Ann Arbor public art commissioners John Kotarski and Ashlee Arder at AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting. Arder was shooting B-roll for a video she’s making about the commission. (Photos by the writer.)

As part of that, a proposal to overhaul the Golden Paintbrush awards – the city’s annual recognition of individuals and organizations who support public art in Ann Arbor – received the most attention. Commissioners John Kotarski and Connie Brown had recommended four categories of public recognition to replace the Golden Paintbrush, including a lifetime achievement award, a “Random Acts of Art” award, and public art awards to be presented at a formal social event that was described as an “Academy Awards-type” ceremony.

Although there was general consensus that the Golden Paintbrush needs to be improved, some commissioners felt that the proposed public recognition program was overreaching at this point. Malverne Winborne worried about “scope creep” – going too far afield of AAPAC’s role. Marsha Chamberlin thought that making some changes to the Golden Paintbrush, including a new name, could serve the same purpose. Ultimately, commissioners decided to give the proposal more thought before acting on it.

Also related to public engagement, Kotarski and AAPAC chair Bob Miller reported on efforts to get input on proposals by four finalists for artwork at the East Stadium bridges. The two men have been making presentations to a variety of groups, and are seeking feedback via two online surveys – one on Survey Monkey, another on A2 Open City Hall. Commissioners also talked about having a regular table at the Sunday artisan market and increasing their use of social media, including the commission’s Facebook page and Twitter account – @AAPublicArt. AAPAC also will have a table at the July 15 Townie Street Party.

In other action, commissioners voted to create exploratory task forces for possible projects at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, and at the wastewater treatment plant on Dixboro Road in Ann Arbor Township. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had approached AAPAC about the possibility of incorporating public art into the wastewater treatment project. He noted that of the remaining amount in the Percent for Art funds, much of it came from wastewater-related projects, and must be spent on public art with a “nexus” to wastewater.

Art Awards: Rethinking the Golden Paintbrush

The city’s annual Golden Paintbrush awards, given out for the past 14 years, are meant to recognize people and organizations who contribute to public art works that “add interest to our cityscape, beautify the community and create a sense of place.” This year’s awards were announced at the city council’s June 17 meeting, and given to: (1) John Carver, who commissioned “Spirit of Ann Arbor” by Detroit artist Charles McGee for the outside of the Carver-Gunn Building on Liberty Street; and (2) Vic Strecher and Jeri Rosenberg for their support of events like FestiFools and FoolMoon.

The public art commission is now responsible for selecting the winners, but some commissioners in the past have expressed frustration that the awards don’t adequately highlight accomplishments of local artists and patrons of the arts. Two commissioners, John Kotarski and Connie Brown, prepared some alternative ideas for a public recognition program that they presented at AAPAC’s June 26 meeting. [.pdf of public recognition memo]

They proposed four new award/recognition categories:

• Lifetime Achievement Award: Given to end-of-career artists/art administrators/art promoters at a public event hosted by AAPAC. The award would be given to someone whose work has impacted art in public places, and the awardee would need to be nominated by at least three community members.
• Ann Arbor Public Art Award: Given for more classically identified public art, such as monument art, streetscapes, or installation art. It would replace the current Golden Paintbrush award. Winners would be given a medallion or statuette, to be presented at an Academy Awards-type event – not simply presented in front of city council, as the current awards are.
• Random Acts of Art: Given “randomly and covertly” to more temporary work, such as snow sculptures, landscaping, or “guerrilla” art. Winners would be given a gift certificate and also recognized publicly.
• Resolution of Support: Given by AAPAC to publicly support projects that the city doesn’t fund. It would be given only in response to requests, and if the project fits into AAPAC’s vision for Ann Arbor’s public art program.

Kotarski introduced the proposal, saying that the issue of adequate public recognition had arisen as he’d tried to solicit nominations for this year’s Golden Paintbrush awards. Public recognition is a very effective tool, he noted – saying it’s cheap, and it matters to people.

Regarding the resolution of support, Brown told commissioners that the intent is to tell people that AAPAC appreciates artmaking efforts in the community. It’s a way to “give an ‘attaboy’ without taking the project under our wings,” she said. Brown acknowledged that AAPAC had struggled in the past with the idea of giving endorsements, but she said it was important to recognize non-AAPAC projects in some way.

Art Awards: Rethinking the Golden Paintbrush – Lifetime Achievement

Kotarski wanted commissioners to adopt the lifetime achievement award at their June 26 meeting, saying that some recommendations had already been made to him for potential awardees. The other items could be considered at a later date. He made a formal motion to adopt the lifetime achievement award.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Connie Brown.

Malverne Winborne cautioned that these awards in general represented “scope creep.” The commission is still figuring out its role, he noted, yet now they’re considering additional work.

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s longest-serving member, pointed out that the Golden Paintbrush awards can be given in several categories, including one that recognizes substantial contributions to public art – similar to a lifetime achievement award, she said. Margaret Parker and Jan Onder have been recipients of that award.

In addition, AAPAC’s charge is focused on public art, Chamberlin noted. How many lifetime achievement awards can be given in that category, for a community this size? She questioned the assumption that AAPAC had the authority to give out awards for arts achievements generally, given its purview of public art, and said the broader awards might subject the commission to criticism.

Winborne supported possibly partnering with other groups, such as the Ann Arbor-based Arts Alliance – if the goal is to give general arts-related awards. Otherwise, it would move AAPAC too far away from its main mission of public art, he said.

The commission gets involved in so many things, Winborne said, then “gets in the weeds” and loses its momentum. The public recognition proposal includes some great ideas, he added, but AAPAC has limited resources. He liked the concept, but wanted to evaluate it more before voting – noting that he never buys a car the first time he walks into the dealership’s showroom.

Kotarski countered by saying that these awards directly address at least 30% of AAPAC’s task, as defined in the city’s public art ordinance – to promote public art. It doesn’t cost a dime, he said, and it would be in collaboration with others. He suggested that community members who nominate someone for a lifetime achievement award, for example, could take on the task for organizing the awards ceremony.

The current Golden Paintbrush awards lump everything together, Kotarski said. This new approach attempts to draw out and highlight different categories of achievement, he said, to get “more bang for our buck” in promoting public art. He noted that the lifetime achievement award wouldn’t need to be given annually – it would only be awarded if someone worthy is nominated for it.

Chamberlin gave a brief history of the Golden Paintbrush awards. The concept was modeled after the Ann Arbor park system’s Golden Trowel award, she noted, and was designed to pay tribute to individuals and organizations, as well as to publicize public art in general. Prior to the creation of AAPAC, the awards were originally given by the Washtenaw Council for the Arts – now called the Arts Alliance.

Chamberlin questioned AAPAC’s organizational capacity to pull off a major awards event, especially in the context of recent changes to the public art program. Renaming the Golden Paintbrush awards was fine, she added, but she didn’t feel the commission could take on a project like this now.

Winborne agreed with renaming the Golden Paintbrush – because to him, it seemed too specific to painters, not general public art.

Ashlee Arder, one of the newest public art commissioners, called the public recognition proposal a “noble concept,” but thought that AAPAC needed to figure out its capacity first. People in the arts community – including those at the University of Michigan, as well as arts patrons – would expect a certain caliber of event, she noted. If an awards ceremony fell short of that expectation, “it would do more harm than good,” she said.

If commissioners didn’t feel that the Golden Paintbrush awards were sufficient, then perhaps they needed to step back and think about ways to improve and promote those awards, Arder said. Chamberlin suggested holding a more formal reception after the awards are presented at the city council meeting. Winborne volunteered to wear his tuxedo.

Outcome: Kotarski withdrew the motion to create a lifetime achievement award, with the consensus that commissioners would consider the overall awards/recognition proposal and discuss it at a future meeting.

Outreach & Social Media

At several points throughout the June 26 meeting, commissioners discussed issues related to public outreach and engagement.

Ashlee Arder, one of the newest public art commissioners.

Ashlee Arder reported that she, Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves had spent some time at a recent Sunday artisan market, talking with people about the city’s public art program and the East Stadium bridges proposals. They’d had some good conversations about visibility, she said. It’s importance for the community to know that the public art commissioners aren’t just figureheads making decisions – they’re people.

So to help make that point, Arder is making a video montage that includes images of commissioners. She shot some of those images during the June 26 meeting. [Arder is programs coordinator for ArtServe Michigan, a statewide nonprofit advocacy organization. She has an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and while there was heavily involved in other arts advocacy efforts. She recently participated in the UM Museum of Arts "Many Voices" project, in which participants created short videos inspired by artwork at UMMA. Her video is called "Boy" – and it explores the theme of young male energy in West African and Western cultures.]

Commissioners also talked about using social media to engage the public – specifically, the commission’s Facebook page and Twitter account, which is @AAPublicArt. Arder explained the different purposes served by these two social media platforms, and commissioners discussed whether they should all make posts or only have a couple of commissioners handle that task. Arder noted that social media is another way to humanize the commission. She reported that a woman showed up to the Sunday artisan market because she’d seen an @AAPublicArt tweet. “It works,” Arder said.

Related to other outreach tools, AAPAC is using two online surveys – one on Survey Monkey, another on A2 Open City Hall – to solicit feedback on four finalists for artwork at East Stadium bridges.

Commissioners also discussed whether to participate in the upcoming Ann Arbor art fairs, which run from July 17-20. A table costs $90, and would need to be staffed with commissioners and other volunteers for those four days. There was some uncertainty about whether funds would be available, given the change in funding for the city’s public art program.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that from her experience, a huge percentage of visitors to the art fairs are from out of town and “don’t give a damn” about local programs. [Chamberlin recently retired as the long-time president of the Ann Arbor Art Center.] She also noted that “it is the nastiest four days to spend on the street.” She said she’d rather see AAPAC’s resources at the artisan market or farmers market on a regular basis.

This poster, standing about five feet high, was painted last year by Hannah Nathans, a University of Michigan undergraduate who was an intern with the city. It’s based on a mural by Richard Wolk on East Liberty near State Street. The poster was part of the Ann Arbor public art commission’s booth at last year’s Townie Street Party, and AAPAC plans to use it again this year.

Malverne Winborne expressed support for doing something at the art fairs, but the general consensus was to organize a regular table at the Sunday artisan market, perhaps once a month.

However, AAPAC will have a table at the July 15 Townie Street Party, as it has in the past. Commissioners plan to re-use a large poster made last year by Hannah Nathans, who worked for the city as an intern. The poster was a popular interactive feature at last year’s Townie Street Party. People poked their faces through cut-out holes and got their pictures taken, which were then posted on AAPAC’s Facebook page. The poster is based on a mural by Richard Wolk on East Liberty near State Street, with stylized portraits of Woody Allen, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Hesse, Franz Kafka, and Anaïs Nin.

During the June 26 meeting, commissioners also voted on appointments related to outreach – making John Kotarski responsible for community outreach and engagement, and Marsha Chamberlin for media relations.

Those roles were not defined, and do not appear to be connected to existing AAPAC committees. Chamberlin asked for clarification of what media relations meant, saying “I’m old-school enough to think it meant working with the press.” Based on the ensuing conversation, it appears the focus will be more on social media like Facebook and Twitter, as well as an emailed newsletter.

Kotarski pointed out that many people don’t use social media, or even email. Those people are still remorseful over the loss of a real newspaper, he noted. Chamberlin replied that AAPAC has limited capacity, both as a commission and as individuals, so they need to prioritize. She thought that Facebook and the newsletter should be among the priorities.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint John Kotarski to community outreach and engagement, and Marsha Chamberlin to media relations.

New Exploratory Task Forces

Two proposals were on the agenda to create exploratory task forces for possible projects at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, and at the wastewater treatment plant on Dixboro Road in Ann Arbor Township.

New Exploratory Task Forces: Arbor Oaks Park

Malverne Winborne reported that he and Seagraves had met in mid-June with David Jones, a board member of the Community Action Network (CAN). The nonprofit, under contract with the city, manages several community centers in Ann Arbor, including the Bryant Community Center in the Arbor Oaks neighborhood. There’s interest in putting some kind of public art in the Arbor Oaks Park, Winborne said, so the plan was to bring the idea to AAPAC, then form a task force to explore the possibility.

Task force members would include Winborne, Jones, AAPAC member Nick Zagar, and Derek Miller, CAN’s deputy director, as well as other members of the neighborhood and the arts community to be determined.

Connie Brown noted that there are several youth in that neighborhood who are interested in getting involved. She suggested that some of them could be part of the task force.

Outcome: AAPAC voted to create an exploratory task force for public art at Arbor Oaks Park.

New Exploratory Task Forces: Wastewater Treatment

The city is building a new wastewater treatment facility and renovating its existing facility in Ann Arbor Township, at 49 S. Dixboro Road. [.pdf of memo describing the wastewater treatment plant renovations] Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had approached AAPAC about the possibility of incorporating public art into the project.

John Kotarski told commissioners that he’d be taking the lead on this. People from the community – including elementary school students – take tours of the facility, he said, so it’s an opportunity to make public art that’s engaging, educational and that gives “memorable impressions of that plant and the process contained within it.”

He described the renovations as a large project, with the opportunity for AAPAC to get involved at the beginning. Hupy, who attended the June 26 meeting, clarified that the project was already well underway.

Hupy also noted that of the remaining amount in the Percent for Art funds, much of it came from wastewater-related projects, and must be spent on public art with a “nexus” to wastewater.

By way of background, starting in 2007 and until this year, the city had funded public art through a Percent for Art mechanism, which set aside 1% of the budget for each of the city’s capital projects – up to a cap of $250,000 – for public art. However, at its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council voted to eliminate the Percent for Art approach. At that time, amounts remaining in the respective funds totaled $845,029:

• 002-Energy $3,112
• 0042-Water Supply System $61,358
• 0043-Sewage Disposal System $451,956
• 0048-Airport $6,416
• 0069-Stormwater $20,844
• 0062-Street Millage $237,314
• 0071-Parks Millage $28,492
• 0072-Solid Waste $35,529

Of that total, the council voted to restore a portion to their funds of origin – which returned the additional amounts that had been set aside for the fiscal year 2014 budget:

• 0042-Water Supply System $113,500
• 0043-Sewage Disposal System $50,050
• 0069-Stormwater $33,500
• 0062-Street Millage $120,700
• 0071-Parks Millage $8,714

So about $402,000 is available for public art from the sewage disposal system (wastewater) fund.

Connie Brown had some concern about spending a large amount of money on a project like this, in what seemed to her like an ad hoc approach. Feedback she’s heard from the community indicates the desire for smaller work that’s integrated into neighborhoods, not large-scale projects. She wondered if it made more sense to have a committee look into the full range of possible projects for wastewater treatment funds, not just one at the main facility.

Kotarski noted that the task force is described as exploratory – it’s not a commitment to doing the project at the treatment plant. He invited Brown to join the task force, too.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to form an exploratory task force for possible artwork at the wastewater treatment plant.

