chamberlin suggested that the work be done by Quinn Evans Architects, which designed the new municipal center – including a renovated city hall, the adjacent new Justice Center building, and the front plaza area.

Commissioners eventually reached a consensus, directing Seagraves to initiate the effort and report back to AAPAC at their April 25 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

Several opportunities arose during the meeting for commissioners and the public art administrator to give updates and raise topics for discussion. There was also an opportunity for public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Public Commentary

Three members of the public attended AAPAC’s March meeting. It was a notable departure from the typical pattern, which is that attendees tend to be high school students fulfilling a class assignment, or people who end up serving as commissioners. (Two new commissioners, Bob Miller and John Kotarski, both attended several AAPAC meetings before being appointed last year.)

Jack Urban, a Kalamazoo County commissioner and chair of the Kalamazoo public arts commission, attended AAPAC's March 28 meeting.

At the start of the meeting, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin asked the visitors to introduce themselves, and commissioners did the same.

Ed Weiss said he was relatively new to town. He’d been reading online publications and had become incensed over some of the commentary he saw – for example, people calling the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall “The Hurinal” (it’s located on Huron Street) and people complaining about funding for public art. He came to the meeting because he was interested in the city’s public art program.

Jack Urban introduced himself as a Kalamazoo County commissioner and chair of the Kalamazoo public arts commission, which was formed in partnership with the county and the cities of Kalamazoo and Portage. The group is trying to get itself restarted, he said. Unlike Ann Arbor, however, the Kalamazoo public art commission does not have a funding source. So the group is looking to establish itself and seek financial support, he said.

Also attending the meeting was Thomas Partridge, who arrived after the time allotted for public commentary. At the end of the meeting, both he and Weiss expressed some frustration that the agenda did not provide for a second public commentary slot at the end of the meeting. Weiss said it would be good to have a chance to provide feedback on the discussions that had taken place during the meeting.

Several commissioners acknowledged the frustration, but contended that this is standard practice for the city’s public meetings. [But in fact, most public meetings for city entitites – including those for the city council, planning commission, park advisory commission, greenbelt advisory commission and others – include public commentary at the start and end of each meeting.]

Comm/Comm: Administrator’s Report

At the start of the March 28 meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – updated commissioners on several projects.

Nominations are being accepted until April 13 for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, which recognize local contributions to public art. [.pdf of nomination form, which can be completed and emailed directly to Seagraves at aseagraves@a2gov.org] Last year’s winners were: (1) Krazy Jim’s Blimpie Burger, for the Snow Bears sculptures they build each winter in front of their business at Packard and South Division; (2) Mary Thiefels and Treetown Murals for the mural outside the Alley Bar along West Liberty; and (3) Peter Allen & Associates, for rock sculptures on North Main Street.

Seagraves also noted that the city council would be voting on approval of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture its their April 2 meeting. AAPAC had recommended approval of the $150,000 work, to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center at Fifth & Huron. [The council subsequently voted to postpone action on that item until its May 7 meeting, expressing an interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion.]

Related to artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First, Seagraves said the city’s purchase of that corner property has been completed. Connie Brown added that a full task force hasn’t yet been selected for that project, but the rain garden probably won’t be installed until the spring of 2013.

Comm/Comm: Allmendinger Mural

The contract with artist Mary Thiefels for a mural in Allmendinger Park is still in review by the city attorney’s office, Seagraves reported. The mural task force has met to discuss soliciting statements of qualifications (SOQs) in order to develop a pool of potential artists for future murals, he said.

Wiltrud Simbuerger, who leads the mural task force, reported that Thiefels had responded to the group’s request to alter her proposal – she submitted a revised project scope and budget, Simbuerger said. [AAPAC had discussed this issue at their January 2012 meeting, when they approved the selection of Thiefels for the project.] Thiefels now plans to work with local schools and incorporate ideas from students into her design, Simbuerger said, adding that this will be a much more powerful community approach.

