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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commissioner Appointments

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

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

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

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

Justice Center Artwork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his proposal, Carpenter wrote:

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

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

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

Justice Center Artwork: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connie Brown thanked the task force members for their work.

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

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park: Commission Discussion

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

Image depicting Mary Thiefels' mural proposal at Allmendinger Park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artwork for East Stadium Bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Planning

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

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

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

No date has yet been announced for the upcoming retreat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Cathy Gendron.

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

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

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

Also at the Jan. 25 meeting, the art commission voted to recommend the selection of Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park. A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Her proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. The task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural on the middle sections of the pillars.

Commissioners liked the concept of “found object” mosaics, but questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient. They ultimately voted to approve recommending Thiefels for the project, contingent on asking her to submit a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force.

This report was filed from the second floor city council workroom at city hall, at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Updates

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

Project Updates: Justice Center Lobby

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

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

Project Updates: Dreiseitl Sculpture

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

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

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

Project Updates: Allmendinger Mural

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

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

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

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

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

Project Updates: Huron River Artwalk

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

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

Project Updates: Village Green

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

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

Project Updates: Street Art

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

Administrative Funding for Public Art

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

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

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

Annual Planning

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

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

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

The timeline drafted by Seagraves begins in January:

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

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

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin.

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

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

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

Annual Planning: Projects, Programs and Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Derezinski, who serves on AAPAC and city council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donation of Gates

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

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Elaine Sims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parker’s Resignation

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

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

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

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

Absent: Cathy Gendron, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig.

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

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

Before the Nov. 21 meeting, former councilmember Leslie Morris (left) might be reminding Jane Lumm (Ward 2) which ward Lumm represents on the Ann Arbor city council. (Photos by the writer.)

In the end, the council gave initial approval to an ordinance amendment that would temporarily reduce the required allocation to public art from city capital improvement projects – from 1% to 0.5% for a period of three years. After three years, the percentage would automatically revert to 1%. Of the various amendments to the ordinance, the percentage of the required allocation was the focus of the most controversy during council deliberations. A bid by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to lower the percentage further to 0.25% gained little support.

Other art ordinance amendments given the council’s initial approval include a requirement that public art money be returned to its fund of origin after three years, if not encumbered by a specific art project. The amendment also included a definitional change that effectively excludes sidewalk repair from the public art ordinance. The amendments also addressed the general fund, making explicit the exclusion of general fund projects from the public art ordinance.

During deliberations, city staff confirmed that at least a portion of the public art allocation required from the new municipal building (aka the police/courts building) could be associated with the general fund – about $50,000 out of the $250,000. [This is for art in the interior of the building, and is separate from the outdoor fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl.]

As part of her Ward 2 election campaign, Jane Lumm had argued that general fund dollars were connected to supporting public art at the new municipal building – an idea that had been, until Monday’s meeting, poo-pooed by some councilmembers, including mayor John Hieftje, who had said no general fund money had been used for the public art program.

Lumm was active in her first council meeting since serving in the 1990s. During deliberations on a revision to the ordinance on the city’s greenbelt boundaries, she prompted extended discussion on the part of the revision dealing with the boundary expansion. A less controversial part of the proposed revision involved allowing parcels adjacent to the boundary to be eligible for protection. In the end, the council gave initial approval to both parts of the greenbelt boundary change.

Also related to land use were two site plans on the agenda. The council gave initial approval to altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion. And the council signed off on the site plan, as well as the brownfield plan, for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

Because the content of a proposed revision to the city’s littering and handbill law was not available to the public until late in the day Monday, just before the council met, the council postponed its consideration of that item. The ordinance amendment would allow residents to prevent delivery of unwanted newspapers to their homes by posting a notice on their front doors.

In other business, the council expressed its opposition to a bill pending in the Michigan legislature that would nullify an Ann Arbor ordinance on non-discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status. At the meeting, the council also authorized acceptance of several grants for the 15th District Court for programs on domestic violence and substance abuse.

In routine business for the first council meeting after newly elected councilmembers take office, the council elected Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as mayor pro tem. Committee appointments and rule changes were postponed until Dec. 5.

Public Art Ordinance Amendment

The council was asked to give initial approval to a revision to the city’s public art ordinance that temporarily reduces the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. Currently, the city has a law –enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project.

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

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

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

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

As with all changes to city ordinances, the amendments to the public art ordinance will need a second approval from the council, following a public hearing. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Art: Public Commentary

Brenda Oelbaum introduced herself as vice president of the Midwest Region of the Women’s Caucus for Art. She lives in Ward 2. Since moving to Ann Arbor 16 years ago, she contended that she’s seen a drop in support for the arts – except for 2007, when the percent for art ordinance was passed. She contended that the Ann Arbor Art Center has shrunk and that the annual art fairs are turning into dusty wastelands. Fairy doors, pig skins, and bike racks are not really public art, she said, while she’s heard that FestiFools is not going to be funded by the University of Michigan in the future. She stated that the city’s public art ordinance is the only way we can incorporate art into our lives.

Oelbaum told councilmembers they are being shortsighted by reducing the funding and requiring that the money be spent within a certain period of time. Art takes time, money and consideration. She described the Women’s Caucus for Art as a 40-year-old organization with 1,700 members. A group from that organization had recently taken a day-long tour of art in Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis. On the trip, she said, some of the women were lying on the ground taking rubbings of manhole covers. Art does a lot for the city’s standing in the state and the United States, she said. All you have to do is look at the Grand Rapids ArtPrize competition, she said.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, and a Democratic candidate for the state senate in 2010. He spoke to his usual themes of ending illegal forms of discrimination and providing affordable housing, transportation and education. He called on the council to stop funding unnecessary projects and called the Dreiseitl sculpture, funded with public art money, a “junkyard object.”

During the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge criticized the council for taking so much time to discuss public art, instead of giving priority to issues affecting seniors and disabled people.

Margaret Erickson introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor. She told the council she partakes in a variety of cultural events. One reason she chose to live in Ann Arbor 20 years ago was Ann Arbor’s accessible, rich cultural life. Works of public art provide a vital social fabric, she said, which allows us to see ourselves as a diverse culture. She told the council it’s easy to eliminate things that seem trivial, but Ann Arbor’s public art is a way of making the town beautiful. It also reinforces Ann Arbor’s connected community.

Margaret Parker said she’d served on Ann Arbor’s public art commission since 2004. [Although the public art ordinance was enacted in 2007, the city had a Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP) before that time. The advisory group is now called the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC).]

Parker thanked the council for its support in the past. She recounted how $80,000 in private donations had been raised for public art for the parking structure at Washington & Fourth. The money had been raised by one volunteer. For the painted water tower on Plymouth Road, she said, $30,000 in private donations had been raised – by her. She had made the rounds to the same people who had donated to the parking structure and she’d heard the question: Why didn’t the city water fund pay for the water tower art?

Potential donors saw a disconnect between private funding and public benefit, she said. The city of Ann Arbor doesn’t have a revolving door of fresh donors like the University of Michigan does for the kind of art it has installed on its north campus. Funding for public art doesn’t raise the cost of any project, she contended. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has adopted the percent for art program, as has the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, she stated. She contended that the program is accepted as legal and has been used across the United States. She pointed to the one completed major project [the Dreiseitl water sculpture] and a smaller one in West Park. Six  more projects are in the works, she said. The commission also has plans to improve its procedures.

Wiltrud Simbuerger told the council that since she became a member of AAPAC this year, the feedback from the community has been positive. The desire and support for public art is there, she said. Criticism is based on the unspent money and speed at which art is created. She told the council that she is now responsible for the mural program. [Jeff Meyers, who had initiated the project, resigned from AAPAC in part due to frustration about the obstacles he encountered internal to the city in getting the project implemented.] She described the timeframe for creating a mural, which includes selecting possible sites and meeting with constituents in the neighborhood, she said. A letter of invitation has been sent out to mural artists and AAPAC will now select from a pool of artists.

Simbuerger allowed that the process could be improved structurally and there might be a point for some of the ordinance revisions the council was considering. But she encouraged the council to balance those changes with the needs of the program. She asked the council to increase city staff support for AAPAC and to empower the staff. It needs to be a staff-driven process, she said. Public art requires long-term commitment and persistence, so the focus should not just be on cutting the budget, but on making structural improvements to the process.

Connie Brown introduced herself as a long-time resident, business owner and AAPAC commissioner. She said she’s seen the positive role that public art can play in the community. She highlighted some of the things that AAPAC is doing. Currently, the commission is working on an interior piece for the lobby of the new municipal building. Proposals will be reviewed in December, she said. A statement of qualifications (SOQ) is ready for the Fuller Road Station project, but is not yet issued. When the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor are ready to move ahead with that project, it will be sent out. Several projects are in the phase of task force work, she said – notably, public art for the bypass around Argo Dam and the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project.

Jan Barney Newman told the council she’d spoken to them once before when they were considering the ordinance. She’d addressed the council after she had been to Toledo to see an outdoor art exhibit – many people drove down from Ann Arbor just to see it. She noted that for the municipal center plaza, the city didn’t purchase “off the shelf” by buying an existing sculpture, but commissioned a thematically appropriate work. She drew a laugh from the audience as she struggled with the pronunciation of Dreiseitl, the name of the German artist who designed the fountain, rendering it as something that sounded frozen: drei-cicle.

Mark Tucker was dressed in a colorful outfit and said he was there to represent “art itself.” [Later in the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by saying that the issue was not art itself, but rather the funding mechanism for public art.]

Margaret Parker and Mark Tucker before the Nov. 21 city council meeting started.

Tucker quoted the founder of the Heidelberg Project, Tyree Guyton, who responded when asked why he painted large polka dots on houses, “Why do you paint your house beige?” The conversation about public art always goes in the direction of cut, cut, cut, he said. Tucker does not think 1% for art is enough, and suggested the council think about 2%. He indicated that a “Miss 2%” would be appearing to show them what 2% for art looked like and asked that someone open the side door to the council chambers. When no one appeared, he said that he, for one, had wanted to see what 2% for art looked like.

Saying he was willing to demonstrate what 0.5% would look like, Tucker untied his necktie, indicating the demonstration would entail partially disrobing. He said it would be embarrassing for him and not pleasant for councilmembers. He asked councilmembers to consider what 0.25% or 0.125% would look like – saying that they all knew what zero percent looks like. He concluded that 1% percent is not too much to ask, to keep ourselves from being beige.

Elaine Sims, another AAPAC member, told the council she was glad didn’t have to follow anything that may have happened with Tucker’s demonstration. She said that in her day job, she also worked with art, as director of the University of Michigan Health System’s Gifts of Art program. She characterized the University of Michigan as a “small town” itself. She said she continuously gets calls from health care organizations across the country about the UM program.

Sims assured the council that the program did not happen overnight – it’s 25 years old. But it began as 3-year pilot program, she said. She gave the council some perspective on how long it takes to complete a commissioned piece of art, noting that she is a full-time staff member and that she has staff who report to her. Even with that level of staff support, she said, it takes a minimum of two years, more often than not three years from start to finish. She said that commissioners on AAPAC serve a staff function and that only recently has Aaron Seagraves been brought on board as public art administrator.