Revisions to AAPAC Guidelines

On the agenda was an item to create a committee charged with revising AAPAC’s guidelines. [.pdf of existing guidelines] Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, introduced the item by saying “This is not a small one.”

Connie Brown expressed some skepticism, noting that in previous years the work on developing guidelines had not been “very fruitful.” [AAPAC had approved its guidelines at a March 9, 2010 meeting. Until that time, the guidelines had been under review – mostly by the city attorney’s office – for nearly two years.]

Marsha Chamberlin asked if anything had really changed, other than the public art program’s funding mechanism, that would impact the guidelines. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, noted that some practices and policies have been adopted by AAPAC but aren’t reflected in the guidelines. He gave as an example the artist selection process.

Rather than form a committee, Chamberlin suggested that Seagraves develop a draft set of revisions to bring back to AAPAC for review. At that point, if commissioners felt more work was needed, they could form a committee then, she said.

Outcome: The motion to create a committee to revise AAPAC’s guidelines was withdrawn.

Project Updates

Several projects were discussed briefly during the June 26 meeting, by way of updates. Additional information was also included in a written report by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. [.pdf of Seagraves' report] These projects were either already in progress when the city council temporarily halted spending on public art late last year, or don’t use Percent for Art funds.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridge

John Kotarski and Bob Miller have been making presentations to various groups about proposals from four finalists for artwork at the East Stadium bridge: Volkan Alkanoglu, based in Atlanta, Georgia; Sheila Klein of Bow, Washington; Rebar Group of San Francisco; and Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass.

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

The presentation of their proposals is available online. The project has a budget of $400,000. Members of the task force are Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely.

Among the presentations included one at the June 18, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, a table at the June 14 Green Fair on Main Street, and a meeting on June 25 at the Ann Arbor senior center, attended by Ward 2 city councilmembers Jane Lumm and Sally Petersen, and about a dozen residents.

Miller reported that Kotarski has been organizing these outreach efforts, as a way to promote community engagement with specific AAPAC projects.

Marsha Chamberlin praised the approach, but suggested that they might consolidate some of their efforts in order to reach more people. Kotarski responded, saying he purposefully didn’t plan the presentations that way because he wasn’t interested in efficiency so much as having multiple points of contact. It’s time intensive, he noted, but he wanted people to know that he and Miller are available and interested in getting input. There are a lot of misperceptions about the public art program and about how artists work, he said. This is a way to educate people as well, Kotarski said.

AAPAC is also using two online surveys – one on Survey Monkey, another on A2 Open City Hall – to solicit feedback on the East Stadium bridges proposals by the four finalists.

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

At AAPAC’s March 27, 2013 meeting, commissioners had selected Denver artist Josh Wiener to work with landscapers and incorporate public art into a new rain garden at the corner of Kingsley and First. The project has a $27,000 budget.

Wiener will be coming to Ann Arbor on July 15 to present his design to the public. He’ll also be attending the Townie Party to talk with community members about the project.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to accept a memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project and to approve Sarah Gay as a volunteer project manager. Her duties were to lead efforts for city council approval, donor relations and fundraising.

Marsha Chamberlin of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

The original proposal was for a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private donor has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs.

Seagraves reported that a memorandum of understanding is being negotiated between the Jewett family, the city, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Marsha Chamberlin said the plan now calls for two full-sized replicas in bronze. The cost is estimated at $15,000 each, and about $6,000 has been raised. Materials for fundraising are being developed.

Seagraves met with parks staff regarding a location for the chairs. At this point, the plan is to remove one of two existing benches on the market’s east side, and locate the bronze chairs there. The proposal would be put before the city’s public market advisory commission as well as AAPAC, before seeking city council approval.

Project Updates: Justice Center

Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” hanging sculpture was installed in the lobby of the Justice Center in late May. Seagraves reported that a formal dedication and ceremony is being planned for September, although a date hasn’t yet been set. Carpenter would return for that event.

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

A selection panel has picked three finalists for artwork along the Argo Cascades. Members of the selection panel include John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Saam, Margaret Parker, Cathy Fleisher, Bonnie Greenspoon and Julie Grand. AAPAC approved a $150,000 budget for that project on April 25, 2012.

A survey to solicit feedback is being sent to stakeholders and also handed out at the Argo canoe livery, Seagraves reported. Connie Brown urged Seagraves to distribute the survey as widely as possible, including posting it on AAPAC’s website.

The finalists will be invited to a site walk-through in early August.

Update after publication: The three finalists are Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland; Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass.; and Andy Dufford of Denver, Colo.

DIA’s Inside|Out

Free docent-led tours of Detroit Institute of Arts’ Inside|Out program artwork in Ann Arbor have ended, John Kotarski reported. But as a result of those tours, which he organized, he’s been asked to lead similar tours for visually impaired students. He described a recent group that spent most of the tour at the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall. The students as well as their sighted parents took their shoes off and got into the fountain, he said – it was designed that way, to be accessible and interactive, he noted.

Kotarski said he’d like to find a way to recognize the docents who’d volunteered to give tours in May and June, with perhaps a gift certificate.

Project Updates: Canoe Art

Marsha Chamberlin has been working on a canoe art project with other local organizations, called Canoe Imagine Art. The project will use old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which artists and community groups will turn into artwork that will be displayed throughout the downtown in 2014. Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC). Task force members are Chamberlin; Cheryl Saam, the city’s canoe livery supervisor; Shoshana Hurand of the Arts Alliance; Mary Kerr of the CVB; Maura Thomson of the MSAA; and Laura Rubin of HRWC.

Seagraves reported that the task force is reviewing a draft fundraising proposal and call to artists. Chamberlin told commissioners that she planned to have a formal agenda item about the project for AAPAC’s July meeting. “I’m gonna creep the scope,” she joked.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from commissioners and staff, and two slots for public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Fencing on Scio Church

Near the start of the June 26 meeting, Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, suggested a possible project for AAPAC. The city is putting in sidewalks along a stretch of Scio Church Road, he reported, and will also be installing a fence there. The city staff is planning to install the kind of chain link fence that they usually use, he said, but he thought there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wants to explore that possibility.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that the project could serve as a prototype for other fencing in the city. At the suggestion of AAPAC chair Bob Miller, Chamberlin volunteered to serve as the commission’s point person on this possible project.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Jeff Hayner attended the June 26 meeting and spoke at the final opportunity for public commentary. Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, reported that he had talked with Hayner at the recent Green Fair, and had encouraged Hayner to attend an AAPAC meeting.

Noting that there were two vacancies on AAPAC, Hayner encouraged commissioners to reach out and fill those positions. He noted that he serves on the board of the Ann Arbor PTO Thrift Shop, and they’re also working to fill some vacancies.

By way of background, Nick Zagar was appointed in March 2013 to replace Theresa Reid, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015. Reid had resigned mid-term. Also in March, Ashlee Arder was appointed to replace Cathy Gendron for a term ending Jan. 20, 2016. Gendron had been reappointed at the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, but resigned soon after that.

Wiltrud Simbuerger resigned in March, also before the end of her term. Bob Miller had previously reported that Maureen Devine’s name has been submitted to mayor John Hieftje, who is responsible for making nominations to most of the city’s advisory boards and commissions. Devine is art coordinator for the University of Michigan’s North Campus Research Complex (NCRC). However, Hieftje has not yet put forward her nomination.

Nor has anyone been nominated to replace a position previously held by Tony Derezinski. Along with Gendron and Connie Brown, Derezinski been nominated at the council’s Dec. 17, 2012 meeting for reappointment to serve terms ending Jan. 20, 2016. Both Gendron and Brown were reappointed at the council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, but Derezinski’s name had been crossed out and the position he held remains vacant.

During his public commentary, Hayner also asked some clarificational questions about the city’s public art funding, and encouraged the commission to provide as much information as possible about its work. All taxpayers are stakeholders, he noted, adding that it had been very difficult for him to find out about AAPAC’s activities.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Malverne Winborne. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, and Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

Absent: Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Ann Arbor public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Marsha Chamberlin at AAPAC’s Jan. 23, 2013 meeting. Winborne is explaining how he had interpreted the image on a proposed sign for the Dreiseitl water sculpture – in looked like a notebook binder’s spine. (Photos by the writer.)

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin described a collaboration with the city’s parks system to use old canoes for a community art project. The effort also involves the Main Street Area Association and Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. She indicated the project would seek private donations and grants, but probably not funds from the city’s Percent for Art program, which is currently under review by the city council.

The commission also heard from Linda Tenza, a resident who came to the Jan. 23 meeting to make an informal proposal for creating murals on the ceilings of the farmers market shelter. Likening it to a Sistine Chapel effect, Tenza suggested painting food-themed murals on the ceilings of the structures that cover the market aisles. Possible themes include food as medicine, the local farm community, seasonal fruits and vegetables, and the history of farming.

Although Tenza’s project is still tentative, one public art project that’s definitely coming to Ann Arbor is the Detroit Institute of Arts’ Inside|Out program, which involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks. Two private Ann Arbor businesses – Zingerman’s Deli and the downtown Borders store – were part of the program in 2010. Since then the DIA has been talking periodically with AAPAC and city staff about expanded participation.

The works will be hung from late March through June at several downtown locations, including on the facade of city hall and on the wall of the fire station that faces the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum. An official announcement about the project, including a listing of all locations, will be made at a Feb. 8 DIA press conference.

In other action at AAPAC’s Jan. 23 meeting, commissioners expressed frustration with the proposed design of a sign for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall, calling it too “busy” with text and images that are unclear. Nor were they pleased with the proposed description of the piece that’s included on the sign: “Sculpture with Water Feature.” Chamberlin agreed to discuss their concerns with Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects, which handled the design.

Commissioners were also updated on several ongoing projects, including the selection of public art for the East Stadium bridges. A public engagement proposal for that $400,000 project – which might serve as a template for other projects – elicited some debate. John Kotarski objected to a recommendation that part of each artist’s interview with a selection panel should be held in private. He felt strongly that the process should be open and transparent. Wiltrud Simbuerger, who presented the recommendation, felt that the selection panel needs a “safe place” for their deliberations.

The Jan. 23 meeting included a discussion of officer elections, which AAPAC’s bylaws call for in January. The elections were ultimately postponed because only four commissioners were present at that point in the 2.5-hour meeting. Chamberlin has been serving as chair since April of 2011. Malverne Winborne is vice chair.

Also factoring into the issue of officer elections was the uncertainty of AAPAC’s future. The city council has suspended expenditures for future projects pending review of the public art program by a council committee appointed last December. Chamberlin, who has attended all meetings of that committee, gave an update to commissioners, but noted that no decisions have yet been made. The committee is expected to give its recommendations to the full council in mid-February – its next meeting is on Feb. 7. This report includes a summary of the committee’s most recent deliberations.

Sign for Dreiseitl Water Sculpture

The issue of developing a sign for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture has been discussed at various AAPAC meetings for about a year. At the Jan. 23 meeting, commissioners reviewed the proposed sign that had been developed by Quinn Evans Architects and city communications staff. [.pdf of text and images for the proposed sign]

Drawing that shows proposed location for a sign near the Dreiseitl sculpture in front of city hall, facing Huron Street.

Commissioners raised several concerns about the sign, which would be 11 inches by 17 inches and located on top of a mesh fence that will be installed at the end of the walkway overlooking the sculpture. The sign is intended to highlight the sculpture’s meaning and how it fits into the context of the plaza’s rain garden and stormwater management system.

The wording for the sign is now different than what had previously been presented to AAPAC. [.pdf of original text for the sign] In addition to a description of the stormwater system – with several images depicting various elements of the system – the proposal also includes an artist’s statement by Dreiseitl:

The promise of water is all about the future. Like rain, it is comforting, providing renewal and refreshment for a dry and thirsty landscape in a cityscape coming out of drought conditions. It is not only a symbol, water gives hope for the potential for life.

The sculpture consists of two layers of melted metal. Slightly leaning and finding its balance, the sculpture is subtly dynamic in every way. Resembling the surface of a standing wave, the top is concave and the bottom is convex. The concave surface is associated with reception, openness, taking in what is from above, and the convex surface is associated with giving away what it has received to the earth below, thus showing the transition from the sky to the earth — what rainwater always does.

The glass spheres bring floating light into the darkness of a physical form while water flows from above to quench the thirst of the earth. Emulating the motion of water drops, light moves down the sculpture at different speeds intensely illuminating the blue glass spheres in the day and softly illuminating them at night. The glass drops, which stick out at the top, slowly recede into the sculpture then reappear on the lower region of the other side, as if they are raindrops flowing down, penetrating into the sculpture and come out again.

In general, commissioners felt the sign was too “busy” – with too much text as well as imagery that’s unclear. Malverne Winborne called the sign’s image of the sculpture a “Rorschach test,” saying he’d thought at first that it looked like the spine of a notebook binder. Several others also said they hadn’t initially realized that the image was intended to be the sculpture. One difficulty is that the sign shows the sculpture as viewed from the side, though the sign will be placed facing the back of the sculpture. Another issue is that the sign was originally conceived of as two separate signs, but at some point they were combined into one.

Winborne suggested eliminating much of the text and including a QR code that would direct people to a website with more information.

In addition to paring down the text and images, Wiltrud Simbuerger wanted to find a different name for the piece. Currently, the title on the sign is “Sculpture with Water Feature.” Bob Miller suggested naming the sculpture “The Promise of Water.” John Kotarski said it was his understanding that Dreiseitl didn’t want to give the work a title.

Marsha Chamberlin offered to sit down with Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, the Ann Arbor firm that handled the design of the new Justice Center and city hall renovation, and oversaw its construction – a project that included the Dreiseitl sculpture.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Update on City Council Public Art Committee

Marsha Chamberlin gave commissioners an update on the work of a city council committee that’s reviewing the city’s public art program. [See Chronicle coverage: "City to Seek Feedback on Public Art Program" and "Council's Public Art Committee Begins Work."]

In the foreground is Christopher Taylor, a Ward 3 city councilmember who’s serving on a council committee to review the city’s public art program. Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the public art commission, also attended this Jan. 22 committee meeting. In the background to the left is Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

Committee members are Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Margie Teall (Ward 4). They were appointed by the full council on Dec. 3, 2012 and have met five times since then, most recently on Jan. 31, working toward the goal of making recommendation about the public art program’s future by mid-February. Also on Dec. 3, the council voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program – except for projects that are already underway. The moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.

Chamberlin reported that the committee has considered the possibility of having a full-time public art administrator. [The current administrator's position, held by Aaron Seagraves, is part-time.]

The group is also looking at possible revisions to the public art ordinance, she said, as well as ways to encourage the involvement of public art in the initial design of large capital projects. She noted that everyone on the committee seems to support public art, but they have varying ideas about the kind of art that should be funded and the type of funding source.