Comm/Comm: Art Loan Project

Bob Miller said he’s interested in possibly developing a art loan program, which would allow the city to borrow artwork from other municipalities or institutions. It might involve setting up a permanent location to have rotating exhibits, he said.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that cities like Brighton and Canton have similar programs. Aaron Seagraves cited the Midwest Sculpture Initiative as another example.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 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.

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building.

The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for the $150,000 project in the lobby of the city’s Justice Center. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists. It’s a sculpture called “Radius.”

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

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]

Since being hired as city attorney, Stephen Postema has circumvented Ann Arbor’s city charter requirement that written legal opinions be filed with the city clerk (thus making them public) by contending that his written opinions are “advice memos” and thus not opinions. The city responds to requests under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act for the content of such advice memos by asserting attorney-client privilege.

By Ann Arbor’s city charter, however, the city attorney is under the direct supervision of the city council. And the council could have forced Postema to produce a written opinion with the resolution on its April 2 agenda. In the 3-7 vote, the council showed no enthusiasm for exercising its city charter mandate. The resolution got support only from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The resolution was brought forward by Kunselman and co-sponsored by Briere. For additional background, see: “Council Preview: Marijuana, Art, TIF.”

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]

Screen shot excerpt for April 2, 2012 Ann Arbor city council's online agenda. Image links to online agenda.

Medical marijuana is the subject of three different agenda items. The first has previously been postponed twice – at the council’s March 19 and March 5 meetings. It would direct the city attorney to delay enforcement of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, as well as the city’s licensing and zoning ordinances (with one exception), until the city council has acted on possible amendments to the city’s local ordinances on medical marijuana.

Amendments to those ordinances, as recommended by the city’s medical marijuana licensing board at its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting, are covered in two other items on the April 2 agenda. One item includes a series of amendments to the licensing ordinance, which in part help clarify the role of city staff, as compared to the licensing board, in the licensing process. The council will be considering the amendments for the first time at the April 2 meeting. If approved, the amendments would require a second and final approval by the council at a subsequent meeting before taking effect.

The other agenda item regarding the city’s ordinances on medical marijuana is not itself a proposed amendment. Instead, the council resolution would give direction to the city planning commission to review the recommended revision to the zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses. That’s because it’s the purview of the city planning commission to review changes to the zoning code. The planning commission would then forward its recommendation to the city council.

Added to the agenda on Friday were two items that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had announced at the council’s previous meeting, on March 19, that he would be bringing forward. The first is a resolution that would direct the city attorney to prepare a written opinion on the transfer of funds from the street millage fund to the city’s public art fund. It’s a point of contention that has a history going back at least two and a half years. Kunselman’s resolution refers to the context of the fiscal year 2013 budget, which the council will be presented by the city administrator on April 16. The council will need to act on that budget by the end of May.

Another item on the agenda that’s related to public art is the approval of a $150,000 sculpture for the interior of the new municipal center, in the Justice Center building. And finally, the report from the public art commission’s planning retreat, held on Feb. 26, 2012, is attached to the council’s agenda as a communication.

The second item added to the agenda by Kunselman on Friday directs the city staff to analyze the compliance of the Ann Arbor DDA with Chapter 7 of the city’s code, which is the legislation that established the DDA in 1982. Kunselman’s resolution asks for an analysis by Ann Arbor city staff of the DDA’s capture of taxes in its tax increment finance (TIF) district. The DDA is slated on April 9 to present its board-approved FY 2013 budget at a city council working session.

Chapter 7 appears to impose a limit on the amount of TIF capture, based on the rate of growth of property valuation inside the DDA district. Last year, when the relevance of the ordinance was pointed out by city financial staff, the DDA returned over $400,000 to other taxing authorities in the district. The city of Ann Arbor waived its share of over $700,000.

However, the DDA subsequently has contended that the money it reimbursed to other taxing authorities was not required. The DDA claims that Chapter 7 does not impose a limit on TIF capture, but rather addresses how money would be returned to other taxing authorities, if the DDA did not use the money. At stake this year and in future years is several hundred thousand dollars, depending on how the calculations are done. The Ann Arbor District Library, one of the taxing authorities whose taxes are subject to DDA capture, has publicly stated that it has not changed its original legal position – which interprets Chapter 7 as a limit on TIF capture and questions the methodology used by the DDA to calculate the excess.