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

Art: Council Deliberations – Introduction

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by noting that the council would see a different proposal from what they considered in September, but then postponed at the Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. Briere summarized the key features of the Nov. 21 proposal:

1. Routine repair of sidewalks would not be considered capital improvements, thus not trigger the requirement that 1% of those project budgets be set aside for public art.
2. The percentage required to be allocated to public art would be dropped from 1% to 0.5% for the next three years; after that time it would automatically revert to 1%.
3. After July 1, 2012, general fund money would no longer be eligible for inclusion in public art.
4. Funds that are pooled for public art would have three years to be allocated (not necessarily spent), otherwise that money would revert to the fund of origin.

By way of background, the key difference between the Nov. 21 proposal as compared to the Sept. 19 proposal was a political horse trade: a prohibition against using the street millage fund for public art was removed, in exchange for a reduction in the percentage from 1% to 0.5%.

Briere then implicitly refuted remarks made by Mark Tucker during public commentary, during which he stated that he was there to represent art itself. Briere said she wanted to make certain the council’s discussion separated out the funding issue from the love of art or public art. The discussion is about an effort to fund art, not public art itself, she said. She went on to say that public art is something many people embrace and endorse, but believe there are different ways to fund it. The city’s percent for art ordinance is a specific mechanism, she said.

Over the last four years, Briere said, enthusiasm for the program has lessened. A large number of capital improvement projects have been undertaken, she said, and people are a little surprised at the amount of dollars that has accumulated. Working with such large amounts is amazingly difficult for people to contemplate. AAPAC has had a difficult time getting organized, and has a lot on its plate, Briere said, and it took a long time for bylaws and policies and procedures to get developed.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s 0.25%

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated Briere’s point that the issue is not about public art. She took a different view of the trajectory of support for art in the community [from one of the public speakers]. She said she’d spent 10 years on the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair board and a number of years hanging out at the Ann Arbor Art Center. If it were not for community support, it would struggle. Alluding to Mark Tucker’s remarks during public commentary, Lumm said that an Ann Arbor art fair had actually brought some works from the Heidelberg Project works to Ann Arbor.

Lumm said it’s about the funding of art – private or public. She allowed that 1% doesn’t sound like a lot, but so far, over $2 million has been set aside for public art. Reducing the percentage from 1% to 0.25% would reduce the dollar amount per year set aside for art from around $450,000 to around $100,000. She said she still did not not agree with the idea of earmarking capital dollars for public art, but that $100,000 would be acceptable.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) responded to Lumm by saying: “You can’t have it both ways.” People say they want to have something but then don’t want to fund it, he said. He drew an analogy to the U.S. wars in Iraq or Vietnam. Derezinski noted that it’s the third time the council has wrestled with the issue. The community has been through some tough times, but “We’ve hung in there with 1%,” he said. He characterized the views that the council had heard as an “outpouring” of support for the public art program from the community. He said he could not go along with the idea of people saying they are for something but against funding it. Tough times, he said, bring out what the community is about. Ann Arbor is known for public art, he contended, so he was not in favor of decreasing the amount to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s remarks, saying that it’s disingenuous to say you support something, but then not pay for it. If the council tempered its support, Teall said, it would send a message to private funders. She said she would not support a reduction to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took on the rhetorical gambit of Derezinski and Teall criticizing those who say they support something but won’t pay for it, by asking: “How often have my colleagues said, ‘We support public safety!’ but yet we’ve cut it?” The remark elicited a few cheers from the audience. Kunselman pointed to the $2.2 million that’s been transfered to public art and noted that much of it is still sitting there. He noted the council has made changes in other programs and services.

Kunselman pointed out that even though there was support from the public commentary podium for the public art ordinance, four of those who spoke are AAPAC commissioners. So, taking Teall’s label of “disingenuous,” Kunselman said it’s disingenuous to call that an outpouring of community support, as Derezinski had. Kunselman said during tough economic times, there’s too much money spent on art. He also questioned the legality of taking millage money that hasn’t been sanctioned at the state level or by the courts. He noted the absence of a written opinion from the city attorney’s office on the legal basis of the city’s ordinance. So he said he’d support the amendment.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’d heard the concerns about the amount of money the ordinance was generating. He agreed with Kunselman’s position that the council needed a written legal opinion from the city attorney. He said he was eager for a written opinion and said that the council should take a vote on that very soon. [Kunselman has taken the position that it should be up to the supporters of the public art ordinance to bring forward a resolution to direct the city attorney to produce an opinion.]

Anglin spoke about the role of art in defining what Ann Arbor is, saying that Ann Arbor is a unique little town. He noted that the discussion had centered on the visual arts, not the performing arts. He ventured that public art funding could eventually be expanded to include performing arts. He said he wanted to keep the 1%. People had been “shaken” by the process for creating the Dreiseitl sculpture, Anglin said. He found the whole procedure “jarring” – apparently because of the selection of a German artist for the commission. He seemed to indicate that the selection of Michigan workers for fabrication who could do good “metal work” was not entirely satisfactory.

In her next speaking turn, Teall picked up on Anglin’s reference to metal work, in order to clarify that the Dreiseitl piece is not simply a metal sculpture, saying that Herbert Dreiseitl is a “water and sculpture engineer.” She described the fountain as part of the stormwater system of the building, and said that it was fabricated using Michigan workers. It was not totally farmed out, she said.

In support of his position, Derezinski followed up with a description of an editorial that had been published in the Detroit Free Press [The column mentioned by Derezinski was by Ron Dzwonkowski: "Forget Taxes and Regulations, Michigan Must Build It so They'll Come"] Derezinski noted that Dzwonkowski’s column highlighted a book, “The Economics of Place,” which was published by the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League. From the column:

The book lays out eight assets that are critical to quality of place today, some reflecting a generational shift away from suburban living – suburbs are today the fastest-aging segment of the American demographic – and others reflect the relentless advance of technology.

They are walkability, green initiatives, a healthy arts/culture scene, a climate for entrepreneurs, multiculturalism, constant connectivity, effective public transit and educational institutions that serve as community anchors.

So is it any wonder that Ann Arbor weathered the Great Recession better than the rest of Michigan? Doesn’t it make sense that Grand Rapids has embraced the annual ArtPrize competition? Isn’t there a lot of promise in Detroit’s burgeoning Midtown?

[In contrast to Ann Arbor's public art program, Grand Rapids' ArtPrize competition is funded through private support. It's now a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. See Chronicle coverage of the first year of ArtPrize: "In Search of Ann Arbor Artists: A Sojourn"]

Briere sought to steer the conversation back to Lumm’s proposed amendment from 0.5% down to 0.25%. Briere said it’s hard to say how much is enough support for art. She noted that she didn’t vote for the original ordinance, because she wasn’t on the city council at the time. She would have voted for it, she said. She had voted to reduce the percentage when the council considered its budget this year. She’d also supported the reduction when Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had brought forward a proposal in 2009 to reduce the percentage. There’s clearly an interest among some councilmembers to reduce the percentage, Briere said.

Briere said when she looked at other communities to learn more about how public art was funded, she learned that other communities restrict how you spend it, and where it comes from. Aside from the percentage, Ann Arbor’s ordinance doesn’t provide guidance that is helpful, she said. She’d asked to receive AAPAC’s guidelines and bylaws, but still hasn’t seen them. It would be helpful to see that information before the second vote on the ordinance, she said.

Alluding to Lumm’s estimate of how much the 0.25% would generate a year, Briere said she didn’t think that $100,000 a year is enough to buy art. She didn’t think you can acquire qualified, healthy, significant art for that much, so she wouldn’t support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) found themselves voting together as a two-person block on more than one occasion at the Nov. 21 meeting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began by noting sarcastically that he’d spent a lot of time reviewing all the 0.25% for art programs in the country – it didn’t take a lot of time because there weren’t that many. He said there’s a strong consensus for support for public art and some funding at some amount. In thinking about the appropriate amount that should be set aside for art, he cited a 1927 Department of the Post Office building in Washington D.C. for which 2% was set aside for art, and a National Archives building with a construction budget that allocated 4% for art. He continued by citing a federal general services administration policy in the 1950s of setting aside 1.5% for art, followed by city ordinances enacted in Philadelphia, then by the states of Hawaii and Washington in the early 1970s.

The 1% number offers a simple way to understand it, he said, that is sufficient to drive a large enough scale. He invited people to engage in a thought experiment. If your house burned down and the budget for rebuilding it is $100,000, the corresponding art budget of $250 (corresponding to Lumm’s 0.25%) doesn’t seem like a lot. Hohnke said that to him, 1% feels closer to the right amount, so he would not support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that she had twice before supported a reduction in funding. She said she thought it would be prudent to do that now – when things are financially tight. Using Hohnke’s analogy of a house, she said when she needed a new roof, she’s not looking to put a new carpet down too. She said that deciding the amount is a little premature, before deciding whether the program even continues. She said she would not support the reduction from 1% to 0.5%, because it’s muddying the waters.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The council rejected the amendment to drop funding to 0.25%, on the proposal cutting public art funding from 1% to 0.5% – only Lumm and Kunselman supported the amendment.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s Conscious Restoration

A second amendment to the proposal the council was considering also came from Jane Lumm (Ward 2). As proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the ordinance revision would automatically revert the percentage to 1% after three years. Lumm wanted to tweak that so that a conscious action of the council would be required in order to bring the percentage back up to 1%.

Mayor John Hieftje said he had been reassured by the provision of an automatic return to 1%. He was willing to advance the proposal to a second reading if the 1% were restored after three years. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the automatic restoration of the 1% level a useful tool for legislation like this.

Briere said that in her mind, the restoration of the funding level to 1% after three years went hand-in-hand with the other provision that would revert money to its fund of origin if it was not spent after three years. It’s easy to forget that something is going to happen. If in three years, funds have to be reverted to their funds of origin, she said, the council would hear from AAPAC about it. “That’s our trigger,” she said. Restoring the funding automatically after three years, Briere said, made sense to her.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) expressed agreement with Briere, adding that one reason it’s hard to keep track of things regarding the public art program is that there is not a full-time city staff member to keep track of it.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was looking forward to the discussion about what level of funding is appropriate. He said he would feel more comfortable with the reduction to 0.5% if there were the “backstop” of automatic restoration – although he was clear that he felt 1% is the right amount of funding for public art.

Outcome on Lumm’s proposed elimination of automatic restoration after three years: The council rejected the amendment on the proposal that made any restoration of funding from 0.5% back to 1% contingent on city council action. Only Lumm and Kunselman supported it.

Art: Council Deliberations – General Fund

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) contrasted the fact of the deep importance of art to the community and the fact that money is tight. AAPAC has done yeoman’s work with insufficient resources, he said. But he pointed to the art fund as “flush” – there’s more money in it than AAPAC can process, given their resources, he said.

Taylor felt the situation calls for a practical, not a pure solution. There’s more money than we know what to do with – so the practical solution is to be in favor of the reduction to 0.5%, he said. This would reduce the pipeline, but also increase the outflow, and he anticipated the time at which the “pig in the python” comes through. Taylor allowed that he was borrowing a metaphor from another debate. [The allusion was to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority's expected bond payments on the underground parking garage.] Taylor said he would support the proposed temporary reduction on its first reading, stressing it’s particularly important that the council address the issue in measured fashion.