“I think it’s still a broad, open discussion,” Chamberlin said.

Update on City Council Public Art Committee: Additional Background

The Chronicle has attended all of these council committee meetings. At its early meetings, the committee had discussed getting feedback from the public using the city’s online A2 Open City Hall. Lisa Wondrash, the city’s communications manager, attended the Jan. 14 meeting to brief committee members on that platorm’s features.

But subsequent meetings – on Jan. 22 and Jan. 31 – have focused primarily on revisions to the public art ordinance. [.pdf of current ordinance] Possible changes discussed by the committee include limiting the tenure of commissioners to two three-year terms; revising the types of capital projects from which public art funding can be taken; and incorporating requirements for public engagement.

There seems to be some consensus among committee members – and supported by city staff – that funding for public art should be “baked in” to capital projects. That is, instead of transferring out 1% of a project’s budget into a separate public art fund, the money would be earmarked within the capital project’s budget, and project designers would be given directive to incorporate artistic elements into the design. This would make administering the public art program less administratively burdensome, and ensure that public art wouldn’t be an “add on” after the capital project is finished.

The possibility of having a full-time public art administrator has also been raised. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered whether the current unallocated funds remaining in the public art fund (#0056) could be used to pay for a full-time staff person. [According to a budget distributed at AAPAC's Jan. 23 meeting, the public art fund has an available balance of $1.453 million. Of that, about $607,800 is allocated for projects already underway, including artwork for East Stadium bridges ($400,000), Argo Cascades ($150,000) and in a rain garden at First and Kingsley ($27,000). The remaining funds total about $845,000. (.pdf of budget summary)]

Responding to Briere, Tom Crawford – the city’s chief financial officer – described her suggestion as “staff seed money” for the public art program, but he wasn’t sure whether existing public art funds could be used for that purpose. He told the committee that he’d check on that.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) at the Jan. 22 council committee meeting on public art.

Another idea discussed is to have certain public art projects paid for out of the city’s general fund. This approach would eliminate the need to tie an artwork’s “theme” to the source of the capital funding. It would also eliminate the need for the art to be permanent and “monumental” in nature.

While paying for public art from the general fund would give the program more flexibility – allowing for temporary installations or performance art, for example – some councilmembers expressed concern about that approach. Briere pointed out that the city’s general fund is limited, and that anything spent on public art means there’s less to spend on other priorities, including staffing for other services. If the council starts weighing public art against people, “then the art’s gone,” she said.

The issue of pursuing another vote on a public art millage was another topic of discussion. A public art millage of 0.10 mills was rejected by 56% of Ann Arbor voters on Nov. 6, 2012. But there was some sense among committee members that if the public art program is restructured and can show some clear success, voters might be more receptive to a millage.

At the end of the Jan. 31 meeting, Briere indicated that she would incorporate the committee’s discussion into a draft of a revised ordinance for review at the next meeting. She also said she’d begin drafting a report of recommendations for the full council, to be reviewed at the next committee meeting. The committee is working to bring back its recommendations to the council by mid-February.

The committee’s next meeting is set for Thursday, Feb. 7 from 11:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. at the sixth floor conference room in city hall.

Public Engagement

At AAPAC’s Jan. 23 meeting – in the context of the East Stadium bridges project – Wiltrud Simbuerger presented a proposal for how to engage the public better in the selection process for the city’s public art. She noted that the process had been developed for East Stadium bridges artwork, but could easily be adapted for any project. It had been put together by her, public art administrator Aaron Seagraves and Connie Pulcipher, who works in the city’s systems planning unit. [.pdf of selection process proposal]

Simbuerger reviewed several aspects of this approach, but the item that generated the most discussion among commissioners centered on a recommendation that part of each artist’s interview with a selection panel should be held in private. From the relevant passage of the selection process proposal [emphasis added – item e]:

4. The presentation process would follow this procedure:
a. At the time of issuing the RFP, the day, location and time of the presentation will be named. A schedule will also be included that lists any receptions or activities the artist is expected to attend. Artists will know well in advance of the presentation date when their work is due and what travel plans they must make.
b. The day, location, time and events will be widely publicized.
c. On the day of the presentation, the artist will present at the appointed time and place and be given 45 minutes to present their design proposal.
d. The presentation will be held in a city location that allows for live streaming (such as the council chambers). Interested public would be able to attend the live stream in a place such as the library or a room in city hall, etc. The public would be issued feedback forms with specific questions as well as room for additional feedback. It is also possible that the presentation can be conducted as a webinar, and participation also garnered by that means.
e. At the end of each presentation, the camera will be turned off for 15 min. During the 15 minutes, the Selection Panel will have discussion and the public can submit feedback. There is an option of facilitated discussion with the public.
f. The feedback forms would be collected from the public, the camera turned on again and the next presentation will commence.
g. Repeat as necessary.

John Kotarski objected to turning off the camera, calling it problematic and wrong. Simbuerger countered that it was not an open meeting, so they had the option of recording the proceedings or not. [By way of background, there is no requirement under the Michigan Open Meetings Act that a selection panel of this sort – which is not an public body subject to the statute – must be accessible to the public. But by city policy established by the city council, meetings of boards, task forces, commissions, committees and their subcommittees are supposed to hold their meetings open to the public, to the best of their abilities in the spirit of the OMA.]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Kotarski argued that all of the deliberations regarding the selection of public art should be open and transparent. Marsha Chamberlin noted that there is precedence in the proceedings of other entities. For example, meetings of the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs are open to the public, but some portions of those meetings are held in closed sessions.

Kotarski pressed for reasons why the selection panel’s deliberations should be private. Simbuerger said there needs to be a “safe place” for discussion. Members of the selection panel aren’t elected and aren’t accustomed to public deliberations, she said. [From the proposed guidelines, it's not clear whether the public would be allowed to stay in the room during the 15 minutes when the cameras are turned off.]

Kotarski didn’t see any benefit other than protecting selection panel members from scrutiny. Because they would be conducting the public’s business and making recommendations on how to spend taxpayer dollars, the panel should hold its deliberations in public, he argued. The sessions should not be private just to save panelists from embarrassment, he said. AAPAC has received intense criticism in the past for making decisions in private, he added, and to do it again would “inflame” the commission’s critics.

Chamberlin said she hadn’t heard this kind of criticism against AAPAC, but Kotarski replied that he’d heard it from dozens of people and had read it in online comments.

Malverne Winborne suggested looking at city processes. He described his experiences working with charter schools, and the ability of the governing boards to enter into closed sessions based on certain criteria that that are specified in the OMA. [Winborne is director of Eastern Michigan University’s Charter Schools Office.] Aaron Seagraves indicated that city staff will look into this issue.

Kotarski said he wasn’t against having closed sessions, but those sessions need to be consistent with city of Ann Arbor policies and best practices in other communities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Art for Farmers Market

Linda Tenza attended AAPAC’s Jan. 23 meeting to make an informal proposal for creating murals on the ceilings of the farmers market shelter.

She began by noting that she’s an Ann Arbor resident and mother of Jeff Tenza, who’s a board member of the People’s Food Coop and involved with the Washtenaw Food Hub. “He knows all the cool people in Ann Arbor,” she joked. “I’m just the mom.”

Linda Tenza at AAPAC’s Jan. 23 meeting.

Likening it to a Sistine Chapel effect, Tenza’s suggestion is to paint food-themed murals on the ceilings of the structures that cover the market aisles. Possible themes include food as medicine, the local farm community, seasonal fruits and vegetables, and the history of farming. The project could involve schools and students, she said, and possibly be sponsored by local farms and businesses. There could even be prizes, she said, akin to the Art Prize competition in Grand Rapids. The effort could be educational, and could result in artwork that would be a tourist attraction, Tenza said.

There are many unknowns about the cost and other factors, she continued, but this idea could be a starting point to explore those issues and work toward implementing the idea.

Marsha Chamberlin asked Tenza if she’d discussed this idea with the public market advisory commission. Tenza reported that she’d met with the group the previous week, and had talked with the market manager, Sarah DeWitt. The commission is considering it, she said. Meanwhile, DeWitt had suggested that Tenza approach AAPAC, because the market is city-owned property and public space. Tenza said she hoped to get direction from commissioners. [.pdf of AAPAC project intake form for Tenza's proposal]

Commissioners talked about the process and AAPAC’s possible involvement, in the context of uncertainty related to the city’s public art program. Chamberlin clarified that because it would be an art project on city-owned property, the project would need to go through AAPAC’s project approval process – even if Tenza raised funding from private sources.

Chamberlin indicated that the commission would likely invite Tenza to a future meeting for additional discussion, possibly at AAPAC’s next session on Feb. 27. Commissioners would need to decide whether it’s a project they think the city should pursue. If so, they’d form a task force that would likely include Tenza and other stakeholders. They’d also need to figure out whether Percent for Art funds are available – and that will depend in large part on whether the city council decides to make changes to the program.

Commissioners who attended the Jan. 23 meeting generally seemed supportive of the idea, and thanked Tenza for bringing it forward.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Project Updates

Several projects were discussed briefly during the Jan. 23 meeting, by way of updates.

Project Updates: Justice Center Lobby

Oregon artist Ed Carpenter is still looking for local firms to handle the installation of his hanging glass sculpture, called “Radius,” in the lobby of the Justice Center at 301 E. Huron, next to city hall. The project was approved by the city council in May of 2012 based on AAPAC’s recommendation, with a budget of $150,000. Members of the projects task force are: Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Bob Grese, Laura Rubin, Margie Teall, Ray Detter, Maureen Devine and Karl Daubmann. The fabrication of the artwork is being done in Portland and is expected to be done by April.

There was continued uncertainty about the funding source for this project. The issue had been discussed at AAPAC’s Dec. 19, 2012 meeting, after it emerged that funding for Radius is not provided under the city’s Percent for Art program, as commissioners and city councilmembers had originally thought. Rather, the budget for the Justice Center set aside $250,00 of its own funds for public art, out of which the Carpenter sculpture is being funded.

The budget summary provided to AAPAC on Jan. 23 for the first time lists the Justice Center public art funds as a separate line item – not included as part of the city’s public art fund (Fund #0056). [.pdf of budget summary]

The line item shows that $102,531 of the Justice Center’s $250,000 public art funding has already been spent, leaving a balance of $147,468. Malverne Winborne asked what the $102,531 has been spent on – because not all of it was paid to Carpenter.

Aaron Seagraves replied that some of it has gone to Carpenter. [According to the city's contract with Carpenter, which was approved by the city council on May 7, 2012, the artist will be paid in three installments: (1) $50,000 upon signing of the contract, (2) $75,000 upon completion of the artwork up to the point of shipping, and (3) $25,000 upon completion of the installation. (.pdf of contract with Carpenter) Based on the payment schedule, only $50,000 has been paid to Carpenter so far.]

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Seagraves provided details of the $102,531 in expenditures: (1) $50,000 for the initial payment to Carpenter; (2) $3,000 for honorariums paid to Carpenter and two other finalists ($1,000 each) for art proposals in the Justice Center lobby; (3) $2,000 to Herbert Dreiseitl for consultation services in 2008; and (4) the remainder of $47,531 to Quinn Evans Architects for architect services.

Herbert Dreiseitl had originally been commissioned to complete three works, including one in the Justice Center lobby, and another inside the Larcom building atrium. But his proposals came in at higher cost than the city had budgeted, and so the only project to move forward was the water sculpture in front of city hall. The city council authorized a $750,000 budget for that work out of “pooled” funds from other capital improvement projects: drinking water ($210,000), sanitary sewer ($510,000) and stormwater ($30,000) funds.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

Last year, the city had received 36 responses to an SOQ for artwork along the new East Stadium bridges. A selection panel has narrowed their choices to 5-7 of those artists. Wiltrud Simbuerger, who serves on the selection panel, said the next step is for members to set up Skype interviews with these artists and narrow down the group to as many as five finalists. The $400,000 budget for that project was recommended by AAPAC on March 28, 2012. Members of the task force/selection panel are Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. The project is still on track to be finished by the end of 2013, according to Seagraves.

During the Jan. 23 meeting, Simbuerger also presented a proposal for public engagement in the artist selection process. [.pdf of selection process proposal] Discussion of that proposal is reported earlier in this article.

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

A statement of qualifications (SOQ) was issued in early December for this project to place artwork in the city park along Argo Cascades, with a deadline of March 6. [SOQs for the city are posted online.] AAPAC approved a $150,000 budget for that project on April 25, 2012. Task force members are John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Saam, Margaret Parker, Cathy Fleisher, Bonnie Greenspoon, Julie Grand, and Colin Smith. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2013.

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

Responses are being evaluated from a request for proposals (RFP) that was issued last year for artwork to be included in a rain garden at the city-owned lot at Kingsley & First. The artwork is being handled in conjunction with the rain garden design by city staff and Conservation Design Forum. Task force members are Connie Brown, Jerry Hancock, Claudette Stern and John Walters. Aaron Seagraves reported that he expects the artist to be elected in February. The project has a budget of $27,000 with an expected completion in August of 2013.

Project Updates: Forest Avenue Plaza

A task force had been working on a public art project for the Forest Avenue Plaza, located next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University. It’s linked to a renovation of the plaza that’s being undertaken by the city’s parks staff. Bob Miller reported that the task force work has been sidelined, pending the city council’s decision about the future of the public art program.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Bob Miller.

Aaron Seagraves noted that parks planner Amy Kuras is moving ahead with certain aspects of the plaza renovation, including repaving the area. This news was met with some frustration by Miller. He noted that at the most recent meeting of the task force – on which Kuras also serves – there had been a great discussion about how to incorporate public art into structural elements of the plaza, such as stamping designs into the concrete paving and working an artistic element into the landscaping. Now, it seemed Kuras was moving away from that approach, he said.

Seagraves replied that it might be because the parks staff needed to move forward on the project. Because no Percent for Art funding can be involved – given the city council’s directive to suspend funding – Kuras might think that AAPAC is no longer involved, either.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested that Miller contact Kuras and express AAPAC’s continued enthusiasm for being involved, even if they can’t contribute public art funding. Miller agreed to do that.

Project Updates: Senior Center

Aaron Seagraves reported that he’s talked with the facilities supervisor at the Ann Arbor Senior Center, who’s interested in putting up a rotating art exhibit in the building. The center is located in Burns Park, at 1320 Baldwin. He discussed how AAPAC might collaborate to promote the idea, such as by soliciting artists via the commission’s website and newsletter.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested also contacting the Ann Arbor Women Artists and the Arts Alliance, to help get the word out about this opportunity.

Project Updates: DIA

Another public art project coming to Ann Arbor is the Detroit Institute of Arts’ Inside|Out project, which involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks. Two private Ann Arbor businesses – Zingerman’s Deli and the downtown Borders store – were part of the program in 2010, and since then the DIA has been talking periodically with AAPAC and city staff about expanded participation.