The April 2 Ann Arbor city council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in city council chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. The meetings are broadcast live on Channel 16 of the Community Television Network. The Channel 16 broadcast is also streamed live on the Internet.

Medical Marijuana

Three different medical marijuana-related items appear on the council’s April 2 agenda.

Medical Marijuana: Background

The Ann Arbor city council enacted two kinds of regulations for medical marijuana businesses last year, at its June 20, 2011 meeting. One piece of legislation established the zoning laws that apply to such businesses – establishing where medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities could be located. The other piece of legislation established a process for granting licenses to medical marijuana dispensaries. Cultivation facilities are not required to be licensed.

Part of the licensing legislation included the establishment of a five-member licensing board. The board began meeting in the fall of 2011. The board was required to review license applications and make recommendations to the city council for any changes in the medical marijuana ordinances by Jan. 31, 2012. The board met on Jan. 31, 2012 and made recommendations to grant licenses to 10 dispensaries, some of them conditionally. The city council has not yet considered the recommended license awards. The board also agreed at its Jan. 31 meeting on recommendations for specific changes to the city’s licensing and zoning ordinances. [.pdf of medical marijuana licensing board report to the city council]

Throughout the license review process, a certain amount of tension has emerged between the licensing board and city attorney’s office. Among other disputed issues is whether the board has purview over the question of whether an application for a license is complete. The city attorney’s office was also pursuing legal action against at least one dispensary, while its licensing application was being considered by the board.

Medical Marijuana: Tension Between Board, City Attorney

That tension between the medical marijuana licensing board and the city attorney’s office was highlighted in a statement sent by members of the board to city councilmembers on March 2, which reads in part: “[The city attorney's office] has been aggressively trying to shut [dispensaries] down while we actively try to license them.” The statement goes on to point out that a representative from the city attorney’s office had been present at all of the board’s meetings and that the board’s recommendations had been reported to the city council. But after that, the city attorney’s office had sent out new letters to all dispensaries requesting them to provide information about how their business operates. [.pdf of entire statement from Ann Arbor's medical marijuana licensing board to the Ann Arbor city council]

Before sending that letter, the city’s medical marijuana licensing board had met on Feb. 28 in response to concerns raised by several dispensary owners, who had received letters dated Feb. 24 from the city attorney’s office. The letters make specific inquiries into several aspects of the business model of dispensaries – in order to assess whether they are in compliance with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. Compliance with the MMMA is a requirement for issuance of a medical marijuana license, and recipients of the letters have license applications pending with the city. Although the legal position of the city attorney appears to be that it’s possible for a dispensary to operate in compliance with the MMMA, no explication of what that model would entail has been set forth publicly.

Among the questions being posed to all dispensaries in the letters is the following: “Does any person or entity deliver marijuana to [Dispensary Name]? If so, does [Dispensary Name] ever pay, donate, or in any way give money to the person or entity who delivers the marijuana or to anyone else? If so, to whom is the money paid, donated, or given and how much?” [.pdf of set of letters]

Medical Marijuana: Agenda Item – Direction to the City Attorney

The resolution on the April 2 agenda directs the city attorney to:

… delay all enforcement activities against medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities except for claims that they violate Section 5:50.1(3) of the City Code [zoning regulations], until the Council amends or rejects amendments to the zoning and licensing ordinances for medical marijuana.

The part of the city code called out for continued enforcement in the resolution [Section 5:50.1(3)] specifies the zones in the city where medical marijuana businesses may be located. From the code: “Medical marijuana dispensaries shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as D, C, or M, or in PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as C, M, RE, or ORL.” [.pdf of Section 5:50.1(3)]

The city council resolution on the April 2 agenda was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the council’s representative to the medical marijuana licensing board.

The council has twice-previously postponed voting on the resolution giving direction to the city attorney. On March 5, the council did not arrive at the agenda item until after midnight, due to lengthy deliberations on the four-party transit agreement. So on that occasion the council opted to postpone until they were mentally fresher. And on March 19, three of 11 members were absent, and the prevailing sentiment on the council was that postponement would be appropriate, in order to allow those three absent members to vote.