In his remarks, Taylor alluded to the position that some councilmembers have taken on the possible connection between public art and public safety, which essentially is this: The absence of the general fund in any of the city’s accounting for public art translates to a factual matter that the city’s public safety services, paid for from the general fund, are not impacted by the public art ordinance.

Mayor John Hieftje picked up on Taylor’s remarks about the general fund, saying that none of the data presented to the council had ever shown general fund money spent on public art.

Later during deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked public services area administrator Sue McCormick to approach the podium to lay out in more detail what the connection of the general fund money is, as well as other funds, to public art. Teall was prompted to ask McCormick to the podium, when Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated the piece of her successful election campaign that asserted a specific connection between the general fund and the funding of a particular art project – the interior pieces that are being commissioned for the new municipal center.

Lumm said noted that there’s a $250,000 contribution from the municipal building fund, which itself was created out of general fund dollars. Based on that, she said, “I see general fund dollars in this.”

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying that he’d asked CFO Tom Crawford to look at the situation.

It was at that point that Teall asked McCormick to give some clarity to the general fund issue, and also asked her to explain why spending public art money is tied to its fund of origin. McCormick took the second part of Teall’s question first. She explained that it’s because there’s a restriction on uses of those funds – they have to be used for the benefit of the fund’s purpose, or serve the purpose of the fund. Included in the qualifying uses, said McCormick, are those that serve the educational purpose of the fund. It has to be a capital project, she said, with an expected lifetime of at least a year, and must cost at least $5,000.

As for the general fund, said McCormick, on its face, no general fund dollars are used for public art. But she said Crawford had been asked how the municipal building fund was set up. Before continuing, she clarified that once the money goes into a fund like that, there’s not continued monitoring of the relationship between the dollars as they’re spent and where they came from. The municipal building fund had hit the $250,000 public art ordinance cap, so in order to connect that $250,000 to some fund of origin, it would need to be apportioned out – which is not an analysis the city would ordinarily do, she said.

But McCormick concluded by saying that $50,000 out of the $250,000 could be associated with the general fund. She concluded that it was possible to construe that relationship to the general fund. Currently, she said, $40,000 out of the $250,000 has been spent, and the project for the lobby is expected to cost $160,000, for a total of $200,000.

Hieftje called McCormick’s description “reasonable.”

Art: Council Deliberations – Teall’s Shortened Time Period

Margie Teall (Ward 4) offered an amendment to the proposal before the council. Teall’s amendment would shorten the period of the temporary reduction (from 1% to 0.5%) to just two years. After two years, it could be reviewed to see where the need is, she said. She rejected the phrasing of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) earlier in the deliberations to the effect that AAPAC has more money than it knows what to do with – she said she thinks the public art commission knows what to do with it. Commissioners’ challenge is to go through all the steps without administrative support. A reduction of two years is “fairer,” she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described Teall’s amendment as making something that is bad less bad. This kind of reduction sends a signal about the stability of the funding. He agreed with returning the funding amount in a quicker time.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reiterated the same objection she’d made to an earlier amendment, saying that to her, the amendment muddies the waters. She said that before the second reading of the ordinance, she wanted to see the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for two years and three years, and at different percentages. Then it would be possible to know what real dollars they’re talking about, she said. Right now, Smith added, “We’re shooting in the dark.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith’s suggestion to get additional information, but noted that currently the ordinance is yielding $450,000 a year, and to date only around $860,000 has been spent. There’s quite a bit of capital sitting there, she said. A reduction for three years is not unreasonable, she said.

Outcome on Teall’s amendment shortening the period of reduced funding: The council rejected the amendment, which would have shortened the period of reduced funding from three years to two years. Voting for it were Derezinski, Teall and Hohnke.

Art: Council Deliberations – Council Extension of Deadline

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that dealt with the proposal to require that unallocated money set aside for public art be returned to its fund of origin, if not assigned to some specific art project after three years. Derezinski wanted to allow for the city council to extend past the three-year deadline for up to two years on a case-by-case basis.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not in favor of Derezinski’s proposed amendment. Some back-and-forth unfolded between Higgins and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) about the status of funds that have already accumulated in the public art fund. Briere said that her proposal had been “clumsily drafted,” and was intended to be forward-looking not backward. That is to say, the three-year sunset would not apply to existing funds that had already accumulated.

After a recess of the council meeting, Briere came back with revised language to make the timing clear, as well as the status of the funds – they didn’t need to be spent, just “encumbered.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned the intent of the language. Briere told her the idea was to look forward, not back.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) questioned the need for language giving the council the authority to extend the timeframe by two years. Can’t the council simply grant the extension, if that’s its desire? Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias clarified that the council can’t change an ordinance by resolution. So the ordinance language itself provides the option for the council to extend the deadline by passing a resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated a preference for a series of 6-12 month extensions instead of two years. Councilmembers seemed concerned about dealing with a situation where a project was in the works, but delayed, so that the public art money would not be spent within three years, as required under the proposal. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would support Derezinski’s amendment if it were restricted to up to two years. Derezinski indicated this was, in fact, his intent. Hieftje chimed in that his own method wouldn’t have put a maximum timeframe.

Higgins drew an analogy to the purchase option agreement made with Village Green for the First and Washington parcel – the purchase option was extended by the council several times. She said she was in favor of allowing up to two years, then at the two-year mark, an extension should be considered in six-month increments.

Briere declared that she was confused: If a public art project were proposed and in the works, that would encumber the money. And the sunset clause makes explicit reference to that. If a project is ongoing but delayed, it doesn’t need to come back to the council, because the project is ongoing and has encumbered the funds, she said.

Higgins wanted to know what would happen if funds were encumbered for three years, but then the project fell through. Elias characterized it more as a finance issue. She ventured that she could take a look at the accounting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted some clarity on how funds might come to be encumbered – is that a legal or a financial question? He suggested that the encumbrance comes close to the end when contractors come into the picture and exact costs are calculated.

After some back and forth, councilmembers then settled on a series of six-month extensions that the council would be able to grant. In relevant part, the revised ordinance as eventually given initial approval by the council read:

(4) Funds for public art that are placed in a pooled public art fund after July 1, 2012 that have not been disbursed or encumbered for an art project for three (3) full fiscal years shall be returned to the fund of origination, provided that Council may extend the foregoing period by resolution for successive periods, each not to exceed six (6) months.

Outcome on Derezinski’s amendment to allow city council extension of the time period by which funds must be encumbered: The council approved the amendment, with dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

Art: Council Deliberations – Eliminate Reduction

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) allowed that many of the changes in the proposal to amend the percent for art ordinance were helpful. He wanted, however, to have a discussion on the percent. He proposed an amendment to the proposal that would eliminate the reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the Nov. 21 council meeting started.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t support that. He acknowledged that there was some desire to support art, but noted that it’s not the “one percent for art fund,” but rather it’s the “percent for art fund.”

Spending the funds will be hard, Kunselman said, because there’s no guidance. You have to go back to the city attorney’s office to find out if a specific project can be funded – he noted he’d brought this issue up many times. The city can’t have a program run on verbal assertions, he said. He wondered what the public art fund could be used for: Performance art? Pavement decorations? Manhole covers? He’d like to see decorative art light fixtures installed up in the Oxford neighborhood, where students have expressed concerns about safety.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stated that he assumed Ann Arbor wants to be an art center for the state of Michigan. So it’s important to keep the public art program healthy. There’s a lot of subjectivity in art, but AAPAC has some very devoted people. He said he’d attended three meetings since being appointed to the commission. The commission has come up with good recommendations for improving their own procedures, he said. The program is just about to flower, he added, so the council shouldn’t nip it in the bud.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she agreed with Hohnke and Derezinski. She described the percent for art program as just getting off the ground, and to reduce its funding would mean cutting it off at its knees. Responding to Kunselman’s call for decorative street lights, she said nothing prevents the city from using public art funds in that way. What’s holding the commission back is a lack of administrative staff support. She noted that the commission is a volunteer organization. The way to make public art happen is to support it with one percent, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he believes that AAPAC was given an unfair and unachievable task – commissioners have done important and valuable work. In the future, that work should be given more staff support. But the fund is currently flush, he noted, and they’ll be able to use the already aggregated money and use the additional 0.5% allocation. He said you prune a lilac bush to prevent it from getting too leggy. The temporary reduction would allow the public art program to be a fuller, more efficient program.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she liked Taylor’s metaphor, adding her own version: You prune a bush to make it bloom better.

Mayor John Hieftje said a lot of people talk about the tradition of art, and contended that when you read about the history of public art, it’s about economic development. Ann Arbor lives on the fact that it has a high quality of life, he said. He talked about the speech he gave at the dedication ceremony of the Dreiseitl sculpture, in which he’d quoted from an article in Forbes magazine that called public art economically viable.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for bringing the proposal forward. She said she would support the 0.5%, not Hohnke’s attempt to eliminate the temporary reduction. On the whole question of earmarking capital dollars for art, she said she would feel differently if it had been put to a vote of the residents.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) observed that the existence of the program enjoyed overwhelming support at the podium and in emails she received. And she noted that the proposed revision would preserve the program.

Hohnke concluded that the council’s discussion had been really useful. He said the proposal included a lot of improvements, excepting the reduction from 1% to 0.5%. He saw a lot of signposts that point towards 1% as the right amount.

Outcome on the elimination of the reduction to 0.5%: The amendment that would have eliminated the reduction from 1% to 0.5% failed, with support only from Derezinski, Teall, Hohnke and Anglin.

Art: Council Deliberations – Finale

Mayor John Hieftje said he would support the measure for its initial vote and looked forward to its second reading before the council.

By way of background, councilmembers are not required to vote the same way on issues at their first and second readings. During deliberations on Nov. 21, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) voted for the ordinance revision on first reading, even though he argued against its main feature and attempted to amend it out – the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5%. In the past, Hohnke, as well as other councilmembers, have made it clear that their votes for a measure on first reading are in the spirit of moving the proposal along to a second reading, when a public hearing is also held.

At the council’s Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, enough councilmembers flipped their votes between the first and second reading that a proposed reduction to the percentage public art allocation ultimately failed, after having won initial approval.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the temporary reduction (for three years) of the percentage specified in the public art ordinance – from 1% to 0.5%, with an automatic reversion to the 1% level after three years, as well as other changes to the ordinance. The changes would not take effect until after a public hearing and a successful second vote by the council. Dissenting were Derezinski, Teall and Anglin.

Greenbelt Boundary Expansion

On the agenda for consideration was a resolution to change the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

Greenbelt Boundary: Background

During a presentation to the city council at the start of the meeting, Dan Ezekiel, chair of the greenbelt advisory council, gave the council an overview of the program and the proposal they would be considering later in their meeting.

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

The brightest green region of the map is the original 2003 boundary area for properties eligible for protection using greenbelt millage funds. Next brightest is the area added in 2007. The dimmest green (in the southwest and northeast part of the map) is the area now proposed to be added. (Image links to higher resolution .jpg)

Also before the council as part of the amendment to Chapter 42, the council was asked to give initial approval to a change that allows a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting.

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

Also before the council for its approval at the Nov. 21 meeting was the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission. The current commission had recommended his appointment at its Oct. 12, 2011 meeting.