The works will be hung from late March through June at several downtown locations, including on the facade of city hall and on the wall of the downtown fire station that faces the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum. An official announcement about the project will be made at a Feb. 8 press conference at the DIA.

This project wasn’t discussed at AAPAC’s Jan. 23 meeting, but had been brought up the previous day at the city council committee on public art. At that meeting, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – reported that the DIA had selected Ann Arbor to participate. He did not have additional information about the location of other privately-owned buildings that would be part of the project.

Report from AAPAC Chair: Canoes, CTN

In addition to communications that are reported elsewhere in this article, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin informed commissioners about two other projects she’s pursuing.

Chair’s Report: Community Canoe Project

The idea of using old canoes for an art project had been mentioned nearly a year ago by John Kotarski, at an AAPAC retreat on Feb. 26, 2012. More recently, at the commission’s meeting on Oct. 24, 2012, Marsha Chamberlin had reported that Cheryl Saam, facilities supervisor for the city’s canoe liveries, was interested in using old canoes – boats that the city was getting rid of – for some kind of community art project. It involves several concepts, Chamberlin said, including the idea of recycling, the Huron River, and public art.

On Jan. 23, Chamberlin reported that she, Saam, public art administrator Aaron Seagraves, and representatives of the Main Street Area Association (MSAA) and Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau had met to discuss the project, and decided to move ahead with it. At this point it wasn’t clear if AAPAC would be involved, she said, so it wouldn’t be going through the commission’s project approval process.

About 50 canoes are available, and could be cut in half. They could be painted, embellished, or transformed in any way – but the common theme would be the canoe. The project could involve individual artists, community groups, public schools, and/or businesses. Chamberlin said that the MSAA has committed to 13 locations for temporary installations, and possibly more in the South State and South University districts.

Wiltrud Simbuerger thought the project would be a great fit in the Argo Cascades area. AAPAC has allocated $150,000 for public art in that area along the Huron River. But John Kotarski, who serves on a task force for the Argo Cascades project, reported that task force members had been relatively cool to the idea. He said that the task force chair, Margaret Parker, had “a different idea in mind.” [An SOQ has already been issued for that project, with a response deadline of March 6.]

Chamberlin described the next step as determining a fiduciary for the project, to handle the receipt of donations or grants.

Chair’s Report: Community Television Network

Chamberlin also said she’s following up on a suggestion previously floated by former AAPAC member Margaret Parker, about promoting the city’s public art on community access television – the Community Television Network. CTN is producing a retrospective on public art in Ann Arbor, Chamberlin said, which will include an interview with Parker as well as footage of the tree sculptures at West Park, the Dreiseitl sculpture at city hall, and the new mural at Allmendinger Park.

In addition, CTN is interested in doing a longer piece about the process for selecting artwork on East Stadium bridges, she said.

Public Artist Registry

At AAPAC’s July 25, 2012 meeting, commissioners voted to establish an SOQ (statement of qualifications) process that creates an artist registry/database. The intent is to streamline the selection of artists for future projects.

On Jan. 23, commissioners reviewed a draft SOQ that had been drawn up by city staff. [.pdf of draft SOQ] The main discussion on this agenda item related to the SOQ’s stated objective: “to find professional artists whose work meets a set of standards in which they will be pre-qualified for the City of Ann Arbor public art projects for two (2) years from 2013 to 2015.”

Bob Miller felt that two years was too brief a time, given the work involved in submitting an SOQ. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, indicated that the two-year period was a recommendation of the city’s purchasing staff.

Miller and John Kotarski asked Seagraves to investigate how other communities handle this kind of registry, particularly as it relates to the timeframe question. Seagraves felt that there was time to do some research, especially in light of possible changes to the Percent for Art program by city council, which could impact the registry project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone action on the registry SOQ.

Public Art Annual Plan

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reminded commissioners that the mandated public art annual plan was due to city council on April 1. The plan would cover activities that AAPAC intended to pursue in fiscal year 2014, which runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. To the left is commissioner John Kotarski.

Seagraves noted that because the council has suspended expenditures for the city’s Percent for Art program, “we’re not really sure what we’re planning for, or how much we’ll have available.” He recommended moving forward with a plan that’s based on current funds in the Percent for Art budget. According to a budget distributed at the meeting, the public art fund (#0056) has an available balance of $1.453 million. Of that, about $607,800 is allocated for projects already underway, including artwork for East Stadium bridges ($400,000), Argo Cascades ($150,000) and in a rain garden at First and Kingsley ($27,000). The remaining funds total about $845,000.

Seagraves suggested forming an ad hoc committee to help draft the plan, with ideas contributed by other commissioners via email. At AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting, commissioners will be briefed on the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which could guide future public art projects.

The CIP is important to AAPAC because funding for the Percent for Art program comes from the city’s capital projects – with 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, being set aside for public art. The CIP also indicates which major projects are on the horizon that might incorporate public art. By identifying such projects, AAPAC can start planning the public art component as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

However, the city council is now evaluating the Percent for Art program in light of a public art millage that was rejected by 56% of voters on Nov. 6, 2012. A council committee was appointed on Dec. 3, 2012 and has been meeting since then, with plans to bring recommendations to the full council in mid-February. The group is exploring several options, including possible public/private partnerships and hiring a full-time administrator. There seems to be general agreement that if a Percent for Art approach is kept in place, it should be modified and only provide a portion of funding for public art. [Additional updates on this committee's work are reported earlier in this article.]

The annual public art plan for FY 2013 lists five objectives [.pdf of FY 2013 annual plan]:

• Objective 1: In an effort to create community engagement and expedite work of the Commission, a Master Plan for 2013-2016 will be developed.
• Objective 2: Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines as stated. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion.
• Objective 3: By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement.
• Objective 4: By August 1, the commission will develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
• Objective 5: Collaborate with, at least three, commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

Commissioners informally agreed to the approach recommended by Seagraves. He and AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin will work on the draft, with the goal of final approval by the commission’s March 27 meeting.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Officer Elections, Vacancies

AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January. By the time the group reached this agenda item, there were only four commissioners left at the meeting: Marsha Chamberlin, chair; Malverne Winborne, vice chair; Bob Miller; and John Kotarski.

There are two vacancies on the nine-member commission, following the resignation of Theresa Reid in November of 2012, and the end of Tony Derezinski’s term. Derezinski – along with Cathy Gendron and Connie Brown – had been nominated at the council’s Dec. 17 meeting for reappointment to serve terms ending Jan. 20, 2016. Both Gendron and Brown were subsequently reappointed at the council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, but Derezinski’s name had been crossed out and the position he held remains vacant.

From left: Ann Arbor public art commissioners Marsha Chamberlin and John Kotarski.

On Jan. 23, Kotarski expressed reluctance to vote for officers, given the number of commissioners present and the uncertainty surrounding AAPAC’s future. He contended that there had not been an acting chair when he joined the commission in December of 2011, so he thought AAPAC could continue on for a few months without an election.

By way of background, AAPAC has not regularly held officer elections in January. Chamberlin has served as chair since April of 2011. The previous chair, Margaret Parker, had stepped down in late 2010, but initially no one wanted to take her place. Commissioners rotated leading the monthly meetings until Chamberlin was eventually elected permanent chair. Winborne was elected vice chair in May of 2011 – but that the position had previously been vacant since the end of 2009. No officer elections were held in 2012.

At the Jan. 23 meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – suggested holding off on the elections until February, when more commissioners would be present. He pointed out that the bylaws aren’t legally binding, and that elections could be held at a later date.

Kotarski joked that AAPAC probably violated its bylaws at least 12 times each meeting, and he saw no harm in waiting. He wanted to wait until city council has decided what to do about the city’s public art program.

Winborne advocated for AAPAC to conduct itself as though they would continue to operate as a commission, but supported waiting until February for the officer elections.

Outcome: The four commissioners present voted to postpone officer elections until AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting.

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

Absent: Connie Brown, Cathy Gendron.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the fourth floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

From left: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) at the Jan. 7, 2013 council public art committee meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The group discussed this approach at its second meeting since being appointed by the full council on Dec. 3, 2012. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) had proposed a survey at the committee’s first meeting on Dec. 11, but the idea had gained no traction then. She reintroduced the proposal on Jan. 7, saying she felt the committee needed better direction about public art and the types of funding residents might support.

A2 Open City Hall allows users to give open-ended responses to questions, to select priorities, and to give votes of support to comments left by others. It’s a relatively new system, and committee members talked about the need to promote it so that more people will participate. They plan to invite Lisa Wondrash, the city’s communications manager, to come to the next committee meeting and give advice on crafting questions for Open City Hall, as well as ways to publicize it. The Open City Hall system wouldn’t be the only way to get input, Petersen stressed.

Committee members include Peterson, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). At this point, the consensus of the committee appears to be for a continued public art program that would not rely exclusively on the current Percent for Art funding model. That approach sets aside 1% of the budget for each of the city’s capital projects – up to a cap of $250,000 – for public art. The ordinance was enacted in 2007, but has been controversial for a variety of reasons. [.pdf of public art ordinance] It is now being evaluating in light of a public art millage that was rejected by 56% of voters on Nov. 6, 2012.

The council has asked this committee to make recommendations about the city’s public art program by Feb. 15, 2013. The group is exploring several options, including possible public/private partnerships and hiring a full-time administrator. There seems to be general agreement that if a Percent for Art approach is kept in place, it should be modified and only provide a portion of funding for public art. Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, attended the Jan. 7 meeting and reported that the accounting for Percent for Art is “very detailed and very difficult. It’s very administratively heavy.”

Moving away from Percent for Art funding would also give the city more flexibility on the types of public art it can pursue. Currently, because funding comes from capital projects, the artwork must be permanent and linked thematically to the fund paying for the project. That means that temporary installations, or events like the annual FestiFools parade, can’t be funded in this way.

Taylor wasn’t confident that the committee could craft a new plan by its February deadline. Instead, he suggested that the committee could provide concrete direction, but perhaps the city should hire a consultant or ask city staff to review the current program and make further recommendations.

During the Jan. 7 meeting, Kunselman gave a brief update on his plan to make a request of the state attorney general’s office for an opinion about the legality of Ann Arbor’s current Percent for Art program. The request must come from a state legislator, and Kunselman said that state Rep. Jeff Irwin – a Democrat from Ann Arbor representing District 53 – has “reluctantly” agreed to help if the council passes a resolution to seek the AG opinion.

Also at the meeting, committee members heard from four people during public commentary, who gave suggestions on how to proceed: Marsha Chamberlin and John Kotarski of the Ann Arbor public art commission; former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker; and Sarah Gay, an arts administrator who grew up in Ann Arbor. Kotarski, Parker and Gay all recommended hiring a full-time administrator for Ann Arbor’s public art program.

The committee’s next meeting is set for Monday, Jan. 14 at 5:30 p.m. in the first-floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron. These meetings are open to the public. This Chronicle report also provides links to online resources that are being used by the committee, including information about public art programs in other cities nationwide.

Surveying Residents on Public Art

The meeting began with Sally Petersen restating her proposal made at the committee’s first meeting: That the council needs a better sense of what residents think about public art.

She told her colleagues that initially, the committee needs to get a better sense of direction about which path to pursue. At the Dec. 11, 2012 meeting, the committee had talked about doing a survey, she noted, and she’d heard their concerns about how a survey might elicit responses only from people who are passionate one way or another – that it wouldn’t necessarily be a representative sample. Despite that, she still felt the committee needed to have a discussion about whether to keep the Percent for Art program as a funding source.

The other question is whether the city should have a public art program at all. Petersen observed that all the committee members believe there should be such a program, “however, we haven’t asked that to the community yet.” Assuming the answer is yes, she said, then the next question would be what’s the best form of funding a public art program. “I don’t think we have consensus on that in this room.”

Yes, the community elects councilmembers to represent them, Petersen said. But she felt it was worth going to the community to get their feedback on these two questions. She wanted to use A2 Open City Hall to do that.

Petersen said she knows that a lot of research went into creating the Percent for Art program back in 2007, and at the time, it seemed like a good thing, she said. “But I don’t think it’s necessarily turned out to be a good thing for Ann Arbor – which is not the same thing as saying we shouldn’t be doing public art.” She thought the city should be doing public art, just perhaps not with the current approach.

Christopher Taylor asked, “What are the contours of Open City Hall?” Once others had clarified what he meant, they talked about the features of the site.

Screen shot of A2 Open City Hall website. (Image links to site)

Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, explained that the system requires users to register, but allows them to choose to post their comments anonymously. Registration is validated by the company that operates the system – Peak Democracy – and prevents one person from posting repeatedly and skewing the results, he said. The city can post multiple questions, or allow people to prioritize options. There’s opportunity for extensive open-ended responses, Crawford said. But for each topic, a user can only post one open-ended response. Beyond that, they can vote in support of statements made by other users.

Currently, only one topic is posted – about ways that the Ann Arbor police department might use social media. Past topics have included the South State Street corridor plan, the 721 N. Main site, the city’s capital improvement plan, the fire department’s restructuring proposal, and the urban forest management plan. Those topics and responses can still be viewed on the site.

The committee talked about the fact that at this point, Open City Hall isn’t widely used. According to the site, about 500 people have registered, but far fewer have commented. Sabra Briere said the city would need to do a good job publicizing the site, to encourage more people to participate. Petersen noted that the council wouldn’t make a decision based solely on responses to Open City Hall.

The group reached a consensus to invite Lisa Wondrash, the city’s communications manager, to come to the next committee meeting on Jan. 14 and give advice on crafting questions for Open City Hall, as well as ways to publicize it.

The topic could be publicized via email to people who’ve signed up for the city’s email updates – known informally as the “red envelope” system.

Taylor felt that the committee’s first effort on Open City Hall should be viewed as a “threshold” survey – and Petersen agreed, saying the aim would be to get initial direction regarding sentiments toward putting city dollars toward public art. The consensus on the committee seemed to be to ask additional questions as well, perhaps in a separate survey at a later date.

Margie Teall was the strongest in voicing her view that a majority of residents of Ann Arbor support public art. “The feeling that I get is that people want public art program to continue to grow,” she said. The question is not just how to manage what the city has, Teall added, but: How does a public art program move forward?

Petersen ventured that the council, based on their sense of their constituents’ views, had the right to decide that the city should continue to have a public art program. In that case, the question should be what funding sources should support it, she said.

Teall agreed, but said that people need to be educated at least a little about the types of funding sources, before they’re asked to give an opinion. She noted that they city could use a combination of funding sources, not just one.

Seeking Attorney General Opinion

Steve Kunselman gave a brief update on his plan to make a request of the state attorney general’s office for an opinion about the legality of Ann Arbor’s current Percent for Art program. The request must come from a state legislator, and Kunselman said that state Rep. Jeff Irwin – a Democrat from Ann Arbor representing District 53 – has “reluctantly” agreed to help if the council passes a resolution to seek the AG opinion.