At the March 19 meeting, Briere circulated a possible revision to the resolution. The amended text reads in relevant part:

… delay all enforcement of Medical Marijuana Act and the licensing and zoning ordinances against medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities that the Licensing Board had recommended for licensing and that the Licensing Board found to be in operation prior to Aug. 5, 2010, except for claims that they violate Section 5:50.1(3) of the City Code …

So the revised version restricts the topic of the resolution to the 10 dispensaries that the licensing board recommended for licenses, and even further to just those of the 10 that the board found to be in operation prior to Aug. 5, 2010. That was the date when the city council imposed a moratorium on additional dispensaries or cultivation facilities in the city. Of the 10 dispensaries that were recommended for licenses, the Medical Grass Station, on West Liberty, was found to have started operation after the Aug. 5, 2010 moratorium.

The resolution directing the city attorney on enforcement actions ties the duration of the direction to the time at which the council acts on recommendations for amendments to the city’s medical marijuana ordinances. The resolution stipulates that the council act by June 18, 2012.

Medical Marijuana: Agenda Item – Licensing Ordinance Revision

Also appearing on the agenda for the April 2 meeting are revisions to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance suggested by the city’s licensing board. [.pdf of recommended revisions]

The revisions are covered in somewhat more detail in The Chronicle’s coverage of the licensing board’s Jan. 31, 2012 meeting. Representative of the revisions are the following changes, which make explicit that the role of city staff in determining completeness of applications be struck from two places in the ordinance [added language in italics; deleted language with strike-through]:

7:504 (4) Following official confirmation by staff that the applicant has submitted a complete application City Council approval of the issuance of a license, a new license shall not be issued to a medical marijuana dispensary until the applicant for the license complies with all of the following requirements…

7:505. If the applicant has successfully demonstrated compliance with all requirements for issuance of a license within 10 weeks (70 calendar days) after the date of City staff’s official confirmation that the application for a license was complete City Council’s approval of a license, the city administrator or designee shall grant renewal of an existing or issue a new license…

It’s possible that the changes will generate little discussion by councilmembers on April 2, because the changes, even if unanimously approved on April 2, will still need to receive a second and final approval by the council after a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

Medical Marijuana: Agenda Item – Zoning Ordinance Revision

The zoning ordinance revision recommended by the medical marijuana licensing board is not being considered by the city council on April 2. Because zoning is the purview of the city planning commission, the council is considering a resolution directing the city planning commission to review the licensing board’s recommended change.

The one recommended change is to strike the following sentence: “Medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall be operated in compliance with the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marijuana Act).” [.pdf of the recommended zoning ordinance change]

The board’s recommendations on the award of the 10 licenses is not on the April 2 agenda.

Public Art Ordinance

The Ann Arbor city council enacted an ordinance in 2007 that sets forth funding requirements for public art in the city. It stipulates that all capital projects in the city set aside 1% of their budgets for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per capital project.

The nature of the funding mechanism – capital budgets – puts constraints on the type of project that can be funded as public art under the Percent for Art program. For example, the work of art must be permanent. The ordinance has faced criticism based on the fact that it appears to take funds designated and approved by voters or rate payers for one purpose (for example, repairing streets or providing a stormwater system) and to re-appropriate those funds for a different purpose (public art).

Ann Arbor’s city attorney, Stephen Postema, has to date resisted individual requests to produce a legal analysis of the city’s public art ordinance in the form of written opinion, which by city charter must be filed with the city clerk’s office and made public. But because the city attorney is, according to the city charter, under the direct supervision of the city council, he would be required to produce such an opinion if directed to do so by the city council.

That’s the direction that Kunselman’s resolution would give. In relevant part:

RESOLVED, City Council directs the City Attorney to provide a written opinion on the legality of transferring funds from the “street millage” fund to the “public art” fund as proposed in the FY 13 draft budget; and
RESOLVED, The City Attorney shall provide the written opinion to City Council by Monday, April 16, 2012; and
RESOLVED, The City Attorney shall file said written opinion with the Clerk in accordance with the City Charter.