Greenbelt Boundary: Public Comment

Keri Hardy introduced herself as the manager of Cherry Republic’s Ann Arbor store on Main Street, and said she was there on behalf of the owner. Cherry Republic exclusively sells cherries and has chosen to have a store in Ann Arbor, because Ann Arbor matches Cherry Republic’s commitment to supporting Michigan and Michigan farming, she said. She presented a $2,500 donation from Cherry Republic to the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.

Greenbelt Boundary: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council appointee on the greenbelt advisory commission, put forward the boundary expansion resolution. He described the proposed changes as smoothing out the boundaries that had been enacted as part of the 2007 change. The boundary changes are proposed to take advantage of opportunities for land protection in the expanded area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off debate by making a motion to divide the question, noting that there were two items incorporated in the proposal before the council – one was an expansion of the boundaries, and the other involved allowing properties adjacent to the boundary to be eligible under certain conditions. She said she supported the adjacency condition, but did not support expanding the boundary.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that “dividing the question” was a procedure with which he was not familiar.

By way of background, dividing the question is a standard parliamentary procedure that allows for separate votes to be taken on parts of a proposal. In response to a motion like Lumm’s to divide the question, the presiding officer at the meeting is supposed to ask for a seconding motion, and if there is one, to call for a vote, without debate on dividing the question. Once approved by a majority vote, the question is treated part-by-part as two separate questions before the council.

That’s not what happened in response to Lumm’s motion. Besides Taylor’s interjection about his lack of familiarity with dividing the question, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) complained that the text of the original ordinance was not included in the council’s meeting information packet, and that led to additional uncertainty.

Higgins wondered if a postponement might be in order.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed concern about the possible continued expansion of the greenbelt boundaries. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) is seated to her left.

Ginny Trocchio – a staff member of the Conservation Fund, which is the consultant the city uses to help manage the millage proceeds – was called to the podium to comment on any negative impact that might arise from a postponement.

Trocchio and Dan Ezekiel indicated to the council that with the uncertainty in the federal budget, the next round of funding – in February 2012 – might be the last one for the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program. For properties that would be eligible for FRPP grants only as a result of the ordinance change, it would leave a short timeline to apply.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed some apparent confusion, wondering what Lumm wanted to amend. She explained that she just meant to be dividing the question. Hieftje indicated he wanted Lumm to take the approach of offering an amendment instead, saying that it was “neater” to do it that way. Lumm complied by amending the proposal to strike the boundary expansion.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was initially opposed to expanding the boundaries, but after talking to Ezekiel, he felt it boiled down to the intent of the voters, which he felt was generally to create a greenbelt around the city.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) got clarification that Ann Arbor might get greater cooperation from Salem and Lodi townships as a result of the boundary change. Hohnke described how the boundary change in 2007 did not include Salem and Lodi townships because up to that point there had been little collaboration offered by those townships – but that has changed, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called the greenbelt a successful program and said the proposed expansion is a mark of that. Adding 10 square miles is an open door to more opportunities. Hohnke noted that the expanded area would make up about 6% of the total greenbelt area. Since 2003, he said, the cost per acre of protecting land has come down by half.

Higgins said she struggled with the expansion. One of the things presented to voters in 2003 was a map, she said. When voters saw that, they didn’t necessarily think the area would continue to expand. Back in 2003, she said, Ann Arbor was ahead of the curve. But now other organizations have come forward, and Ann Arbor is not the only player in the game. So she said she had some issues expanding again.

Higgins noted that Lodi Township was very excited about the prospect of the boundary expansion – but she attributed that excitement to the fact that Lodi makes only a token contribution. Ann Arbor will be the bigger contributor, she said.

Lumm said that at the time of the millage vote, a robust discussion had established the boundaries, and the community had talked about how the millage proceeds would be spent. She noted that the proposal now is the second expansion – she realized it was not a huge expansion, and thanked Hohnke for coming forward with a smaller expansion than others might have wanted. She questioned, though, whether the city is being driven by the desire to spend all the money in the program or to spend it wisely.

She characterized the money spent to date as having been spent wisely. But she noted the current fund balance is around $10 million – it’s hard not to say it’s flush with cash. It made her wonder if the city is spending it because it’s there. She stated she would not support the expansion at the first reading.

Higgins asked Ezekiel to the podium again and asked if it was possible to “lock in” the boundaries so that they would remain in place for some number of years. Ezekiel told her that the city council can choose to lock in whatever they choose – GAC is an advisory commission. He clarified for Higgins – who had complained that perhaps townships had not contributed much to some of the deals – that it has never been the case that the city is the only contributor. It’s required, he said, to have at least 20% from other sources. Higgins countered that the 20% isn’t necessarily from other local entities, which Ezekiel confirmed. He confirmed for Higgins that the city has done deals where the city of Ann Arbor has been the only local participant. Overall, however, Ezekiel said the city does better than a dollar-for-dollar match.

Higgins concluded by saying that if it were possible to say that the city would stick to these boundaries (as expanded), that would make her more comfortable in supporting the expansion.

Taylor mentioned that while the city has challenges in its parks system, the greenbelt millage can’t be used for maintenance of city facilities. Greenbelt millage money is just for land and the purchase of development rights. He said he would support the expansion of the boundaries.

Hieftje said he didn’t think there was ever a strict boundary presented to voters – it was always to be decided by the city council through an ordinance.

Outcome on the elimination of the boundary expansion from the proposal: The council rejected Lumm’s amendment. It had support only from Lumm and Higgins.

Higgins indicated she would like to think about stipulating a 5-year time period during which the boundaries could not expand again. Taylor made a side comment that the current council can’t tell future councils what they can do. Briere observed that since passage of the millage in 2003, it’s turned out to be 4-year increments for review. Hohnke characterized the 2007 change as an expansion with a couple of corners left out – it’s one expansion over the course of eight years, he said.

Outcome: Over a lone dissent from Lumm, the council gave initial approval to the boundary expansion and the provision for including certain properties adjacent to the boundary as eligible. Later in the meeting, the council also gave final approval to the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Hoover Mansion (University Bank) Rezoning

The council was asked to consider initial approval for altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, checks his tablet during the city council's Nov. 21 meeting. Seated in a row behind Ranzini is Stuart Berry, who this year was an unsuccessful candidate for city council, running as a Republican in Ward 5.

The bank asked to revise the existing planned unit development (PUD) for the site (originally approved in 1978), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted on the parcel. The site serves as the bank’s headquarters.

The proposal includes a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been initially submitted to the city about a year earlier.

Because the proposal is a change to the city’s zoning, it’s a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that requires a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

Outcome: After brief comment from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, the council voted unanimously to give the PUD revision initial approval.

Arbor Hills Crossing Site Plan, Brownfield

On the agenda was a resolution for approval of the site plan 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.

Also before the council was the brownfield plan for the project, which includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will still need to sign off on the brownfield plan. County commissioners scheduled a public hearing on the brownfield plan to be held at their meeting on Jan. 18, 2012.

The city’s planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 18, 2011 meeting. Action had been postponed at the commission’s June 7, 2011 meeting so that the developer – Campus Realty – could address some outstanding issues with the plan.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the brownfield committee had met and agreed the plan is appropriate. It was thoroughly vetted, she said, and would next be reviewed by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, said the proposal had been reviewed by the planning commission in some detail. The developer and the attorney for the project were present at the meeting in case there are any questions, he said. The plan takes a piece of land across from Whole Foods and makes it attractive for the area, he said. It comports with the themes of the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue initiative. He noted that the developer had to locate the bus stop on the other side of the street so that patrons of the county recreation facility could take advantage of it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed his enthusiasm for the project, saying that the area had long been underutilized. It would be a great benefit for the neighborhood and he looked forward to its arrival, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that he’d attended the citizens participation meeting on the project and described it as very welcoming, appropriate and useful. He noted that the site had a previous plan that didn’t go anywhere – he hoped this one receives ample financing.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council unanimously approved the Arbor Hills Crossing site plan and brownfield plan.

Handbills, Newspapers

The council was asked to consider a revision to its ordinance on the distribution of handbills and newspapers that, among other things, would give residents the ability to prevent delivery of any undesired newspaper onto their porches by posting a notice expressly forbidding the delivery of a specific paper.

The ordinance revision reads, in part:

No corporation, limited liability company, or partnership and no corporate officer or director, managing member, partner, or other person shall cause to be placed any newspaper upon private property where there is a notice posted on the front door of the structure on the property that the occupant forbids the delivery of that specific newspaper. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

Handbills, Newspapers: Council Postponement

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the proposed ordinance, saying that its quality of life is one of Ann Arbor’s charms. Currently, he said, it’s not permitted for a person to deposit handbills in various public places. The ordinance revision clearly extends the prohibition to the advertisers who cause the handbills to be created. Taylor went on to say that there are a good number of newspapers and newspaper-like publications that show up sometimes in people’s driveways. The ordinance revision, he said, gives residents tools to deal with that.

Noting that the text of the ordinance revision had not been available to the public in a timely way before the council’s meeting, Taylor asked his colleagues to postpone the vote.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone its initial vote on the littering and handbill ordinance revision.

Handbills, Newspapers: First Amendment Issues

Though not discussed by the council, the attempt to curb delivery of unwanted newspapers poses some interesting First Amendment issues. From the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

According to David Hudson, adjunct faculty with Vanderbilt Law School and a scholar at the First Amendment Center, it’s conceivable to craft an ordinance preventing delivery of unwanted newspapers that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Reached by phone, Hudson told The Chronicle that the lower courts have not necessarily been uniform in their rulings and many of the cases on such ordinances have been settled not based on the larger First Amendment issues. Hudson didn’t comment on Ann Arbor’s proposed ordinance, not having seen it.

One of the pitfalls of any such ordinance, Hudson cautioned, is the creation of content-based exclusions. Hudson explained that in First Amendment law, content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of judicial review. And Hudson said he teaches his students the concept in part with a quote from Justice David Souter: “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.”