Kunselman noted that the AG is not obligated to issue an opinion, even if a request is made. “But that’s something I would still like to try to do,” he said. It would clearly need to be about the funding methodology, he added. At issue is the appropriateness of using funds that were originally designated for infrastructure like roads or utilities, and setting aside some of those funds for public art.

The city attorney for Ann Arbor, Stephen Postema, has not publicly released any opinion on the issue, though he has provided such an opinion, in the form of an “advice memo,” to councilmembers.

Kunselman said he’s confident that the attorney general’s staff will recognize that it’s not legal to use these kinds of restricted funds for public art. It’s important to get that clarity, he said, adding that he supported Sabra Briere’s proposal to cut back on the types of funding that could be used for public art, because it achieved the same ends. [Briere had made this proposal at the city council’s Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

Funding Options: Private, Public

At the committee’s Dec. 11 meeting, Christopher Taylor had been tasked with exploring the possibility of a public/private partnership to support public art. On Jan. 7 he reported that he had spoken to city staff and done other research, “and broadly speaking, this is within the realm of possibility.” Whether it’s possible politically is another question, he added, but he called it an area of inquiry that’s worth continuing. It might be done through an existing organization or a new organization. Whether that’s funded with money from the city is “the more-than-$64,000-question,” he said.

If the city were to continue using current funds from the Percent for Art program for staffing or projects, there would still need to be the “nexus” between the funding source and the expenditure, he noted.

Although it’s in the “reasonable realm of possibility” to construct a public/private partnership, Taylor concluded, the city would need to proceed carefully on issues like whether it’s an arm of the city, or whether it would need to comply with city bidding requirements, for example.

Committee Goals

Sabra Briere recapped some of the goals that committee members had expressed so far. She described Sally Petersen’s goal as determining whether there should be public funding for art. Steve Kunselman’s goal, she said, is to determine whether the city can legally transfer dedicated millage dollars or money from the city’s enterprise funds to use for public art. Christopher Taylor’s goal is to determine whether a public/private funding model could be used for public art.

Briere asked Margie Teall to articulate her goal for this process, saying “if we don’t know where we’re headed, we’ll be going in five different directions.” Teall replied that her goal would be to find a way to sustain a flexible public/private arts program in the city.

Briere then stated that her own goal is to change the entire program so that it will allow the city to do the things that people want such a program to do. When asked by Teall to elaborate on what those things are, Briere cited temporary art, art exhibits, stipends, materials and other things that aren’t currently allowed. She believes the Percent for Art program is legal, but is concerned that tying those public art dollars to their funding sources has created an artificial constraint “that makes it impossible for us to do the art well.” If the city could do the kinds of things she described, Briere believes the public would be much more content with the program.

Petersen asked to what extent Teall was wed to the Percent for Art approach. Teall said she felt it could be part of a broader range of funding sources, including private donations. Briere pointed out that most public art programs in other communities don’t rely on Percent for Art as a sole funding source. She said that’s why she worked with city staff to narrow the scope of qualifying capital projects, to cut back on Percent for Art dollars “and find reasons to branch out.”

By way of background, Briere’s proposal – brought forward at the city council’s Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – would be to limit the number of capital projects that would need to contribute a percent of their budgets to public art. The effect would be to reduce the amount of public art funding by about 90%. For the last two fiscal years, the Percent for Art program has generated roughly $300,000. If Briere’s proposed ordinance revisions had been in place, only about $25,000 would have been generated.

Two other proposals had been made at that Nov. 19 meeting. One from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) would have terminated the program completely. A third resolution by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was to appoint a committee to study the Percent for Art program and to halt the expenditure of funds currently allocated for public art, with exceptions for projects already underway.

All three resolutions were postponed until the council’s Dec. 3 meeting, when councilmembers passed the proposal from Higgins and appointed the committee of five councilmembers to study the issue.

Committee Goals: What Are Committee Deliverables?

Teall referenced a public art blueprint for the city of Santa Clarita that had been emailed to committee members. [.pdf of Santa Clarita arts commission blueprint] She felt that developing some kind of blueprint would be ideal for Ann Arbor, similar to those that are in place for other critical city issues. A blueprint could include a mission statement, and map out how to achieve its goals, she said.

Briere noted that the council never gave this committee any direction regarding the kind of deliverables they need to produce. So the committee can set its own deliverables, she concluded.

Taylor noted that any program would need certain things, including a funding stream, a project flow chart, and an organizational chart. The committee needs to decide whether it’s in a position to create a new plan between now and their February deadline. “I’m not 100% confident that we can do that,” he said. The committee could provide direction and initial thoughts, he said. But perhaps what they should strive to deliver is concrete direction and the suggestion that a consultant or city staff be tasked with reviewing the current program, and determining whether the city can create something new or revised to meet its goals.

Briere said the committee’s task is to perhaps to offer a set of directions to the council, and see if the council endorses those directions. Part of that could be to articulate an endpoint – a vision of what the city hopes to accomplish regarding public art.

Committee Goals: Eliminate Funding Complexity

For his part, Kunselman said he wanted to get the attorneys and accountants out of the public art process. The whole ordinance right now is geared toward attorneys and accountants making sure the projects are linked to their funding nexus, he said, “and that’s where everything starts falling apart.” There’s too much confusion, and too many staff members who don’t have direction, and too many people who don’t know what the ordinance means, he said. “We can talk about revamping the whole program, but if it’s still tied to the nexus, it still means attorneys and accountants, and it still means the same problems. The only way you’ll untie it is to use general fund money.”

Ann Arbor city councilmembers Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Steve Kunselman (Ward 3) at the council committee on public art’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting.

Tom Crawford explained to the committee how the Percent for Art funding works now, noting that the term “pooled funds” might be confusing. Public art monies – with the exception of funds for the “Radius” sculpture at the Justice Center – are transferred from their original sources to the public art fund. [For background on confusion over the funding for "Radius," see Chronicle coverage: "Art Commission Contends with Limbo Status."]

If money came from a restricted funding source – like the streets millage – then it’s restricted within the public art fund too, and can only be used on projects that link thematically to that original source. You can take funding from various restricted funds and use that “pooled” money to fund a public art project – as long as each of those funding sources has a clear connection to the project, Crawford said. An example would be the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall, which is connected to the building’s stormwater management system and drew funding from several restricted funds.

He gave an additional example, looking at street millage funds. The city collects tax dollars from the street millage. When a capital project is identified – like a road resurfacing project – the money is moved into a fund for that resurfacing project. When the resurfacing project is budgeted, 1% for public art is then moved into the Percent for Art fund.

Briere asked for confirmation of her understanding that on a road resurfacing project, it’s not just millage funds that are used. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, indicated she was right, but most resurfacing projects use primarily street millage funds. Sally Petersen wondered why a road resurfacing would be considered a capital project, not maintenance. Briere said that’s why she wants to remove it as a Percent for Art funding source, “because I can’t explain it to myself, much less to you.” The Percent for Art ordinance includes “routine maintenance” as a capital project that’s eligible for the public art program, but Briere said it’s unclear what projects qualify as “routine.”

Crawford reported that the accounting for Percent for Art is “very detailed and very difficult. It’s very administratively heavy.” Hupy agreed: “It’s a burden to keep track of all that.”

Taylor indicated that everyone agreed that “moving away, as much as we can, from a nexus-based funding system is to be an administrative and functional benefit to the public art program.”

It needs to be acknowledged that Kunselman believes the Percent for Art approach is illegal, Taylor said, but also it should also be acknowledged that lawyers have looked at it and reached a different conclusion. [Taylor is an attorney with Hooper Hathaway.] Kunselman pointed out that no other communities in the state use this kind of funding mechanism.

Petersen noted that the legality almost doesn’t matter at this point – because there are other reasons for moving away from the Percent for Art approach. It takes a lot of time and resources to administer the program, and those resources could be used elsewhere, she said. Taylor agreed, noting that this had been his motivation for wanting to put a public art millage on the ballot.

That’s why residents need to be asked what they think, Petersen said, especially if Percent for Art is taken out of the equation. Teall noted that there were about 22,000 votes in support of a millage. But Briere observed that there was “absolutely no agreement” about what those people were actually voting for. Most people who voted for the parks and library millages knew what they were voting for, she said. But that’s not necessarily the case for people who voted for or against the public art millage – based on conversations she’s had with residents.

Taylor described the bottom line for him: Minimize the “nexus” complications and maintain a program that’s sufficiently funded and sustainable, in whatever way possible.

Briere identified a committee goal as removing routine maintenance, millage dollars, and enterprise funds – money that came with constraints – as Percent for Art funding sources. Removing those dollars would allow the public art program to be more flexible and more effective. That would drop Percent for Art funding to about $25,000 annually, which is clearly not enough money, she said. That just means the city needs to identify alternative funding sources.

Asked by Petersen for his opinion on that kind of change, Crawford replied that the complication arises when funding for a capital improvement project is pulled from multiple restricted funds. When a capital project is funded by just one source, it’s not very difficult to track the Percent for Art dollars. But when a capital project is funded with multiple sources, “it gets very complicated very quickly,” he said.

Committee Goals: Forming a Cultural Commission?

Briere introduced the idea of having a cultural commission, with a broader mandate than the current one for the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC). The model of a cultural commission is one that’s used in other communities, she noted, and covers event art, ephemeral art, display art and permanent art.

Petersen wondered if cultural activities were part of the mission for the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s current chair who attended the council committee meeting, told the group that the CVB promotes the city of Ann Arbor in order to “put heads in beds” – that is, to bring people to this area and fill its hotels and motels. Over the past 10-15 years, the CVB has marketed the city broadly, she said, including its cultural events, sports, food and more. [By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs are funded through a Washtenaw County accommodations tax, collected primarily from hotels and motels. While the city of Ann Arbor is the core of the Ann Arbor CVB's focus, the organization promotes the Ann Arbor area, not just the city.]

When Petersen offered that the CVB seemed like a good fit for the idea of a cultural commission, Taylor weighed in, saying he’d “rather hew a little closer to how we currently conceive of things.” He liked the idea of a public/private partnership, but he wasn’t really interested in broadening it to a cultural commission housed with another organization.

Petersen then asked: “What about the DDA?” – the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. “Funny,” Briere replied, laughing. “Not going there.” In general there was no enthusiasm among committee members for including the DDA.

Committee Goals: Interim Ordinance Change?

Briere then proposed an interim measure. She said she’d spent part of the last two weeks reading about public art, and had found some books about public art as an element of urban design. [See links below for a portion of Briere's reading list.]

One problem with the existing Ann Arbor Percent for Art ordinance, she said, is that when money is put aside in a project’s budget for public art, it has to remain set aside for public art – it can’t be returned to its fund of origin.

Kunselman disagreed, saying that the city council doesn’t have to follow its ordinances – it always has the ability to reappropriate funds. Briere indicated that it was important to try to follow the city’s ordinances: “Nobody gets elected to council because they break all the rules.”

Kunselman characterized the Percent for Art ordinance as nothing more than direction to the city administrator.

Briere continued, saying one thing the committee could do between now and February is to go back to the full council with an interim ordinance change that simply removes a requirement from the Percent for Art ordinance. The part of the ordinance that Briere proposed removing was from this section:

1:8315. Disbursement of public art funds.
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project or that are part of a pooled public art fund may be not be transferred to any other fund, encumbered or utilized for any purpose except the purposes specifically set forth in this chapter.

When Kunselman asked what doing this would accomplish, Briere replied that it would allow the council to return Percent for Art funds to their original funding source.

“Why would we want to do that?” Taylor asked.

Briere explained that one of the problems with the “Radius” art project was that the council had been told it couldn’t decide not to spend money on public art. The council had been told that a recommendation from AAPAC to fund the sculpture was based on money set aside for public art in the police/courts building [also known as the Justice Center].

Last year, she said, some councilmembers had suggested that the public art money not be allocated for the “Radius” sculpture. “We were told we didn’t have that choice,” she said. [See Chronicle coverage: "Public Art Rehashed by Ann Arbor Council."] Now, she noted, it turns out that “Radius” isn’t being funded through the Percent for Art program, although last year the council had been told it was. The city attorney’s staff had applied the Percent for Art ordinance to explain why the council couldn’t change its mind about putting art in that building, she said.

This has come up repeatedly, she said. If the city isn’t spending the public art money, shouldn’t the money be returned to its original source? “And we’ve repeatedly been told we can’t because it’s in the ordinance. So we could change the ordinance.”

Kunselman noted that the council would likely make several ordinance changes in this process. Petersen wondered why the council would amend the ordinance if there’s a likelihood that the ordinance will be eliminated completely.

Briere noted that even if the council decides to eliminate the Percent for Art program, the existing funds for public art are still allocated. The ordinance change she proposed would allow the council to deal with that.

Both Taylor and Teall indicated that they didn’t remember the aspect of the “Radius” conversation that Briere had described. [By way of background, during the deliberations that Briere referenced – at the council's May 7, 2012 meeting – assistant city attorney Mary Fales explicitly stated that the funds from a canceled art project have to be reallocated to another art project. To support that position, Fales had read aloud the section of the ordinance that Briere quoted on Jan. 7.]

Teall said she wouldn’t support this kind of ordinance change at this point. Taylor believed that the currently allocated funds are suboptimal, because of the nexus requirement, but “nevertheless they exist, and could easily serve as a bridge from this program to the next. To unwind it would complicate a transition.”

In that case, Briere suggested setting aside the idea, noting that the committee is still in the phase of throwing out different ideas to consider – this was just such an idea.

Public Commentary

Several people attended the Jan. 7 meeting to observe the committee’s discussion, and during the final part of the session they were asked for their thoughts.

Margaret Parker, a local artist and former chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, said there’s one thing that hasn’t come up during discussions of the “nexus” issue. She realized that it’s complex, but the benefit is that if artwork is done in connection with a building project and is funded through that building project, then a lot of money is saved by the artwork being incorporated into a capital project as it’s being built.

Parker said the Herbert Dreiseitl piece would have been much more expensive if it had been started after the rest of the city hall/Justice Center project had been completed. [As the city's first work funded by the Percent for Art program, the Dreiseitl water sculpture and related costs totaled more than $750,000.] Margie Teall ventured that the city wouldn’t have done the sculpture at all, if it hadn’t been coordinated with the building construction.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski, center, addresses the Ann Arbor city council committee on public art at their Jan. 7, 2013 meeting. To the right are city councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). To the left is Margaret Parker, former chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Steve Kunselman pointed to the East Stadium bridges construction as an example of public art not being incorporated into the building process. Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, noted that the bridge project came about much more quickly than the commission was able to respond. Kunselman felt that was part of the problem. He disagreed that the art commission hadn’t yet had the chance to handle projects in the way that Parker described – it’s been five years since the Percent for Art ordinance passed, he said.