[.pdf of complete resolution on city attorney opinion on public art]

Public Art Ordinance: Timeline

By way of additional background, the public art ordinance has been somewhat controversial since its approval in 2007.

• 33,000 BCE: Dude in cave draws on the wall.
• 2007-Nov-05: City council gives final approval to Percent for Art ordinance. [.pdf of ordinance text as approved on Nov. 5, 2007]
• 2009-Feb-01: At Sunday night council caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expresses concern about the amount of money accumulating in the public art fund. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventures that a Half-Percent for Art Program doesn’t have the same ring as the Percent for Art program.
• 2009-Nov-16: Through an attachment of a communication to the city council’s agenda, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) requests a written opinion from the city attorney on the legal basis of the public art ordinance. See Chronicle coverage: “Getting Smarter About City Charter“
• 2009-Dec-07: At the council’s meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expresses dissatisfaction that no city attorney opinion analyzing the legal basis for the public art program has been made public, and contends that the opinion is required to be made public in accordance with a city charter provision. (The city attorney asserted attorney-client privilege in responding to Kunselman’s Nov. 16, 2009 request.)
• 2009-Dec-07: Ann Arbor city council gives initial approval to a change in the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, reducing the amount allocated from capital project budgets from 1% to 0.5%.
• 2009-Dec-21: Ann Arbor city council decides to reject final approval to reducing the Percent for Art allocation from 1% to 0.5%.
• 2011-May-31: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) proposes a budget amendment directing the city attorney to prepare a revision to the city’s public art ordinance, that would reduce the percentage of all capital projects designated to support public art – from 1% to 0.5%. The amendment fails.
• 2011-Aug-04: Mayor John Hieftje nominates Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) to serve on the public art commission, replacing Jeff Meyers, who resigned in June 2011. Derezinski is the first councilmember appointed to the commission. Hieftje indicates he’d like to review the city’s public art ordinance in September. Hieftje thus heads off council deliberations at that meeting about incorporating restrictions on the use of the city’s street millage for public art. The street millage was approved for the November ballot at the same meeting. The street millage easily passed.
• 2011-Sep-06: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), during communications time, points to a Tuscola County document that assures voters on a potential millage that funds for that millage could not be transfered out of the millage fund to be used for some other purpose. He questions how Ann Arbor’s public art ordinance conforms with that principle.
• 2011-Sep-19: Ann Arbor city council postpones public art ordinance amendements to Nov. 21, 2011. At the meeting, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) challenges Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to bring forward a resolution directing the city attorney to produce a public opinion on the legal basis for the the Percent for Art program. Kunselman indicates it should be a supporter of the program who would bring such a resolution forward.
• 2011-Nov-21: Ann Arbor city council gives initial approval to ordinance revision that would, among other things, reduce the funding level of the Percent for Art program from 1% to 0.5%.
• 2011-Dec-5: Ann Arbor city council votes to maintain funding level at 1%, but does agree to explicitly eliminate the general fund from use in the public art program. Another revision to the Percent for Art ordinance that did survive was an exclusion of sidewalk repair from the definition of capital projects that trigger the Percent for Art ordinance.
• 2012-Mar-19: At the city council’s meeting, during communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announces he’ll be bringing forward a resolution at the next meeting requesting an opinion from the city attorney on the transfer of street millage money to the public art fund.

TIF Capture

Another item added to the agenda on Friday by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) involves an issue that has lingered unresolved for almost a year. Last year, on May 2, 2011, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was set to ratify its side of a new agreement with the city of Ann Arbor under which the DDA would continue to manage the public parking system.

At the May 2 board meeting, however, it was announced that the vote would be postponed, in light of a previously overlooked detail of the ordinance that governs the tax increment finance (TIF) capture inside the DDA district. The ordinance (Chapter 7) appears to indicate a clear limit on the taxes that the DDA can capture from the taxing authorities in its district. The DDA postponed that vote, but eventually ratified the contract and reimbursed taxing authorities in its district for $473,000 in excess TIF that had been captured since 2003. Those taxing authorities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County and Washtenaw Community College. The city of Ann Arbor was due to be reimbursed for $712,000, but the city council waived that amount.