One example of a case in which a court found a law similar (but not identical) to Ann Arbor’s to be content-based, and therefore unconstitutional, came before a California court of appeals. From the opinion, which includes a description of the ordinances:

In this appeal we are asked to decide whether the City of Fresno’s municipal ordinance which restricts the door-to-door distribution of certain categories of written materials is constitutional. We are concerned with two parts of the ordinance. First, the ordinance prohibits-door-to-door distribution of advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when the owner or occupant of a residence or business has posted a sign prohibiting such distribution. Second, the ordinance prohibits door-to-door distribution of campaign materials, advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when it is reasonably apparent the previous day’s distribution has not been removed or the property is vacant. We hold both [31 Cal.App.4th 37] parts of the ordinance restrict the distribution of certain categories of protected speech and the press to the exclusion of other categories, and the City of Fresno failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a content-neutral justification for the disparate treatment. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)]

However, Hudson told The Chronicle that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the basic notion that residents have the right to control, at least to some degree, the extent to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their homes. In a 1970 case, the court ruled that citizens have the right to stop delivery via the U.S. Postal Service of material from specific senders:

But the right of every person ‘to be let alone’ must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate. In today’s complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail.
…
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ into which ‘not even the king may enter’ has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)]

And in a New York State Supreme Court decision, the court held that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

House Bill on Discrimination

On the agenda was a resolution expressing the council’s opposition to a proposed Michigan state house bill from Tom McMillin, a Republican representing District 45, which includes Rochester. McMillin’s bill would amend Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act by declaring null and void legislation enacted by local units that expands the set of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act. [.pdf of Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act] [.pdf of McMillin's proposed bill (HB 5039)]

The protected classes enumerated in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act include categories based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. The city of Ann Arbor’s non-discrimination ordinance adds sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status as classes of people against whom discrimination is prohibited. [.pdf of Ann Arbor's Chapter 112 non-discrimination ordinance]

So McMillin’s bill, if eventually signed into law, would nullify Ann Arbor’s Chapter 112 of the city code. The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution cites Michigan’s Constitution, which provides that ”Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law.” [.pdf of Section 22 of Michigan Constitution]

The bill has been referred to the state House judiciary committee. The 17-member judiciary committee for the state House includes 10 Republicans and seven Democrats, one of whom is Jeff Irwin (D-53), who represents a district that includes most of Ann Arbor.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, saying that she generally liked to present items that are positive. But sadly, she said, the resolution she was bringing was necessary to give a message to Lansing. She said that some in the state legislature treated the Michigan State Constitution as if it’s something they can bend at their will. Specifically, she said, the McMillin bill challenged the right of a city to establish laws of its own. It would roll back protections to groups prescribed in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She added a clause at the council table that sent a copy of the resolution to Gov. Rick Snyder.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated her understanding that the issue dealt with who could receive financial benefits. Smith clarified that this resolution was different from the resolution the council had approved on Sept. 19, 2011 expressing its opposition to House Bill 4770, which would limit benefits to same-sex partners. With that clarification, Briere said the resolution had her complete support.

Mayor John Hieftje contended that in fact there is a financial aspect to McMillin’s proposed legislation – it would take further steps to drive certain people away from the state, he said, who could otherwise contribute to Michigan’s economic recovery. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked for Smith and Briere for bringing the resolution forward.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution opposing House Bill 5039.

Organization of New Council

According to the city charter, the city council must elect from its members a mayor pro tem “at its first meeting after the newly elected members have taken office following each regular city election …” That meeting was Nov. 21, which was the first meeting after Nov. 14, when councilmembers who won their elections on Nov. 8 took office.

Councilmembers were given a ceremonial swearing-in at the start of the Nov. 21 meeting by city clerk Jackie Beaudry (back to camera). From left to right: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

So at the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) were given a ceremonial swearing-in by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) moved the resolution nominating Higgins as mayor pro tem, along with the order of succession to the mayor.

Chris Easthope finished his service on the Ann Arbor city council as mayor pro tem. After Easthope left the council in 2008, going on to serve as judge on the 15th District Court, Higgins has been elected mayor pro tem each year.

The mayor pro tem acts as mayor when the elected mayor is unable to do so. When acting as the mayor, the mayor pro tem enjoys all duties and responsibilities of mayor, except that of the power of veto. With respect to other duties and responsibilities of the mayor as compared with other councilmembers, they consist largely of serving as emergency manager, making nominations to boards and commissions, presiding over meetings, and fulfilling a ceremonial function.

The mayor pro tem’s annual salary is the same as other councilmembers: $15,913. [The mayor earns more: $42,436.] Although the local officers compensation commission recommended in 2007 that the mayor pro tem be given additional compensation, the city council that year rejected that part of the commission’s recommendation.

Other than Taylor’s remark that the order of succession was seniority-based, but within that sorting “regrettably alphabetical,” the council did not engage in deliberations on the vote. Taylor’s comment likely related to the fact that he is alphabetically last among the four councilmembers who were elected for the first time in 2008 – Derezinski, Hohnke, Smith and Taylor.

The complete order of succession after Higgins is: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution electing Marcia Higgins as mayor pro tem and approving the order of succession to the mayor.

Also on the agenda were council committee appointments for the coming year and ratification of the council rules. The committee appointments were not prepared in time for the meeting and an amendment to the rules discussed by the council rules committee just before the council meeting was not added to the agenda until just before the council meeting.

That amendment relates to the rule requiring that emails received by councilmembers on government email accounts during council meetings be produced by the city, subject to redaction under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, and attached to the meeting minutes.

The proposed amended version of the rule would read:

Electronic communication sent and received by a member during a Council meeting shall be included in the minutes of such meeting, provided that the minutes shall not include electronic communication received by a member that clearly does not relate to the subject matter of the meeting.

During the rules committee meeting that preceded the council’s Nov. 21 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) told other committee members that he was proposing the rule because the existing rule had resulted in the inclusion in the meeting minutes of one neighbor’s nasty comments about another neighbor, which did not serve the purpose of the rule.

That purpose, said Taylor, was to provide a complete record of the kind of input the council was receiving during its council meetings. [The rule was enacted in September 2009, after requests made under the Freedom of Information Act showed that councilmembers were using their email accounts to communicate with each other – on topics that ranged from juvenile horseplay to the subject matter of the meeting, to their political campaigns. For more background, see The Chronicle column: "When's an Open Meeting Open?"]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the rules committee, reported at the committee’s meeting that she’d received a suggestion from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the rule on agenda setting:

Council members may add items to the agenda at any time, but will use best efforts to do so prior to the Friday before the next Council meeting.

Higgins indicated that for this iteration of rule changes, she was not inclined to consider Lumm’s suggestion, which involved a requirement of a 3/4 majority vote in order to make late additions to the agenda. Higgins indicated the possibility of giving Lumm’s suggestion further review by the rules committee. She allowed that there were some agenda-setting issues that need to be addressed. She mentioned the fact that the second reading of the pedestrian ordinance was not supposed to be placed on the agenda for that night, yet had been put on the agenda, which had required its subsequent deletion.

Also during the rules committee meeting, Higgins indicated that the slate of committee appointments, which she is preparing, was not ready for perusal, because not everyone had submitted their preferences.

Council appointments will need to fill the slots that Stephen Rapundalo previously held, having lost the Nov. 8 Ward 2 election to Jane Lumm. Those include the following council committees: audit committee, budget committee, administration and labor committee, and liquor control committee. Rapundalo also served as the city council representative to the housing and human services board (HHSB) and the local development finance authority (LDFA) board.

At the Nov. 21 council meeting, Higgins announced her intent at the council’s next meeting to nominate Rapundalo to fill a different (non-council) slot on the LDFA board, which is an existing vacancy.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone ratification of council rules and committee appointments until Dec. 5.

Chilled Water

On the agenda was an item that provided permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. The long-term mechanism used to grant the permission is an “occupancy agreement.” The university and the city disagree on the question of whether the agreement grants the university an “interest in land.”

As a result, a memo from the city attorney’s office – which accompanied the resolution that the city council was asked to approve – states:

The University has insisted that the occupancy agreement be processed as a document that grants it an interest in land, even if it doesn’t. The City does not believe that the occupancy agreement grants to the University any interest in land. As drafted, it grants to the University an interest in land only to the extent it grants the University, by its terms, an interest in land. Nevertheless, in accordance with the University’s request, but with agreeing that the agreement grants an interest in land, the document is being submitted to City Council for approval with a requirement of 8 votes as if it granted an interest in land.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned what this actually meant. Briefly put, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the city council was being asked to give the agreement its approval as if it were granting an interest in land to the university, even though the city did not believe it was doing that. [The Nov. 21 agenda indicated the eight-vote majority city charter requirement, which is triggered by transactions involving an interest in land.]

Part of the context for the discussion with UM on the issue, explained Elias, was other similar arrangements, including some related to the East Stadium bridges reconstruction project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to grant permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. 

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: Warming Center

Signed up as an alternate for one of the 10 reserved spots for public commentary at the start of the meeting was Orian Zakai. Priority is given to those who wish to address the council on an agenda topic, and eight people had signed up to speak about the public art ordinance, which was an agenda item, as well as two others who addressed agenda items.

Zakai and another student stayed until the end of the meeting towards midnight, when there’s another opportunity for the public to address the council. Zakai introduced herself as a PhD student at the University of Michigan, speaking on behalf of students who want to establish a 24-hour warming center. The Delonis Center, she said, has diminished capacity. [At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the council allocated $25,000 of the city's general fund reserve to keep the shelter's warming center open. It's open only during evening and nighttime hours.]

Zakai described how the goal of the group is to establish a 24-hour center, so that also during the day people have a place to go to stay warm.

She said that her group already has 25 volunteers and a petition signed by 516 community members. There will be an organizational meeting on Nov. 28, she said. [The meeting starts at 8 p.m. at Cafe Ambrosia, 326 Maynard.] Her group is trying to locate a site for the warming center by December, she said, and they are looking at a property at the corner of East Huron and Division. She asked the council to support the effort.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Community

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reported that Washtenaw County had received $3 million for a Sustainable Communities project. He said the grant resulted in large part from the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue corridor study that involved collaboration with four different communities – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Pittsfield Township. The key for winning the grant was the collaboration and the consideration of this area as a “region,” Derezinski said.

Comm/Comm: Stadium Bridges

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was pleased to be at the site of the groundbreaking for the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project, along with others. Details on detours can be found at annarborbridges.org, she said. She noted that Congressman John Dingell was there, as well as some federal luminaries.

Mayor John Hieftje said it was sobering to hear at that ceremony that there are bridges in worse condition than the Stadium Boulevard bridge – 14,000 in the U.S. are as bad or worse, he noted. He said that the infrastructure of the nation is in peril.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called everyone’s attention to a second public participation meeting at 618 S. Main, the site of the old Fox Tent and Awning facility and encouraged people to attend. [It took place on Nov. 22. For Chronicle coverage of the first meeting, on Nov. 11, see "Public Gets View of 618 S. Main Proposal"]

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported she’d attended a presentation on Michigan’s medical marijuana law, given by Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette. [Briere is a member of the city's medical marijuana licensing board.]

Comm/Comm: Jane Lumm

Jane Lumm – who won the Nov. 8 election in Ward 2, displacing Stephen Rapundalo on the council – said she just wanted to say thanks for the nice welcome people had given her. Everyone has made her feel welcome, she said.

Comm/Comm: Sue McCormick

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, on her selection as the head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. He selection, he said, speaks to McCormick’s talents and abilities. Her last day, he said, would be on Dec. 16. An interim public services area administrator will be in place for Dec. 17, he said, and he would keep the council apprised of the process for a permanent replacement.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 5, 2011 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!

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Past History of Attempted Revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Context of Current Attempt at Revisions

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

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

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

Amendment: Street/Sidewalk Millage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintain a broad base of source funds for public art:

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

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

Amendment: Sunset Provision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment: General Fund Exclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: Increased Staff Support

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

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

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

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

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

Possible Council Action: Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

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

I am not a lunatic.

There.

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

I am not a lunatic.

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

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

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

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

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

That guy, now he’s a lunatic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attic access panel rendered as art by Alvey Jones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I’m not a lunatic.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor, left, accepts a ballot from Tim Doyle, right, a park advisory commissioner. In the center is Sam Offen, who was re-elected as chair of PAC's budget committee. Taylor is a non-voting ex-officio member of PAC.