Parker replied that the city has one half-time staff person working on public art. The art commission is made up of volunteers from the community. In that case, Kunselman said, maybe the city needs a full-time administrator for public art, and the art commission could take on a more advisory role. “Yes!” Parker said. “That would be infinitely better.”

Teall said she’d like to go in that direction, too.

John Kotarski, a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission, confirmed with committee members that they had received an email he’d sent outlining his views. He then proceeded to read the five-page document aloud. [.pdf of Kotarski's statement] An excerpt from his statement:

I propose that we first determine how Percent for Art could be made legal in Michigan and then temporarily make it a voluntary program. We should also make plans for an art millage, a robust partnership with businesses, and an online fundraising program modeled after crowd-funding used in recent political campaigns. Let residents donate money online for public art programs of their choice including art in neighborhood parks and playgrounds.

People who want to get rid of the Percent for Art program think it wastes dollars, but actually baking public art into our capital projects is the least expensive way to improve our town’s visual aesthetic. Having a world-class city that is the model for other Michigan cities is important. It is consistent with Pure Michigan ads that promote Ann Arbor to the world as the cultural capitol of our region.

Other ideas he suggested include:

• create an art park that demonstrates science and technology through art;
• partner with schools to develop a curriculum that supports public art;
• host an international conference on public art;
• hire experts to help in the initial vetting of public art projects;
• allocate $200,000 to create 10 neighborhood “gateway” projects, modeled after the recent mural in Allmendinger Park;
• allocate $200,000 for a program with the schools for students to design 20 bus stop benches and 20 manhole covers [.pdf of images provided by Kotarski to committee members, as examples];
• use a “self-tax” (a voluntary $10 contribution from residents) to help fund FestiFools and a playground art program;
• create a full-time staff position to administer public art programs. This could be done initially by hiring a “cultural affairs director” to begin developing a public art master plan, leading to a campaign for a public art millage.

Kotarski also brought several books to show committee members, as possible additional resources. The books included the Michigan Municipal League’s “Economics of Place“; “The Art of Placemaking: Interpreting Community Through Public Art and Urban Design,” by Ronald Lee Fleming; “Public Art by the Book” by Barbara Goldstein; and “Public Art in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County,” written by Martha Keller and published in the mid-1990s.

After Kotarski’s remarks, Kunselman noted that Kotarski had referred to the city’s new underground parking structure on South Fifth as having public art “baked into its design.” [The structure was built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and was not subject to the Percent for Art ordinance.] Kotarski had mentioned features like the curved glass canopies over the entrance ramps, the lime green steel girder, and plaques with quotes from authors.

Kunselman said that these features could also be considered as design elements. But at the Justice Center, he said, design elements were “value engineered” out of the project so that $250,000 could be set aside for public art. Both Teall and Briere objected, with Teall saying “That’s absolutely not what happened.”

Kunselman pointed to the resolution that the council passed in February of 2009, which amended a contract with Clark Construction for the Justice Center building. The staff memo accompanying that resolution identifies “value engineering” to cut costs, as well as a reference to the 1% public art set-aside of $250,000. However, no direct connection is articulated between the two. From the staff memo:

In order to bring the project costs into budget we have been continuously refining and reducing costs by value engineering and other means. To date we have cut over $1,757,000.00. Some examples include using standard hinged doors on the new entrance instead of stainless steel revolving doors, reduced and simplified the west and south facade sunshades, eliminated an entrance canopy, reduced the quantity of terrazzo flooring, reduced interior architectural millwork, and reduced the amount of ceramic tile in the bathrooms.

Teall said those decisions were made “way before” that resolution. Kunselman again pointed to the February 2009 resolution and staff memo, when those issues were presented to the council.

Teall returned to the notion of “baking in” public art. She noted that for the Dreiseitl sculpture, “the art piece is more than just what you see.” Her reference was to its connection with the building’s stormwater management system.

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, was asked to speak next. She said she didn’t have prepared remarks, but that obviously she’d done a lot of thinking about this over the years. “There’s a sense in which we need to put the past behind us,” she said. That past includes the commission being formed with citizen volunteers, she said, and then having to write their own bylaws and guidelines, before they could start actual projects.

The Dreiseitl project began before all of AAPAC’s policies and procedures were in place, she noted. It was an incredibly complex project, and if the commission were to start over today, that might not have been the first project they’d choose, she said.

By way of background, when the Dreiseitl project was first brought to AAPAC in October of 2008, Chamberlin had raised concerns about the process that the commission was following. Parker was chair at that time, and pushed for approval of the Dreiseitl proposal. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Parker said that because of the tight timeline and the fact that people on the task force were excited by Dreiseitl’s observations about the project, [the task force had] decided to ask him to make a proposal to do three public art pieces on the site, ideally relating to each other, for a budget of $750,000.

Some commissioners expressed surprise at the amount of funding available for the project. Marsha Chamberlin said that to make an offer without a bidding process and to not include local artists sets “a precedent I’m somewhat uncomfortable with.”

That led to a lengthy discussion about the role of the task force and the commission in making decisions like this. Task force members noted that they’d been delegated this work, and stressed the unusual nature of the project – the need to act quickly on a project that was already under way, and the opportunity to involve a high-profile artist like Dreiseitl. No one disputed that having Dreiseitl involved was a good thing. “I think Dreiseitl is a wonderful choice, and I wouldn’t have changed anything except for the process,” Cathy Gendron said.

Parker ultimately proposed that the full commission vote on whether to extend an invitation to Dreiseitl for this project with a $750,000 budget and the understanding that if he did submit a proposal, the commission would vote on whether to accept it. The group unanimously supported that resolution.

On Jan. 7, Chamberlin described a recent meeting she’d attended with Igor Kotlyar, one of the city’s project engineers. He spoke very eloquently about public art, she said, and told her that he hoped in the future, AAPAC and city staff could work more closely to make sure that public art isn’t just an add-on. It might mean things like spending an extra $50,000 for artist railings, she said, or to build spaces that are specifically designed for artwork.

Going forward, Chamberlin said she’d like to start from a place that doesn’t look back. She referenced a document that had been emailed earlier to the council committee members – a blueprint for public art in the city of Santa Clarita, Calif. – that included city policy, procedures and other information. AAPAC already has this kind of information for Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program, she said. If AAPAC reformatted the materials it already has in place, it would look just like that blueprint from Santa Clarita, she said. “There is everything there to run a successful art program.”

Ann Arbor’s program isn’t a public/private partnership at this point, she said, but AAPAC has received about $12,000 in private monies for projects. She thinks there’s real potential for doing more of that private fundraising. She urged councilmembers to think about making sure everything works well, and if they have to eliminate the Percent for Art funding, how can they do it without crippling the public art program. “Give the program a chance to really move forward,” she said. “I feel like we’ve been fighting an uphill battle about funding and everything else, and burning out volunteers and others at many levels. And we’re at a place where we don’t have to do that now.”

Sarah Gay, a native of Ann Arbor, said she’s been living elsewhere for 15 years although she comes back to the city regularly. Gay said she had been really excited in 2007 when Ann Arbor started its public art program, then was subsequently alarmed to see that there was only a part-time administrator. She said she graduated from the University of Michigan and pursued a career in public art management – in Denver, in Jacksonville, Fla. during the lead-up to the 2005 Super Bowl, and now in Charlotte, N.C.

Gay said she’s seen many models for public art, both successes and failures, and attended many conferences where public art administrators talk about best practices. She’d be hesitant to totally abolish an ordinance – because it stands as the city’s commitment to public art. It sounds like the real issue is in making sure the program is administered in the right way, she said. A lot of that comes down to relationships with the city staff, how the budgeting is tracked, and how the public is involved. She felt like the program would be much stronger with a full-time experienced staff member who knows how to build relationships and make those other things happen. It’s also important to find out about the legality of the funding, so that it’s not a question.

The most successful commissions she’s seen have a strong advisory role in approving projects, with a solidly vetted process that the politicians and public are confident in. “In that sense, you get to address controversy before you have a project already on the books,” she said. Completing a few projects through a private/public partnership would get people excited about public art, and help leverage the public goodwill. But there should be staff who can do the nuts and bolts of implementing these projects, not the commission, she added, “because it’s a lot of work.”

She also felt that the University of Michigan could be enlisted to support public art. Others in the room clarified that UM already has its own public art program, and Teall explained that some UM faculty and staff have served on the city’s art commission. [The most recent UM connection on AAPAC was Theresa Reid, executive director of UM's ArtsEngine. She resigned in November of 2012.]

Gay wondered if UM might be approached for some kind of matching funds. At that, members of the council committee laughed – they didn’t think that would be likely. Kotarski noted that UM president Mary Sue Coleman was very committed to public art and had committed to a Percent for Art approach. Chamberlin pointed out that Coleman’s commitment was to the UM campus, not the city of Ann Arbor.

Other Resources

Sabra Briere has circulated several links to the council committee regarding other public art programs and resources:

• The Project for Public Spaces – link to funding sources for public art.
• Public Art Fund in New York City.
• The City of New York Dept. of Cultural Affairs Percent for Art Program.
• Boston Art Commission and other Boston public art programs.
• Seattle’s Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs.
• Atlanta’s Office of Cultural Affairs.
• Chicago Public Art Program.
• City of Portland/Multomah County, Oregon Regional Arts & Culture Council.
• Kansas City Municipal Art Commission.
• Santa Cruz, Calif. Public Art Program Review (.pdf file)
• Grantmakers in the Arts – Public Funding for the Arts: 2012 Update.
• Forecast Public Art – Public Art Toolkit (Financing & Funding).
• Article on arts funding from the 7th edition of Michigan in Brief (.pdf file)
• “Public Funding of Controversial Art,” article by Michael Rushton in the Journal of Cultural Economics (.pdf file)
• Sustainable Communities Index – Public funding for the arts.
• New England Foundation for the Arts – Crowdfunding for public art.
• Artblog.net: “You Say ‘Abolish Public Arts Funding’ Like It’s a Bad Thing“

In addition, Margie Teal emailed committee members a link to the public art program in Carbondale, Colorado.

Councilmembers present: Sabra Briere, Stephen Kunselman, Sally Petersen, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall.

Also: Marsha Chamberlin and John Kotarski of the Ann Arbor public art commission; former public art commissioner Margaret Parker; Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer; Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator; and Sarah Gay, an Ann Arbor native who’s an arts administrator and consultant now living in Charlotte, N.C.

Next committee meeting: Monday, Jan. 14, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. in the first-floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art. 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 public art commissioner John Kotarski at the group’s Dec. 19, 2012 meeting.

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, briefed commissioners on a Dec. 11 meeting of the city council committee that will be making recommendations on the future of Ann Arbor’s public art program. The committee’s work comes in the wake of a failed public art millage that voters rejected on Nov. 6. That committee includes councilmember Sabra Briere, who attended AAPAC’s Dec. 19 meeting as well.

At the meeting, Briere participated in a discussion with commissioners about the source of funding for a hanging sculpture to be installed in the lobby of the Justice Center. AAPAC and city councilmembers have been under the impression that the $150,000 project – called “Radius,” by Ed Carpenter – was part of the city’s Percent for Art budget. However, it now seems that’s not the case, based on communications from the city’s chief financial officer. The news stunned commissioners, who noted that the project appears in the budget summaries they regularly receive – including one provided in the Dec. 19 meeting packet – as a line item, under “Court/PD Facility.” [.pdf of December 2012 budget summary]

By way of background, during the May 7, 2012 city council meeting when the Radius project was ultimately approved, councilmembers debated the issue for about an hour. Specifically, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had proposed an amendment that would have canceled Carpenter’s project and appropriated the art project funds to investments in the city hall building. Her amendment failed, with several councilmembers – and assistant city attorney Mary Fales – arguing that the public art ordinance prohibits the transfer of public art funds to other funds.

A new, different understanding that seems to have emerged is the following: The money for public art in the Justice Center building budget was not set aside as an application of the public art ordinance, but rather was set aside administratively – in February 2009, well after the building fund had been established. The building fund had been established prior to 2007, when the public art ordinance was enacted. So the 2009 set-aside was made in the spirit of the 2007 public art ordinance, applied in some sense retroactively. In a phone interview, Briere told The Chronicle that this is the understanding she has of the situation. And in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – who also serves on the council’s public art review committee – confirmed he had the same understanding. That understanding has implications for use of the balance of the $250,000 that was set aside for Justice Center art.

In other action at the Dec. 19 meeting, commissioner John Kotarski expressed concern about AAPAC’s task force process, after attending a recent session for the East Stadium bridges project. He didn’t feel the task force is getting sufficient administrative support as it works to select up to five finalists from a set of 36 submissions. To help, he proposed allocating $5,000 to hire a consultant who would serve as a curator to conduct an initial vetting of the artists. The suggestion did not gain much traction among other commissioners, at least for this project, though the idea of a facilitator seemed well-received.

Kotarski updated commissioners on a course that Roland Graf, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Art & Design, will be teaching this coming semester called “Public Art and Urban Intervention.” Graf intends to make assignments related to public art in Ann Arbor and on the UM campus, and it’s expected that students will eventually make presentations of their projects to AAPAC.

Kotarski also was the catalyst for a review of AAPAC’s long-term strategic plan for fiscal 2013-2016, prompting commissioners to identify the status of each objective. Several objectives are on hold, pending the outcome of the city council’s review of the overall Percent for Art program.

The council’s pending action also has resulted in some uncertainty regarding AAPAC appointments. Terms for Cathy Gendron and Connie Brown expire on Dec. 31, 2012. They’ve agreed to continue serving until the council makes a decision about the Percent for Art program. The vacancy left by the resignation of Theresa Reid in November remains unfilled. Nominations to AAPAC are made by the mayor and confirmed by city council.

City Council Action on Public Art

The meeting began with Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, briefing commissioners about a Dec. 11 meeting of a city council committee. The five-member committee is tasked with making recommendations on the future of Ann Arbor’s public art program. It was the committee’s first meeting since the full council created the group on Dec. 3, 2012. At that same meeting, the council also voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program  – except for projects that are already underway.

The committee consists of councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Chamberlin attended the Dec. 11 meeting as an observer, as did AAPAC member John Kotarski and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator. [See Chronicle coverage: "Council's Public Art Committee Begins Work."]

Chamberlin characterized the meeting’s outcome as formulating next steps and assigning tasks to gather information that will inform the committee’s decision-making. She has offered to help provide material that’s already been collected by her, Margaret Parker and Susan Froelich, including information about similar public art programs in other cities and states. Chamberlin noted that Parker and Froelich did significant research as part of setting up the Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP), the predecessor to the Percent for Art program.