Subsequently, the DDA reversed its legal position and currently claims that Chapter 7 does not indicate a clear limit on its TIF capture.

Before taking a look at what the ordinance says, here is some brief background on how TIF works in general.

TIF Capture: Brief Background

A tax increment finance (TIF) district is a mechanism for “capturing” certain property taxes to be used in a specific geographic district – taxes that would otherwise be received by the entity with the authority to levy the taxes. So in the DDA’s TIF district, the DDA doesn’t levy taxes directly. Rather, a portion of the property taxes that would otherwise be collected by taxing units (like the library, community college and the county) is instead used by the Ann Arbor DDA for improvements within a specific geographic district, covering about 66 city blocks downtown.

What is the portion of the property taxes that is captured by the DDA? The captured tax is only that which applies to the difference between (1) the baseline value of the property when the district was first formed, and (2) the value of the property after new construction or improvements to the property. That difference is the “increment” in “tax increment finance.” Subsequent appreciation of property value due to inflation, after it’s been constructed or improved, is not included in the Ann Arbor DDA’s TIF capture.

TIF Capture: What the Ordinance Says

Chapter 7 of the city of Ann Arbor’s city code lays out how the tax capture of the Ann Arbor DDA is limited, or capped. The mechanism used to cap the amount of tax that can be captured by the Ann Arbor DDA is the projected value of the increment in the TIF district, as laid out in the TIF plan – a required document under the state enabling legislation for DDAs (Act 197 of 1975). From Chapter 7 [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]

The TIF plan includes a table that lays out the projected valuation of the increment in the district, starting in 2003. The table includes three scenarios for the projected valuation: “realistic,” “optimistic” and “pessimistic.” They’re each based on a constant percentage increase each year. So the three different scenarios are generated from three different estimates of the percentage increase each year. [.pdf of DDA TIF plan appendix]

TIF Capture: What Kunselman’s Resolution Says

Kunselman’s resolution does not acknowledge the DDA’s current legal position that Chapter 7 is inapplicable, but implicitly challenges that position by assuming Chapter 7 is applicable and asking for an analysis of the calculations. Among the issues that factor into the calculation are: (1) Does Chapter 7 involve real property only, or does it include personal property? (2) Which set of projections in the DDA TIF plan should be the baseline for the Chapter 7 calculation – the optimistic, pessimistic or realistic projections? (3) For Chapter 7 purposes, should the rate of increase be calculated year-to-year or cumulatively?

Depending on how the calculations are done, it could result in the DDA capturing several hundred thousand dollars less taxes each year in the future. For a look at the tax arithmetic, see previous Chronicle op-eds: “Column: Tax Capture Is a Varsity Sport” and “Column: Taxing Math Needs a Closer Look.”

In relevant part, here’s what Kunselman’s resolution says [.pdf of complete resolution on TIF capture]:

RESOLVED, Council directs city staff to review, analyze, and report on the compliance of the DDA provided TIF calculation and capture amount for the FY13 budget in accordance with the DDA development and financing plan, State law, and local ordinance; and
RESOLVED, city staff shall provide to Council an example of a TIF calculation and capture amount using the same methodology that resulted in the return of excess TIF funds to the taxing authorities in 2011 by the DDA; and
RESOLVED, city staff shall provide the example TIF calculation and capture amount and the report on the compliance of the DDA TIF calculation and capture amount in accordance with the DDA development and financing plan, State law, and local ordinance to Council by Monday, April 9th.