The report – including 16 recommendations for changes to improve the Burns Park center and senior services – is the latest in an effort that dates back to 2009, when the city considered closing the center. Suggestions include: (1) expanding programs to other locations, particularly to low-income senior housing; (2) partnering with other programs in the area, such as the popular travel program offered by Pittsfield Township’s senior center; and (3) possibly making the Burns Park facility more of a community center, and renaming it to reflect that broader mission.

Staff will be taking this report and incorporating elements of it into a strategic plan, which will be reviewed by PAC and city council before action is taken.

The meeting also included votes to recommend awarding contracts for renovations at Island Park, and support for a bioremediation pilot project at Southeast Area Park. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, told commissioners that the test would determine the effectiveness of an approach to remove an existing vinyl chloride plume. The process would involve giving nutrients to naturally occurring microorganisms that can break down the contaminant. The plume resulted from vinyl chloride being released from the now-closed city landfill into groundwater on the south side of Ellsworth Road.

Margaret Parker, a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC), gave a presentation about two potential public art projects along the Huron River – at the Argo Dam bypass, and the Gallup Park canoe livery. Since the work would likely be on city-owned parkland, members of the parks staff and park advisory commission would be part of a task force for the project. Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, also attended PAC’s meeting. She spoke in support of a more comprehensive vision for art as part of RiverUp!, an effort to improve a 104-mile stretch of the Huron River.

During public commentary, commissioners heard suggestions for several ways to improve non-motorized connections between South State and South Main streets.

The October meeting also included a review of FY 2011 and first-quarter FY 2012 financials for the parks system, and PAC’s annual election of officers. There were no deliberations, and current officers – including PAC chair Julie Grand – were re-elected unanimously.

Senior Center Report

Two consultants hired to analyze operations of the Ann Arbor senior center presented their report to the commission at PAC’s October meeting. Frank Bednarek of Hooker DeJong and Kevin Woods of Woods Consulting Group reviewed highlights of the report, and answered questions from commissioners. [.pdf. of Senior Center report] PAC had most recently received a staff update on the senior center at its June 24, 2011 meeting.

By way of background, the report stems from city budget talks in 2009, when city officials were looking to cut costs and said that closing the senior center would save about $150,000 annually in the city’s general fund. In response to objections from local residents, the city formed a task force to develop strategies to keep the center open.

In November 2010, the city council approved a $34,750 contract for the consulting firm Hooker DeJong to develop a long-term strategic plan for the senior center. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation funded $16,949 of that amount, with the remainder coming from the city’s general fund.

Hooker DeJong’s 60-page report makes 16 recommendations regarding the senior center. They include: (1) expanding senior programming to other locations, including North Community Center and Bryant Community Center; (2) exploring partnerships with senior centers outside Ann Arbor, such as Pittsfield Township’s senior center, which offers a popular travel program; (3) using more volunteers to expand programs and activities; (4) reaching out to affordable housing developments to do programming for low-income seniors; (5) marketing to seniors over 70; (6) possibly eliminating the word “senior” from marketing materials; and (7) making future development program-based rather than facility-based.

The report also recommends that the current senior center at Burns Park be used for non-senior programming as well, and that the center be renamed to reflect that broader use – possibly as the Burns Park Community Center.

The consultants said that one thing they heard loud and clear in their research is that people who are on the younger edge of the Baby Boomer generation don’t see themselves as seniors. People who are 55-64 look at themselves as active older adults, so the challenge is to design strategies that speak to that group, Woods said. He also noted that people in a higher-income bracket have many more options, and might not be as likely to seek out activities at the senior center. That’s why the consultants see an opportunity to reach out to lower-income seniors, who might benefit from programming for seniors.

The report recommends continuing the same kinds of programming at the Burns Park location, but if the city wants to expand, staff should look at other locations, Bednarek said. The report includes an analysis of the building where the center is currently located, and makes several recommendations for reconfiguring the space and making renovations.

Woods noted that demographics indicate higher concentrations of seniors in the city’s north and east sides. Those are possible places to add senior services, if expansion occurs. There are also about 800 units of affordable housing in the city, Woods reported, targeted to seniors below the $40,000 income level. Offering services at those locations would be another way to expand.

Woods said the message should be that Ann Arbor wants to provide recreational activities for all citizens to be physically active to the highest extent possible for their entire lives. Gwen Nystuen quipped: “And mentally!”

Senior Center Report: Commissioner Discussion

Nystuen asked if the consultants had come up with any options for new names for the center. Not really, Woods said, adding that it would need to be something other than “senior,” to broaden its appeal. Christopher Taylor asked if the resistance to being identified as a senior lessens over time – that is, will these people change their view as they age? Woods said it might be that people start to think of themselves as seniors when they reach ages 75-80.

Bednarek noted that this isn’t an issue unique to Ann Arbor. Boomers aren’t using senior services in the same way that people have in the past. He also noted that the consultants didn’t find a silver bullet that will suddenly double participation in the senior center’s programs. Nor did they find anything being done that’s particularly awful, he said. The center has solid programming that appeals to a certain demographic – bridge, for example, is especially strong.

Frank Bednarek of Hooker DeJong, and Pamela Simmons, facility supervisor for the Ann Arbor senior center.

Tim Berla asked if there are any activities unavailable elsewhere, that the senior center could offer to draw people in. Though the goal is to make sure the center breaks even, it’s not a business, he said. Part of the point is to offer services that people can’t get anywhere else. Woods said there’s nothing compelling that would cause people to rush in. People want diverse options – birding, hiking, bridge – but most activities are already available in the city.

Bednarek identified the top three things that bring people to the senior center now: (1) the need for socialization, especially for people over 70; (2) bridge; and (3) meals. There’s a strong core group of people – about 350 seniors – who use the center now and who really want those services. It costs the city about $84,000 to do that, he noted.

Sam Offen asked if the consultants had talked with other agencies that provide senior services. Was there much conversation about having more interaction between these entities? Woods said the Turner Resource Center, which is operated by the University of Michigan Health System, is very interested, as is the Chelsea Senior Center and others. They don’t see each other as competition, he said.

Offen asked what kind of services are offered at market rate senior housing. You’d be more likely to find amenities like fitness centers and programmed activities, Woods replied. Bednarek added that for affordable housing sites, there might be arrangements for social services, but not recreational offerings.

Karen Levin said it seemed like a travel program would be a big draw, but the report didn’t recommend that. Bednarek noted that the city had previously solicited proposals for someone to operate a travel program, but there were no responses. The consultants talked to a reputable travel agent, Bednarek said, and to see how the agent reacted to the possibility of starting a travel program here.

Bednarek said the agent felt it would take three to five years to build a program from scratch. That led the consultants to look at other travel programs for seniors in this area, including the one offered by the Pittsfield Township Senior Center. The report recommends possibly negotiating to provide referrals to other travel programs, perhaps in exchange for a fee paid to the city for referrals.

Levin felt that even if Ann Arbor started a small travel program, it could still be a draw. Woods pointed out that if so, the city might want to consider a higher-end offering, because the mid-level market was competitive. The city would also be competing against educational travel programs offered by the University of Michigan, he said.

Taylor observed that it seemed the most fertile ground was for the over-70 resident – is that where the consultants suggest focusing the city’s services for seniors? Yes, Woods said, but don’t ignore the younger ages either. It’s important to offer multi-generational programs – just don’t label them as being for “seniors.”

But why not just walk away from services for the 55-70 age group? Taylor asked. Playing devil’s advocate, he wondered why the city should compete with existing alternatives, if the city can provide more focused options for people over 70. Bednarek said that in practice, the city is already doing that – they’re providing non-generational activities like golf and swimming that attract people in the 55-70 age group.

Julie Grand said that if they focus on activities for people over 70, that frees up space in the senior center for other purposes, which might serve as an entree to the center, and get younger people into the building. She really liked the idea of using it as a community center – but she noted that perhaps people over 70 won’t be comfortable with 4-year-olds running around.

Tim Doyle said there’s an opportunity for the center to be a conduit of information regarding broader city offerings. He lives four blocks from the center and he’s a senior – though he said he doesn’t admit to it. Until PAC’s discussion, he didn’t know what went on at the center. If forms and sign-ups are available there for any city program, then that could draw people of all ages to the center, he said. When they’re older, they might remember that it offers services for seniors, too.

Grand also noted that the city is fortunate in that there are a lot of college students here. UM students in social work, kinesiology and health care might be interested in working with the senior center in some way, she said. They could be a valuable resource, especially in delivering services in a low-cost way to low-income seniors.

During the first public commentary of PAC’s meeting – prior to the senior center presentation – Margaret Leslie, a member of the senior center task force, had asked whether the task force’s work was now done. She wondered who would be responsible for carrying out the report’s recommendations, and when those recommendations would be implemented.

Toward the end of PAC’s discussion later in the meeting, Colin Smith, manager of city parks and recreation, responded to her questions. This is the start toward a strategic plan, he said – the report is not the plan itself. It gives the city tools and information for developing a plan. The staff will review this report, he said, and return to PAC this winter with a plan on implementing some of these recommendations. A lot of the recommendations will likely be acted on, he said, but probably not all of them.

FY 2011, First-Quarter FY 2012 Financial Update

Sam Offen, chair of PAC’s budget committee, reported that the first-quarter report for parks  and recreation looks good. He noted that PAC had reviewed preliminary year-end budget numbers for FY 2011, which ended June 30, at its July 2011 meeting. The financial report included final FY 2011 results, as well as a report on the three-month period of FY 2012 from July 1 through Sept. 30 [.pdf of first-quarter financial statement]

Year to date for FY 2012, revenues of $787,837 are 33% ahead of budget, Offen noted. Expenses of $965,047 are 27% over budget, but offset by the higher-than-budgeted revenues, he said. The full-year FY 2012 budget projects a $1.2 million contribution from the city’s general fund.

Colin Smith, manager of parks & recreation, noted that the FY 2011 budget had called for a $1.227 million contribution to parks from the city’s general fund. The year ended with a $1.219 million draw from the general fund. Getting that close to the projected budget, he said, required coordination and management of many individual budgets within the parks program. He credited his staff for making that happen, noting that while revenues were about $100,000 less than budgeted, expenses had been kept down by about an equal amount.

Park commissioners Gwen Nystuen and John Lawter.

John Lawter asked whether the parks system gets to keep excess revenues, if revenues are higher than projected. Smith noted that for areas that operate as enterprise funds – like the public market or golf courses – then any excess goes to the fund balances for those units. But for parks in general, because they receive general fund support, any excess at year’s end would be returned to the general fund. Gwen Nystuen clarified with Smith that revenues from fees are also returned to the general fund.

Lawter said that in that case, if a unit sees an excess, they’re almost encouraged to spend it – the money can’t be carried over to the next year. That might be true if each parks unit operated in isolation, Smith replied. But managers across the entire parks system are encouraged to work collectively, and they realize they’re all in this together, he said. If one facility does better than expected, that might offset a different facility that had unexpected expenses or less revenue than expected. That way, in aggregate, the overall parks budget hits its target. Last year, for example, the pools didn’t do as well, but the canoe liveries did better than expected, Smith said. This year, the opposite was true, because of construction at Argo – the pools bailed out the liveries a bit, he said.

Offen noted that parks gets $1.2 million from the general fund, so there’s a ways to go before they see any excess as a whole.