Another outcome of the committee meeting is that Kunselman plans to draft a resolution for the council to make a request of the state attorney general’s office – likely via state Rep. Jeff Irwin – for an opinion about the legality of Ann Arbor’s current approach to funding public art.

The council committee will next meet on Monday, Jan. 7 at 4:30 p.m. – just before the city council meeting that night. The meetings, located at city hall, are open to the public. In response to a query from Connie Brown, Chamberlin said she didn’t think an announcement about the first meeting had been posted on the city’s website. She said she’s been told by the city administrator that the only posting requirement is that a notice is posted in the city hall lobby – “I walked right past without seeing it,” she said.

There’s no formal role for AAPAC to play in this process, Chamberlin said. However, she added that to the extent that AAPAC can provide resources to the committee, “I’m happy to do it.” Meanwhile, AAPAC is on hold regarding future projects, though work is continuing on efforts that are already underway. [.pdf of AAPAC project tracker]

Chamberlin said it’s premature to assume that the Percent for Art program in the future will have more money, or less. “We just don’t know what the outcome will be,” she said.

City Council Action on Public Art: Outreach

As part of the city council’s Dec. 3 resolution on public art, one of the resolved clauses gave direction for outreach efforts related to three projects that are already underway, for artwork at (1) the East Stadium bridges; (2) Argo Cascades; and (3) a rain garden at Kingsley and Ashley.

The resolved clause states:

That with respect to the above three mentioned projects, AAPAC will engage in significant and robust public engagement described as follows: Directly contact appropriate local organizations, including but not limited to Homeowners Associations and Neighborhood Associations, that may be especially interested in or affected by these projects and hold two or more public forums at which interested organizations and individuals shall be provided information any may offer suggestions and opinions on the proposed art project. After each public forum, provide a report to City Council summarizing the information provided and the comments received from the public;

At AAPAC’s Dec. 19 meeting, commissioners brainstormed on how to respond to this directive. Marsha Chamberlin noted that outreach efforts already are included in AAPAC’s annual plan and long-term strategic plan. And in his written report to the commission, Aaron Seagraves included this recommendation: “Hold at least two Public Engagement meetings to be coordinated with the artist selection process for the public art projects at the Kingsley Street rain garden, East Stadium Blvd Bridge and Argo Cascades, at the time of: the walk-through and formal site visit of the multiple finalists; the presentation of the multiple design proposals, before a final artist is selected; or, a presentation by the final artist, before a final design is completed.”

From left: Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair.

Sabra Briere suggested that AAPAC take advantage of A2 Open City Hall, a relatively new online feedback mechanism. She thought commissioners would benefit from soliciting feedback, pointing out that there’s a distinction between feedback, input and engagement. Bob Miller, who serves on the task force for East Stadium bridges, indicated interest in using A2 Open City Hall for that project.

John Kotarski advocated for a series of “intense” public meetings with artists, describing the concept as a “listening tour” and “presenting tour.” Rather than one community meeting, AAPAC would arrange a series of meetings – like a breakfast with business leaders, a lunch at Rotary, and a walk-through of the site where the artwork would be located. The intent would be to introduce artists to the city, and introduce the city to the artists, he said. The amount of interactions could vary, depending on the scale of the project, but he felt it was important to include some aspect of this approach for all projects. It’s important for the artists and their proposals to be presented to the public, so that people can challenge, ask questions and engage the artists about their work, he said.

There was discussion among commissioners about the practicality of this approach, especially for out-of-state finalists. Cathy Gendron also objected to the idea of artists being brought in at the same time, saying that was setting them up in a competitive situation that wasn’t appropriate. But bringing in each artist separately would be time consuming for the person who would coordinate these meetings. There was also the issue of cost, although some commissioners noted that travel costs could be paid for out of the honorarium that finalists receive.

Kotarski felt it could be an ideal that they work toward, even if they don’t achieve the scope that he envisioned.

Gendron observed that there were several public meetings associated with the Herbert Dreiseitl project, yet many people still had an impression that there hadn’t been any outreach. “We did reach out to the public,” she said, “and it wasn’t enough.” She felt it was important to formalize these efforts.

Chamberlin didn’t think AAPAC or the city staff had the manpower to carry out all of the suggestions, but thought that the options could be part of the guidelines for task forces, to use as they felt appropriate.

Outcome: There was no vote on this item, but Aaron Seagraves was directed to provide a list of outreach options to the task forces that are working on these projects.

Funding for Justice Center Artwork

Saying that the issue had recently come to his attention, John Kotarski raised a question about the source of funding for the hanging sculpture that’s been commissioned for the lobby of the Justice Center. AAPAC has been under the impression that the $150,000 project was funded out of the Percent for Art budget. However, it now seemed that this was not the case.

Responding to Kotarski, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – told commissioners that the sculpture by Ed Carpenter is being paid for out of the Justice Center’s Percent for Art set-aside. His statement was followed by a discussion that revealed some uncertainty about that.

By way of background, the city’s public art ordinance was created in 2007 and requires that all city capital improvement projects include 1% for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project. For capital projects that aren’t suitable to have public art incorporated into them, the 1% is “pooled” for use in some other public art – which must be related to the purpose of the funding source. For example, the fountain outside the new Justice Center and city hall, designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl and tied into the site’s stormwater management system, is funded with money pooled from 1% of some sanitary sewer projects, drinking water projects, and stormwater management projects.

As an additional piece of background, during the May 7 city council meeting when the Radius project was ultimately approved, councilmembers debated the issue for about an hour. Specifically, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had proposed an amendment that would have canceled Carpenter’s project and appropriated the art project funds to invest instead in the city hall building. Her amendment failed, with several councilmembers – and assistant city attorney Mary Fales – arguing that the public art ordinance prohibits the transfer from public art funds to other funds.

At this point in the Dec. 19 meeting, Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere – who attended as an observer – showed AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin an email that she had received earlier that day from Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer. Crawford was responding to Briere’s attempts to clarify the funding source. From his email:

The attached resolution is where council approved the radius art as part of the JC project. It is listed in the project budget as % for art but is and was never part of the % for art fund. It was administratively included in the JC project after the project was started. It has always been administered by the % for art folks which is where the confusion may be. [.pdf of Briere's email chain] [.pdf of February 2009 resolution for Justice Center construction] [.pdf of Justice Center cost estimate]

Seagraves again stated that the Carpenter piece – called “Radius” – was being paid for out of the Justice Center’s Percent for Art budget, not out of the Percent for Art pooled funds. He said he’d check with Crawford again to clarify that.

But Connie Brown noted that Crawford’s email states that the funding has nothing to do with the Percent for Art set-aside. Briere responded, saying that Crawford’s “answer is obscure to me.”

In a telephone interview with The Chronicle, Briere sketched out her understanding: The money for public art in the Justice Center building budget was not set aside as an application of the public art ordinance, but rather was set aside administratively – in February 2009, well after the building fund had been established. The building fund had been established prior to 2007, when the public art ordinance was enacted. So the 2009 set-aside was made in the spirit of the 2007 public art ordinance, applied in some sense retroactively. And in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed he had the same understanding.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter’s proposed “Radius” hanging sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor’s Justice Center lobby.

At the Dec. 19 public art commission meeting, Briere explained that this issue has emerged because she’s been pushing to find funding to pay for moving the current security station in the building’s lobby to a different location, farther from the entrance. She doesn’t believe it’s appropriate to call the lobby “public space” if the public has to pass through a security checkpoint or be buzzed in by the police department.

She had received a message the previous week that there was no available funding in the Justice Center’s budget to make this change. At the same time, she said, councilmembers received word from the city administrator, Steve Powers, that Carpenter’s sculpture was not funded by the Percent for Art program, “which for many of us was a bit of a surprise.” So now she’s pursuing the possibility of shifting the funding for the sculpture into the Percent for Art program – so that the funds now allocated for the art from the Justice Center budget can be used to move the security checkpoint.

Several commissioners seemed stunned that there’s any question about the funding source for Carpenter’s work – because they had always worked on the assumption that it was part of the Percent for Art budget. In the budget summaries they regularly receive – including one provided in the Dec. 19 meeting packet – the amount shows up as a line item, under “Court/PD Facility.” [.pdf of December 2012 budget summary]

Cathy Gendron noted that Sue McCormick, the city’s former public services administrator, had always emphasized that the Percent for Art funding was revenue neutral – meaning that the 1% for art was taken from a project’s construction contingency fund. The understanding was that the Carpenter project was funded from that 1% of the Justice Center project. “So I don’t see how anyone could not construe [Carpenter's] project as part of Percent for Art,” she said.

At AAPAC’s Dec. 19 meeting, Brown pointed out that this is not an issue that commissioners could resolve. Chamberlin agreed to follow up with the city administration to clarify the budget.

Support for Task Forces

Early in the Dec. 19 meeting, John Kotarski referred to an email that he had sent to commissioners earlier in the month, and indicated that he’d like to discuss it. [.pdf of Kotarski's email] Based on an exchange between Kotarski and Marsha Chamberlin, it appeared that they had communicated about the issue of task force support, and that Chamberlin had preferred to defer the discussion until AAPAC’s January meeting. Kotarski felt the topic should be addressed sooner. So the commission discussed it at the end of the meeting.

Kotarski’s concern was that AAPAC’s task forces weren’t receiving enough administrative support for their work. His concern stemmed from observations of the task force that’s selecting artwork for the East Stadium bridges. The city received 36 responses to a request for statements of qualifications (SOQ), and the task force had met on Dec. 14 to select finalists, who would then be paid a stipend to develop a full proposal. Task force members include AAPAC commissioners Wiltrud Simbuerger and Bob Miller, as well as Nancy Leff, David Huntoon, and Joss Kiely.

From Kotarski’s email:

The group of citizen volunteers assembled are smart, enthusiastic, and committed to providing for our city a well thought out evaluation of these public art proposals. But, I do not think we have done everything we can to scaffold their efforts so that they can be successful. I spoke with two of them after the meeting and they were frustrated in not having a clear understanding of what to do and not enough time to do it. These task force members would welcome professional help. In fact, they thought a professional curator would be a smart way to develop the SOQ and select the finalists. Spending $5K on a consultant to get three stellar finalists seems to me money well spent.

It may be difficult to start from scratch on this project but we need to rethink how we can use professional curators to scaffold our citizen volunteers moving forward on other projects. On this project, I think we should recommend hiring a consultant to sort through these proposals and arrive at 5 finalists from which the task force can select three that we will recommend offering an RFP/stipend to. I also think we need to refine details of the public forum listening tours and presentation tours that have have been proposed earlier. These forums are part of the art ordinance amendment proposed by Council Member Briere and we should consider them for the Stadium Bridges project. Making these careful steps forward seems the prudent thing to do while the program is under intense scrutiny by City Council.

Additionally, Aaron may feel threatened by this proposal but I think he should be aware that we believe he is working as hard as he can. In spite of his hard work, he may need more direction and supervision from his supervisor or advice from a paid professional. I would welcome an open and frank discussion of these issue before our next meeting.

At the Dec. 19 meeting, Kotarski reiterated the points of his email, citing the approaching mid-January deadline to select finalists, the size of the project – with a total budget of $400,000 – and the short time that task force members have been given to review SOQ responses.

Connie Brown

Connie Brown, who also attended the task force meeting, said she had a different take on the situation. She didn’t see intense frustration, but thought it had been an issue with facilitating the discussion. An extension of the deadline would help, she said, but she didn’t think a curator was necessary. Kotarski said that a paid facilitator would be great.

Cathy Gendron supported the idea of moving the deadline, but was reluctant to hire someone while asking others on the task force to volunteer their time and expertise. “That seems unfair to me,” she said.

Chamberlin noted that Kotarski’s email had generated a fair amount of discussion among commissioners, and everyone agrees that materials from the 36 responses should have been sent to the task force well in advance of their meeting, with at least 10 days to review. She said she’d met with Aaron Seagraves and they’d talked about how to support the work of the task force better. An email will be sent to task force members, explaining the next steps in the process, she said, so things are back on track.

AAPAC could revisit the task force process when the next project comes up, she said, adding that her view of a curator is that it would remove the process from the public realm, which would not be good. Miller said he’d be interested in exploring Kotarski’s idea of bringing in someone to help with the task force work, but it’s not something he’d want to implement at this point.

Simbuerger said she’d welcome a facilitator, either someone from AAPAC or city staff. Gendron suggested Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit. Pulcipher has facilitated AAPAC retreats in the past.

Seagraves said he’d spoken to Kotarski about this issue, and took Kotarski’s “constructive criticism” to heart. He agreed that bringing someone in to facilitate would be great – both for him and for the task force. Seagraves added that he had full confidence in the people who’d be selecting the artist.

Kotarski said he simply wanted to ensure that the group is extremely successful, and that AAPAC rethink its task force process for future projects.

Strategic Plan

At the urging of John Kotarski, commissioners spent a portion of their Dec. 19 meeting reviewing the status of their 2013-2016 strategic plan. [.pdf of strategic plan] The plan, developed earlier this year, lists four goals with several objectives under each goal.

The status of the objectives is indicated in italics, based on the Dec. 19 discussion:

Goal A: Ann Arbor will substantially increase the number of public works of art throughout the city through the annual assignment of funds and an expedited project development and artist selection process.

Objective 1: At the beginning of each FY, the Percent for Public Art funds will be divided to fund public art within each of the four city areas [quadrants], beginning with FY 2013. Status: Funding has not been divided in this way.

Objective 2: Each city area will have a minimum of one active public art project per year. Status: There is not yet an active project in each quadrant.

Objective 3: The mural program will be continued as an AAPAC program and at least one mural will be added in each city area during the years of this plan. Status: The mural at Allmendinger Park was completed in the fall of 2012.

Objective 4: In 2014, at least one new public art program will be selected for city-wide implementation. RFPs will be distributed to expedite this new program (select one artist to produce a public art design, or public art series), that can be produced in each of the city areas. Status: On hold, until the city council decides the future of the Percent for Art program.

Objective 5: By the beginning of FY2015 an art-on-loan program will be developed to further increase the public art experience in the city. Status: On hold, until city council decides the future of the Percent for Art program.

Objective 6: An RFQ will be developed by December 2012 so that an Artist Registry can be developed and expanded on an annual basis. Status: This project is in process.

Goal B: AAPAC will diversify public engagement and participation in the selection of Public Art by establishing an standing task force in each of the city areas to recommend public art projects therein. (The city areas will be based on the “land use areas” from the City of Ann Arbor’s Master Plan, Land Use Element, 2009)

Objective 1: Task Forces for each city area will be approved by the commission no later than October 15, 2012 and serve a term of one year and will be comprised of the at least one resident of the quadrant, one business person whose business is in the area, a commission member, and an artist. Status: On hold, until the city council decides the future of the Percent for Art program.

Objective 2: An inventory of current public art will be completed in the second quarter of FY2013, no later than (December 2012) so that future projects can be develop with this consideration. Status: This project is underway.