TIF Capture: Timeline Overview of Excess TIF Issue

• 2011-Apr-28: City of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford steps in as interim city administrator in the wake of Roger Fraser’s departure.
• 2011-Apr-29: City financial staff notice the implications for TIF capture that are written into the city’s 1982 ordinance which established the DDA. The timing of the discovery was reported by mayor John Hieftje at the DDA board’s May 2 meeting. In summary strokes, the ordinance provides that if the rate of growth in taxable value is more than twice what was anticipated in the TIF plan, then the DDA would capture only half of the increment on that additional value.
• 2011-May-02 (noon): The Ann Arbor DDA board was expected to ratify its side of the contract with the city of Ann Arbor under which it would continue management of the city’s parking system. Instead, it was announced that the board would be tabling the vote on the parking contract pending a closer review of the excess TIF capture issue.
• 2011-May-02 (7 p.m.): Ann Arbor city council strikes the city-DDA parking contract approval from its agenda.
• 2011-May-16: Ann Arbor city council begins its second meeting in May, at which it must approve the FY 2012 budget. The council does not vote on the budget, but recesses the meeting until May 23.
• 2011-May-20: At a special meeting, the Ann Arbor DDA board approves a parking contract with the city of Ann Arbor that provides 17% of gross parking revenue to the city of Ann Arbor. The approved contract includes a provision that the city of Ann Arbor will backstop the DDA’s financial position if the DDA’s fund balance falls below $1 million.
• 2011-May-20: At the same meeting, the Ann Arbor DDA board votes to affirm the excess TIF calculations raised at the May 2 meeting. The DDA calculates that a total of $1,185,132 should be returned to taxing authorities that levy property taxes in the downtown district. The city of Ann Arbor’s share of that is $711,767, with the remaining money owed to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County and Washtenaw Community College. The method of calculation is “year-to-year” not cumulative, and is based on the “optimistic” projections in the DDA’s TIF plan.
• 2011-May-23: City council convenes the continuation of its May 16 meeting, but immediately recesses, likely in order to prevent any discussion of a proposal from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to return responsibility for the public parking system from the DDA to the city of Ann Arbor’s public services area.
• 2011-May-25: “Mutually beneficial” committees from the city council and the DDA board meet and finalize language on fund balance underwriting and required consultation with the city council on rate changes in the proposed parking agreement.
• 2011-May-31: Ann Arbor city council votes to waive the $711,767 in excess TIF capture that the DDA calculated it owed to the city of Ann Arbor.
• 2011-May-31: At the same meeting, the Ann Arbor city council ratifies the city-DDA parking contract, which provides 17% of gross parking revenue to the city of Ann Arbor. The approved contract includes a provision that the city will backstop the DDA’s financial position if the DDA’s combined fund balance falls below $1 million.
• 2011-Jul-27: At a special meeting, the DDA convenes in closed session and emerges to approve a resolution that reverses its previous position on excess TIF capture. Now the DDA contends that the local ordinance doesn’t actually place a limit on its TIF capture.
• 2011-Aug-15: Ann Arbor District Library board holds closed session as part of its regular meeting to review the written legal opinion of its legal counsel with respect to the excess TIF capture. AADL board director Josie Parker indicates that the AADL will ask its legal counsel, Hooper Hathaway, to prepare a response to the DDA’s new position on the interpretation of the ordinance.
• 2011-Nov-02: Ann Arbor DDA holds a closed session to review the written opinion of its legal counsel on the issue of excess TIF capture.
• 2011-Dec-07: Ann Arbor DDA holds a closed session to review the written opinion of its legal counsel on the issue of excess TIF capture.
• 2012-Mar-19: Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker tells The Chronicle that AADL is not pressing the matter of the excess TIF, but is open to a conversation with the DDA.
• 2012-Mar-19: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announces he’ll be bringing forward a resolution to address the issue of excess TIF capture. Kunselman has not consulted with AADL on the issue.
• 2012-Mar-21: During a budget update at the Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting, the $348,000 received by Washtenaw County from the DDA in TIF reimbursement is presented as one of several factors contributing to the better-than-expected financial condition for the county.

April 2, 2012 Council Meeting

The Ann Arbor city council’s agenda includes a range of other business items as well. Each agenda is published online on the Wednesday before the council’s Monday meetings, using the city’s Legistar system.

The April 2 council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in city council chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. The meetings are broadcast live on Channel 16 of the Community Television Network. The Channel 16 broadcast is also streamed live on the Internet.

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!