Smith reviewed results from several individual units, including the senior center, Mack Pool and the golf course enterprise fund. [PAC had received detailed updates on the senior center and Mack Pool at its June 2011 meeting.]

For Huron Hills, the net cost for FY 2011 was expected to be $259,000, but the course ended up with a net cost of $230,000 – a little better than budgeted, Smith noted. Leslie had budgeted for a net cost of $223,000 but ended up a bit worse, he said, at $243,000. Originally the staff had projected the two courses would lose a total of about $494,000 – and that’s roughly where they ended up, he said.

However, at the end of 2011 the staff had revised their estimate for the projected loss, setting it at $390,000, Smith said. For the golf courses, the first half of the season – July through December – is used to project performance in the second half, January through June. Historically, the courses recognize just less than half of the total year revenues during the first half of the year. Based on that historical trend and the $632,000 in revenues from July to December of FY 2011, staff revised its budget estimate and projected that total revenues for FY 2011 would reach $1.265 million.

However, the spring was an historically poor one, Smith said, with more rainy days than usual. The result was total FY 2011 revenues of $1.15 million – or about $100,000 less than budgeted. For all of April and May, Smith noted, there were only two periods that didn’t see consecutive days of rain. “That’s kind of what we were up against,” he said.

David Barrett asked why Huron Hills did better than Leslie Park for the year. [Huron Hills posted a net loss of $230,051 for FY 2011, compared to a net loss of $243,112 at Leslie.] At Huron Hills, Smith said, golf cart use was higher than projected.

Barrett asked about fees for use of the city’s Fuller Park soccer fields, which have been recently renovated. Smith said it was wrapped into the overall category of park use fees. Use fees totaled $291,084 for FY 2011, up slightly from $289,859 in FY 2010. Tim Berla noted that when fees were set for use of the soccer fields, they were set at a rate that was keyed to anticipated costs of operating the fields. He requested a report on that, to see if the fees are set at a financially sustainable rate.

Smith said they could make a report at an upcoming meeting. He explained that the use fees are a little behind budget so far this year, mainly because of refunds that were made due to rainouts.

In response to a question from Offen, Smith said that he and Matt Warba, field operations supervisor, would be coming to PAC in the next few months with some suggestions for spending part of an accumulated fund balance from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage – about $1.5 million, out of a total of roughly $25 million in millage proceeds over the past five years.

Parks Capital Projects

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave a quarterly update of capital projects that are completed or in the works. Later in the meeting, commissioners voted to recommend awarding contracts for two renovation projects at Island Park.

Parks Capital Projects: Quarterly Update

Kuras gave brief descriptions of work being done in more than a dozen of the city’s parks, including Beckley Park, Buhr Park, Hunt Park, Riverside Park, and several others. [.pdf of full capital project update]

The city will be notified in November if it received the state grant for improvements at the Gallup Park boat launch and canoe livery, Kuras said. A conceptual design is finished for livery renovations, an entry path and the dock area. The scope of the improvements will depend in part on whether those grant funds are awarded. [For details, see Chronicle coverage: "PAC Supports Grants for Skatepark, Gallup"] Kuras said a state grant was awarded for preliminary engineering of a boat launch at Gallup, which also needs renovation. The city will apply for a construction grant following completion of that engineering work.

A public meeting was held to discuss renovations at Riverside Park, Kuras said. [See Chronicle coverage: "Work Planned at Ann Arbor's Riverside Park"] The work there will be coordinated with repair to Canal Street by the city’s public services unit.

Problems with West Park’s underground storm management system are still being addressed. Additional work will be done during the next construction season. [As part of the city's recent renovation of West Park, underground swirl concentrators were installed – four each near the north and south entrances of the park off Seventh Street. It was later discovered that all were in some state of failure or were suspected to be on the verge of failing. This summer, a city staff memo indicated that the city expects to recover any additional costs due to the failures – either from the manufacturer or the design firm.]

Parks Capital Projects: Island Park Renovations

On the agenda for PAC’s October meeting were two resolutions related to Island Park, located next to the Huron River – north of Fuller Road and east of Maiden Lane.

PAC was asked to recommend approval of a $92,586 contract with Legacy Custom Builders Inc. for repair of the Island Park Greek Revival shelter. The price includes an $84,169 bid and a $8,417 (10%) construction contingency.

According to a staff memo, the shelter was built in 1914 and has been renovated several times, most recently in 1995. Weather, insect and animal damage has caused the structure to deteriorate. Four contractors made bids on the project, and Legacy Custom Builders proposed the lowest bid. The firm is based in Northville, Mich.

In a separate resolution, the commission was asked to approve a $71,500 contract with Saladino Construction Company Inc. to restore the Island Park bridge and the concrete portions of the Greek Revival shelter. The price includes a $65,000 bid and $6,500 (10%) construction contingency.

The bridge was built in 1916, two years after the shelter. The work includes the repair and sealing of cracks, repair of spalling concrete, and repainting the bridge. Structural concrete support would be added to the shelter, which has sunk slightly in one corner, causing cracks in the concrete walls. According to a staff memo, the city’s Historic District Commission has been consulted on the renovations, though the park is not in an historic district.

Sam Offen said he thought it was interesting that for both projects, four companies submitted bids – and three of those four bid on both projects. But in each case, it was the company that only bid on one project that got the contract, he noted.

Park planner Amy Kuras said that the three companies bidding on both projects are general contractors. But the bids were awarded to companies with specific expertise in the necessary work, she said – Legacy is a builder, and Saladino does concrete work. She said the staff talked about whether to package the work into one bid, but ultimately decided two separate bids would possibly result in a better price.

Funding for these projects is already allocated from the approved FY 2012 Park Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage proceeds.

Outcome: On separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved both resolutions recommending the contracts for work at Island Park. Both contracts require approval by the city council.

Bioremediation at Southeast Area Park

Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, solicited a recommendation from PAC regarding whether to pursue a bioremediation pilot test in a section of Southeast Area Park, a 26.5-acre city park at Ellsworth and Platt roads. The test would determine if technology to remove an existing vinyl chloride plume is effective. The plume resulted from vinyl chloride being released from the now-closed city landfill into groundwater on the south side of Ellsworth Road.

Aerial view of a section of Southeast Area Park, showing the location of the city's bioremediation project. (Links to larger image.)

Naud told commissioners that the city has been managing “legacy problems” at the former landfill since it closed in 1982. In the 1990s a slurry wall was built to stop potential contaminants from polluting clean groundwater. The wall did not extend across the landfill’s northern side. Instead, extraction wells are used there to pull the groundwater and contaminants back to the extraction wells, where the water is discharged to the sanitary sewer for treatment.

The city isn’t legally required to do more than it’s already doing, Naud said, but they’d like to try an additional approach. The pilot project would test a different type of remedial process called bioremediation, where naturally occurring microorganisms are given food and nutrients to encourage the metabolic breakdown of the contaminant. [.pdf of bioremediation proposal] Consultants Patti McCall and Mike Kovacich, who’ll be working on the project, were on hand to answer questions from commissioners.

According to Naud, the park would be affected for three days. The park would remain open, but a portion of it would be fenced off while testing is conducted.

Naud assured commissioners that no park users would be exposed to hazardous materials – the plume is at least 25 feet underground. Soybean oil would be injected in eight locations. They’d likely use a fire hose to push down and distribute the oil for the bacteria, then wait 4-5 weeks and repeat the process. They’d monitor the plume to see if there’s any improvement.

Naud said he’d talked through possible worst-case scenarios with Colin Smith, the city’s parks and rec manager. The worst outcome could be if a hose broke and soybean oil spurted out, he said. Even so, he wanted to make sure the public was aware of what they’re doing, and that the process is open.

Bioremediation: Commissioner Discussion

David Barrett indicated that it seemed the only risk was for public relations – when he hears “bioremediation,” he imagines people in white hazmat suits. Naud said the staff thought about that, because it’s not something the city is required to do. But this community usually tries to do more than it’s required to do, Naud said. If they were pumping contaminated groundwater out of the ground, or doing it near kids, that would be different, he said. But since this is trying to augment a natural process, he thought it was worth at least proposing it.

Naud said the city staff is reaching out to nearby housing cooperatives – residents there are primary users of the park. Sam Offen asked if there was any contamination leading underneath the housing units. No, Naud replied. All of the contamination is south of I-94. As a practical matter, there was more concern about methane gas coming off the site. A collection system is in place to handle that, which is also used to generate electricity. The city has done sampling of some basements in the housing cooperatives and never detected methane, Naud said.

There is some 1,4 dioxane in groundwater underneath one of the cooperatives related to contamination from Pall/Gelman, Naud added, but there are no private wells there – the housing units are hooked up to the city water system. The 1,4 dioxane is not above regulated standards, he said. That’s why they’re focusing on the vinyl chloride plume.

Doug Chapman pointed out that some people might think the city is introducing new bacteria, but they’re really just trying to increase the population of existing bacteria so that more bacteria will break down the vinyl chloride. Kovacich explained that the microorganisms breathe in vinyl chloride, but need to feed on a hydrogen source – in this case, soybean oil.

Julie Grand asked about the tripping hazard of pipes that will be used at the site. The one-inch pipes will be flush-mounted, Naud said, similar to those that are in other locations in town, like the Armen Cleaners site.

Grand asked if this process could be used to clean up other contaminated sites in the city, noting that several sections of a proposed greenway need remediation. It’s typically an expensive process, she noted. Naud said it depends on what kind of contamination is present. He offered to hold a working session for commissioners with more information on that, if they wanted.

Barrett asked whether Naud would let PAC know about the results of this bioremediation effort. “We always tell you good news,” Naud joked. The consultants already test samples from the former landfill every quarter. This will be added to their testing, he said, and those results can be shared.

Smith then read a resolution supporting the project. It directed city staff to inform and educate neighbors in the area about the project before starting, and asked staff to provide updates to PAC on its progress. The resolution states:

WHEREAS, A vinyl chloride plume exists underneath Southeast Area Park;
WHEREAS, A bioremediation pilot is being proposed to treat the vinyl chloride plume;
WHEREAS, Funding is available from the Solid Waste Fund;
RESOLVED, That staff and consultants provide educational outreach to the Southeast Area Park neighborhood prior to implementation of the bioremediation;
RESOLVED, That staff proceed with this bioremediation pilot, and;
RESOLVED, That staff report back to the Park Advisory Commission after regular monitoring is able to determine the efficiency of the bioremediation pilot.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to move forward with the bioremediation project.

River Artwalk Proposal

Margaret Parker, a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC), gave a presentation about a potential public art project along the Huron River. The art commission’s annual plan for FY 2012 calls for possibly adding public art at two locations on the river. Since the work would likely be on city-owned parkland, members of the parks staff and park advisory commission would be part of a task force for the project.

As one of 10 priorities for the year, Parker told park commissioners that the annual public art plan identified two possible locations for public art along the river: At the Gallup Park canoe livery, and the Argo Dam headrace. Both are attractive locations because they are centrally located and accessible to the public. The plan calls for evaluating this possible project – nothing more, she said.

The first step, Parker said, was to meet with members of the city’s parks staff: Colin Smith, head of parks and recreation; park planner Amy Kuras; and Cheryl Saam, head of the city’s canoe liveries. The staff had three recommendations for possible public art at Gallup Park:

• A memorial wall that combines art with donor names on the north side of the livery building – this was the staff’s preference, Parker said.
• Artwork on the far shore, across the river from the livery.
• Decorative elements on a walkway that will be built between the livery and new docks, as part of a renovation project at the park.

For the second site – at the Argo headrace, near Argo Pond – parks staff cited four possibilities for public art locations:

• At the end of the headrace near Broadway, where a public area with an amphitheater is planned.
• On top of the embankment: A way-finding system could feature the area’s history – its use as a Native American path, for example, or the location of mills.
• Along the river: A way-finding system could mark a water trail.
• At the area connecting Argo Dam with the headrace.

Maintenance and graffiti were mentioned by the parks staff as issues that need to be considered, Parker said.

Parker took these ideas to the public art commissioners, and after discussing the ideas at their August meeting, they were supportive, she said. So the next step was to meet with PAC and get their input. [.pdf of memo to PAC regarding possible Huron River art projects]

These two art projects could connect to a broader vision for art along Huron River, Parker said, as part of RiverUp!, an effort to improve a 104-mile stretch of the Huron River, starting from the north at Milford through Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and downstream to Flat Rock. [See Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"] Public art at Gallup and Argo could be considered as pilot projects for a larger river artwalk, she said.

The Huron River Watershed Council, which is taking the lead in organizing RiverUp!, could also manage the larger river art project, Parker said. Laura Rubin, the council’s executive director, was on hand to voice her support for the art project. Several groups are working together on a river renaissance, Rubin said, trying to orient communities toward the river. She strongly supports the public art proposal, and noted that the University of Michigan – which also owns property along the river – is interested in this too. With a diverse partnership involved, Rubin said, they can create something beautiful.

River Artwalk: Commissioner Discussion

Tim Berla said it would be cool to have an open-ended call for proposals, not tied to specific sites and with the understanding that funding hasn’t yet been identified. The art commission could vet the proposals, with input from city staff and PAC. He also suggested that they think about creating something that’s meant to be covered with graffiti. “I’m just saying take advantage of our community,” he said.

Sam Offen asked whether the projects were meant to be outside, or perhaps would they be located inside – like in the livery building, for example. Parker replied that the process is generally to set up a task force, which would then analyze each site in more detail to determine where the artwork might go. Exterior pieces are more accessible, but an interior work might be possible, she said.

Offen said he likes the idea of an artwalk along the river. He asked how it would be funded. Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation unit, explained how the Percent for Art program works. A percent of the budget for each city capital project – up to $250,000 per project’s budget – goes toward public art. That includes capital projects in the parks system. Money earmarked for the Percent for Art program must be used for public art that somehow relates to the original funding source. Offen observed that capital projects for parks in general contribute funding to public art – whether the city does this particular art project or not.

Gwen Nystuen described the artwalk as an exciting project – she especially liked the idea of public art for way-finding along the river.

Smith said the next steps would be to set up a task force, and brainstorm all the things they need to consider. It will also be important to get feedback from the public about what they’d like to see along the river. He reminded commissioners of the art installation by the visiting artist at the University of Michigan. [In 2009-10, William Dennisuk, a visiting artist at UM's Witt Residency program, proposed an art installation of large wire vase-like sculptures in and near the Huron River, as a way to conceptually bridge the town and campus communities. See Chronicle coverage: "Sculptor Tries to Weld City, University."]

Smith said he personally liked Dennisuk’s sculptures, but he recalled that there was a great deal of opposition to the project, and even some anger. So a full discussion about what might go into an area that’s very special to a lot of people is important, he said.

PAC Officer Elections

Julie Grand, who has served as PAC chair since April 2010, said she hoped the gods of the bylaws would forgive the commission for not holding their annual elections in September. [PAC's September meeting was cancelled.] She noted that terms for several commissioners will be expiring in the coming year, so that should be a factor in their nominations.

PAC chair Julie Grand and Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC.

Gwen Nystuen nominated Grand for another one-year term as chair, and John Lawter for another term as vice chair. Tim Doyle nominated Sam Offen for another term as chair of PAC’s budget committee. There were no competing nominations for any of these positions.

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, noted that Offen’s term ends on June 15, 2012. Doyle offered to serve as chair-in-training for the budget committee. Other PAC members with terms expiring in 2012 include Nystuen in May, David Barrett in August, and Lawter in December. They are all term-limited and can’t be reappointed.

“Change is good,” Offen said. Grand acknowledged that they’d be welcoming some new energy to PAC, but added that there will clearly be losses.

PAC bylaws require that votes be taken by secret ballot, so commissioners wrote their choices on paper and passed them to Smith, who tallied the votes. ”OK,” he said wryly, after counting the ballots. “I have some not especially surprising results.” Grand, Lawter and Offen were re-elected unanimously.

Misc. Communications, Public Commentary

During every meeting there are typically updates from staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary.

Misc. Comm/Comm: Non-Motorized Paths

Eric Boyd spoke during time set aside for public commentary at the beginning of PAC’s October meeting. His comments focused on the need for more non-motorized connectivity between west and south central Ann Arbor – essentially the area between South Main to South State streets. He noted that on South State, from the corner of East Hoover to Eisenhower, is a two-mile stretch. That’s out of the way for someone trying to go from south central Ann Arbor to southwest Ann Arbor – for example, if you’d like to go from the Produce Station on South State, to Busch’s grocery on South Main, after the East Stadium bridge is torn down.

Currently, there are only three ways to go from South State to South Main, he said:

1. Via East Stadium – but that route won’t be available during reconstruction of the East Stadium bridge, which will begin later this year. It also requires a roundabout path through Stimson and South Industrial.
2. Via the University of Michigan field hockey field to Kipke – but the university has restricted use of that route to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
3. Via a short gravel path between UM’s varsity tennis facilities and Lynden Glen Drive. That’s a relatively unknown route, Boyd noted, and would be a mess in the winter.

There are several options the city could pursue, Boyd said, and some of those could fall under the aegis of the park advisory commission:

• Create a section of the Ann Arbor Greenway linking East Hoover with the intersection of South State and Stimson, with a spur connecting to Kipke/Stadium Way. This would enable passage from Kipke to Stimson without going along the university field hockey field.
• Work with the UM golf course to create a publicly accessible non-motorized path linking South State to South Main along the southern border of the golf course.
• Work with the UM varsity tennis facility to create a non-motorized connection to Golfview.
• Pave the short gravel section between the university soccer facilities and Lynden Glen Drive. Add signage for non-motorized transportation on South State and South Main showing the path.
• Work with the university to reopen the connection between South State and Kipke for all hours – or at least until 8 p.m., when most commuters have gone home.

Tim Berla thanked Boyd, and requested that he email the suggestions to PAC.

Misc. Comm/Comm: Parks and Rec Manager Update

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that work on the Argo Dam bypass is well underway. It’s pretty exciting to see the outline of the series of pools being built, he said. [PAC had recommended approval of the project at its October 2010 meeting. The $1,168 million project is being designed by Gary Lacy of Boulder, Colo., and built by TSP Environmental, a Livonia firm. The project includes removing the canoe portage, and replacing it with a series of “drop pools” so that no portage is required.] Smith said Lacy thinks they’ll be able to run water through the pools this year, to see how it will work.

Colin Smith, manager of Ann Arbor parks and recreation.

Smith said the staff has been working on a plan for improvements to the city’s baseball and softball fields. Some areas are in real need, he said – it’s analogous to the former conditions of the soccer fields, which underwent a major upgrade over the past few years. [PAC member David Barrett, who took the lead on assessing the conditions of the fields, presented a report at PAC's September 2010 meeting. There are 28 fields at Ann Arbor public schools, and 26 owned by the city. .pdf file of Barrett's ballpark report] An item regarding the baseball and softball fields will likely be on PAC’s November meeting agenda, Smith said.

Smith also mentioned that he’d driven down Fuller Road and utility work is happening along both sides – DTE was replacing a gas main in an easement granted by the city on the north side of Fuller Road, and sanitary sewer pipes are being replaced on the south side.

Tim Berla asked whether any of this work is related to the proposed Fuller Road Station, which hasn’t yet been approved by city council. Smith replied that the work would need to be done anyway, but that it’s likely there could be a tie-in to Fuller Road Station at some point. Berla observed that the city council hasn’t take a vote on the project – a partnership with the University of Michigan to build a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station on city-owned property that’s designated as parkland. He noted that it’s possible the project won’t be approved.

Smith said his understanding is that an operating agreement is being developed between the city and UM. He acknowledged PAC’s previous request to see such an agreement prior to it being presented at city council. Staff is aware of that request, he said, but there’s no update at this point. Gwen Nystuen asked whether Smith is part of the negotiations for the operating agreement. No, he said – nor has he seen a draft of the document. As far as he knew, it hasn’t been added to the agenda for any upcoming council meetings at this point.

Mike Anglin, one of two councilmembers who serve as ex-officio members of PAC, said the commission could request an update from Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, or any of the managers involved in the Fuller Road Station project. [Most recently, Cooper briefed PAC on the project at its May 2011 meeting.]

Berla noted that sometimes people ask him about Fuller Road Station, and he’d like to know the truth so that he can respond to them. He wanted to confirm that the council wasn’t sneaking into it and that just because utility work is taking place, that doesn’t mean Fuller Road Station is “a go.”

Present: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Doug Chapman, Tim Doyle, Julie Grand, Karen Levin, Sam Offen, Gwen Nystuen, John Lawter, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio), councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detroit Institute of Arts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIA: Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rain Garden Art at Kingsley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Artist Selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Permanent vs. Temporary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Community Awareness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep for City Council: Challenges – Next Steps

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

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

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

Absent: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Cathy Gendron.

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

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

Parker told PAC members that two locations have been identified for possible public art along the river: (1) at Gallup Park, in conjunction with planned improvements to the canoe livery; (2) at the Argo Dam canoe bypass, which is currently under construction. A broader project for art along a much longer stretch of the river could also be developed in connection with the RiverUp! project, she said. RiverUp! is an effort to shore up the ecological health and recreational infrastructure of the Huron River and to strengthen the economies of river communities like Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. PAC had been briefed about RiverUp! at its July 19, 2011 meeting. RiverUp! is being administered by the Huron River Watershed Council, and the group’s executive director, Laura Rubin, attended PAC’s meeting to speak in support of public art along the river.

Park commissioners expressed interest in working with the public art commission to set up a task force and explore the possibility of art in parkland by the Huron River.

This brief was filed from the city council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron St. A more detailed report will follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dreiseitl Dedication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council, Percent for Art Ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percent for Art: Public Outreach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percent for Art: Temporary Installations as Promotion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artwork for Justice Center Lobby

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

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

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

New Projects: East Stadium Bridges, Rain Garden, DIA

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

New Projects: East Stadium Bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Projects: Rain Garden

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

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

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

New Projects: Detroit Institute of Arts

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

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

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

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

Project Updates: Murals, River Walk, Kamrowski

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

Project Updates: Mural at Allmendinger

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

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

Project Updates: River ArtWalk

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

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

Project Updates: Kamrowski Murals

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

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

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

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

Project Updates: Annual ArtWalk

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

Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Absent: Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims.

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

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