Objective 3: Each Task Force will report to the commission with a priority list of new locations for art by December 2012. The list will take into consideration the area’s land use, density, built features, open space, city property and neighborhoods. Status: On hold, until the city council decides the future of the Percent for Art program.

Objective 4: The selection of a site/project for FY 2014 will be completed by the Commission by the third quarter of FY 2013 (no later than March 2013) for implementation at the earliest feasible date. Status: It’s possible this could occur, depending on the outcome of the city council’s decision regarding the Percent for Art program.

Goal C: AAPAC will increase the public understanding, appreciation and support of public art through consistent public relations and education efforts.

Objective 1: Identify and prepare for 2 events per year in which information about the city program can be disseminated and interested parties identified. Status: Commissioners felt that this has been achieved for fiscal 2013 via public meetings held in each quadrant this fall – though most meetings were not well-attended.

Objective 2: By Spring, 2013, establish a sign program for artwork so that each work gives the artist’s name and explains the work in terms of artistic and educational purposes. Status: In the works, but not much progress made.

Goal D: Pursue private funding for public art.

Objective 1: By the beginning of FY 2014, develop a plan for the public to donate to support the development of public art and begin implementation. Status: No formal plan has been developed, though John Kotarski indicated that some discussions on this topic have occurred recently with Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Marsha Chamberlin noted that former AAPAC member Margaret Parker is working on this goal, too.

Cathy Gendron expressed some frustration, given the uncertainty of the Percent for Art program’s future. “We’re not in charge of our destiny,” she said. Kotarski asserted that AAPAC needed to hold itself accountable to its strategic plan, even if they simply explain why certain objectives aren’t achieved. He felt they should develop a plan as to how they would achieve the objectives that haven’t been reached.

Marsha Chamberlin wondered whether this might warrant another retreat, but no decision was made about that.

Project Updates

Throughout the meeting there were several updates on public art projects that are underway. Here are some highlights.

• Justice Center: Work on the hanging glass sculpture for the lobby of the Justice Center – by Oregon artist Ed Carpenter – is moving ahead, and the structural engineering is completed. The sculpture, called “Radius,” was approved by the city council in May of 2012 based on AAPAC’s recommendation, with a budget of $150,000. [See discussion of funding source earlier in this report.] Members of the projects task force are: Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Bob Grese, Laura Rubin, Margie Teall, Ray Detter, Maureen Devine and Karl Daubmann. Carpenter is working with city staff to secure permits and to make arrangements for the planned installation. The fabrication of the artwork will begin within the next month and will be complete approximately two months after fabrication begins. Expected installation: March or April of 2013.
• Argo Cascades: A statement of qualifications (SOQ) was issued in early December for this project to place artwork in the city park along Argo Cascades, with a deadline of March 6. [SOQs for the city are posted online here.] AAPAC approved a $150,000 budget for that project in April of 2012. Task force members are John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Saam, Margaret Parker, Cathy Fleisher, Bonnie Greenspoon, Julie Grand, and Colin Smith. Expected completion: End of 2013.
• East Stadium bridges: The city received 36 responses to an SOQ for artwork along the new East Stadium bridges, and a selection panel met earlier this month to begin evaluating the submissions. It’s likely that a mid-January deadline to select finalists will be extended. [See discussion about this issue earlier in this report.] The $400,000 budget for that project was recommended by AAPAC in March of 2012. Task force members are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. Expected completion of project: End of 2013.
• Kingsley & First rain garden: A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in November for artwork to be included in a rain garden at the city-owned lot at Kingsley & First. [RFPs for the city are posted online here.] A pre-submission meeting was held on the site, and responses are due on Jan. 10. Task force members are Connie Brown, Jerry Hancock, Claudette Stern and John Walters. The project has a budget of $27,000. Expected completion: August 2013.
• Forest Avenue plaza: A meeting was held Dec. 5 with task force members and city staff to discuss a public art project for the plaza, located next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University. AAPAC voted at its Aug. 22, 2012 meeting to move ahead on it, with a budget of up to $35,000. Task force members are Bob Miller, Marsha Chamberlin, Maggie Ladd, and Amy Kuras. Chamberlin indicated that more people will be added to the task force as the project moves forward
• Mural program: 40 responses to statements of qualifications (SOQ) were received to create a pre-qualified pool of artists for future mural projects. [.pdf of SOQ-835] AAPAC had approved this approach at its June 27, 2012 meeting, to facilitate faster development of mural projects. Task force members are Wiltrud Simbuerger and Connie Pulcipher. No additional murals will begin until the city council determines the future of the Percent for Art program.
• Sign for Dreiseitl sculpture: Quinn Evans Architects are working on a sign explaining the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl, located in front of city hall. The work is being done as part of the firm’s existing contract with the city. Quinn Evans has provided a range of services related to construction of the Justice Center and renovation of city hall, including oversight of the construction and installation of the Dreiseitl sculpture. The Ann Arbor firm’s contracts with the city, as amended over the past few years, exceed $6 million.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several updates and other items of communication and commentary.

Communications & Commentary: Working with UM Students

John Kotarski reported that he’d been working with Roland Graf, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Art & Design, who will be teaching a course starting in January called “Public Art and Urban Intervention.” The course, with about 20 students, will explore placemaking strategies and the reinvention of public space in Ann Arbor and the UM campus, Kotarski said. As a first assignment, Graf intends to have students compare two Ann Arbor public art projects: The sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl in front of city hall, and the mural by Mary Thiefels at Allmendinger Park. Another assignment will be to give students an actual request for proposals (RFP) and ask them to respond to it and make a presentation to AAPAC. Kotarski thought the RFP for the artwork in the Justice Center lobby would be perfect for that.

The third assignment would be open-ended within a certain budget range, asking students to share their view about what makes good public art in the 21st century using Ann Arbor as a canvas, Kotarski said.

Marsha Chamberlin ventured that these student presentations to AAPAC would be interesting for the general public, too. Kotarski suggested trying to schedule the presentations in city council chambers, where they could be broadcast for Community Television Network. He said he’d report back with updates.

Communications & Commentary: Terms

John Kotarski said he knew this would be Cathy Gendron’s last meeting, and he wanted to applaud her work on AAPAC and thank her for her service, which “went above and beyond what was necessary.”

Cathy Gendron.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that terms for both Gendron and Connie Brown ended on Dec. 31, but she hoped they would both stay another three months until the city council makes a decision about the public art program’s future. Both Brown and Gendron agreed, though Gendron pointed out that she’ll be out of town during much of that time. She also said that she’ll eventually need to hand over files and other work she’s done as part of AAPAC’s public relations committee, giving that material to whoever will be taking her place on the PR committee.

Both Brown and Gendron have served two terms on AAPAC. They were most recently reappointed by the city council in November of 2010. Neither the city’s public art ordinance nor the commission’s bylaws indicate a limit to the number of terms that can be served. However, the bylaws do address the issue of serving after a term has expired:

Section 5. Members whose term has expired shall hold over and continue to serve as members of AAPAC until a successor has been appointed. Consistent with City Code Section 1:171, no member shall be allowed to hold over for more than sixty (60) days beyond the appointed term whether or not a successor has been appointed, except that City Council may extend terms for periods of ninety (90) days upon the recommendation of the Mayor and vote of at least six (6) members of Council.

Section 6. Consistent with City Code Section 1:171, the Mayor shall notify City Council of the expiration of a member’s term at least thirty (30) days prior and shall present to City Council all proposed reappointments no later than sixty (60) days after the expiration of the term. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

Both Gendron and Brown were nominated at the council’s Dec. 17 meeting for reappointment – as was Tony Derezinski – to serve terms ending Jan. 20, 2016.

There is an existing vacancy on AAPAC, following the resignation of Theresa Reid in November. No one has yet been nominated by mayor John Hieftje to replace her. She had been appointed in February of 2012 for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.

Communications & Commentary: Online Map of Public Art

Aaron Seagraves reported on plans to develop an interactive online map that will display the city’s public art. It will be part of the city’s collection of online maps, and include details like a project’s location, artist, and a photo of the work. Next steps include determining what information to display, completing that information for each work of art, and selecting photos.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary, describing himself as an advocate for public art. His mother had been an artist, he said, specializing  in painting on china. He advocated for a shift in spending away from well-known artists and instead focusing on K-12 arts education. He argued that there should also be more cooperation with other local governments, with the state, and with public institutions.

At the end of the meeting, Partridge criticized the commission, saying that its faulty strategy had led to the failure of the public art millage in November. The commissioners aren’t connecting with the majority of the public, he said, in terms of the selection of location, type of art, and amount of money spent on the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture in front of city hall. More should be done to improve public art at city hall, he added, describing the current building as “drab, drab, drab.”

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

From left: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the first meeting of the council’s public art committee on Dec. 11. Other members are Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). (Photos by the writer.)

The group consists of councilmembers Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). They’d been appointed at the city council’s Dec. 3 meeting, when the council also voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program  – except for projects that are already underway. The moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.

The committee was asked to recommend amendments to the city’s public art program, and make those recommendations to the council by Feb. 15, 2013. Among the possibilities the task force is expected to consider is a complete repeal of the current program, perhaps to be replaced with an alternative.

Peterson – the newest councilmember on the committee, who was elected on Nov. 6 – brought to the Dec. 11 meeting a draft survey for residents, to help clarify public sentiment about using city funds for public art. She noted that the outcome of a public art millage, which was defeated by about 56% of voters on Nov. 6, didn’t directly measure how people felt about the public funding of art. The four-year millage would have temporarily replaced the current Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each city capital project to use for public art.

But other committee members – particularly Teall and Kunselman – expressed little enthusiasm for a survey, although the group agreed to bring back other ideas for public outreach to their next meeting.

Much of the committee’s discussion focused on exploring other funding options. Taylor suggested the possibility of a new nonprofit, which could help secure more private funding. He said he’s already been communicating with the city attorney’s office about this option. It was Taylor who had brought forward the millage proposal this summer, to the surprise of many in the local arts community. The arts community was unsuccessful in its efforts to urge the city council not to put the proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot.

The committee set its next meeting for Monday, Jan. 7 at 5:30 p.m. – before to the 7 p.m. city council meeting. Before then, committee members agreed to work on several tasks, including gathering information about how other communities handle funding for public art. And Kunselman plans to draft a resolution for the council to make a request of the state attorney general’s office – likely via state Rep. Jeff Irwin – for an opinion about the legality of Ann Arbor’s current approach.

The Dec. 11 meeting also was attended by two members of the Ann Arbor public art commission – Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, and John Kotarski – as well as Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator. [For a report on the most recent meeting of the public art commission, see: “Public Art Commission Eyes Uncertain Future.”]

This report begins with some background on Ann Arbor Percent for Art program, then summarizes the wide-ranging Dec. 11 committee discussion and possible next steps.

Background: Funding of Public Art

The Ann Arbor city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – is set aside for public art. [.pdf of public art ordinance] Because funding comes from capital projects, the artwork must be linked thematically to the fund paying for the project. For example, artwork funded with money from street projects must have some kind of transportation theme, or be located along the street. Another consequence of capital-project-based funding is that artwork must be permanent, which excludes temporary installations or performing arts.

The art projects paid for with this funding are overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission, a nine-member volunteer advisory group to the city council. Its first project, a water sculpture designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl and installed in the city hall’s outdoor plaza, drew criticism for the cost – over $750,000 – and the fact that a non-local artist was selected for the effort.

AAPAC has also been under pressure because of the relatively small number of projects it has completed. In addition to the Dreiseitl work, there are only two other finished projects: metal tree sculptures at West Park, and a mural at Allmendinger Park. However, AAPAC members have stressed the long-term nature of these projects, especially when getting a new program started, and note that several other efforts are underway. Those include: (1) a $150,000 hanging glass sculpture by Ed Carpenter, to be installed in the Justice Center lobby this spring; (2) artwork for a new rain garden being built at Kingsley & First next spring, with a $27,000 budget; (3) public art for the East Stadium bridges, with a $400,000 budget; and (4) $150,000 for artwork at Argo Cascades.

Current AAPAC members are Connie Rizzolo Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger, and Malverne Winborne. There is one vacancy, due to the recent resignation of Theresa Reid. The Percent for Art funds also pay for a part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. He is the second person to hold that position, and was hired in May 2011.

As the city has struggled in recent years with declining revenues – and as the Percent for Art program has faced criticism for various reasons – there have been several attempts to scale back the program.  Those efforts include some formal proposals by councilmembers to cut the percentage of funding for public art to a half percent. However, none of those efforts were supported by a majority of councilmembers.

Most recently, in August of 2012 – eight weeks before the Nov. 6 general election, and to the surprise of many leaders in the local arts community – councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) brought forward a proposal to put an 0.1 mill tax on the ballot. It would have raised $450,000 annually and served as an alternative, more flexible funding source for the Percent for Art program, which would have been suspended for the duration of the four-year millage.

But the millage was defeated, with 28,166 people (55.86%) voting against it and with support from 22,254 voters (44.14%).

In the wake of that defeat, at the city council’s Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, two proposals were considered that would have changed the public art program – one from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have terminated it, and one from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) that would have narrowed the scope of qualifying projects. The practical impact of Briere’s proposal would be to reduce the amount of public art funding by about 90%. For the last two fiscal years, the Percent for Art program has generated roughly $300,000. If Briere’s proposed ordinance revisions had been in place, only about $25,000 would have been generated. [.jpg of chart showing public art allocations]

A third resolution, brought forward on Nov. 19 by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), was to appoint a committee to study the Percent for Art program and to halt the expenditure of funds currently allocated for public art, with exceptions for projects already underway.

All of these resolutions were postponed until the council’s Dec. 3 meeting, when councilmembers passed the proposal from Higgins and appointed the committee of five councilmembers: Briere, Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Sally Petersen, and Margie Teall.

The resolution also halted the spending of funds accumulated through the Percent for Art program until April 1, 2013. Projects already approved – at the Justice Center, East Stadium Bridges, Argo Cascades, and the Kingsley & First rain garden – are exempted and will move ahead. The committee was asked to make recommendations about the program’s future by Feb. 15, 2013.

Currently there is a balance of about $1.5 million in the Percent for Art program. Of that, about $681,000 is unallocated.

Public Outreach

The discussion at the committee’s Dec. 11 meeting began with Sally Petersen putting forward a draft survey she’d compiled. The millage vote didn’t really indicate how people felt about the public funding of art, she noted. Anecdotally, people voted against the millage for a variety of reasons, she said: some wanted to keep the current Percent for Art program; some thought the millage would provide insufficient funding; some thought it would bring in too much money; and some felt there should not be any public funding for art.

Petersen’s draft survey had five questions. One question asked whether the city should be involved with art in public places – if the answer was no, the survey ended. If yes, then additional questions were asked about preferences for funding and administering such a program. [.pdf of Petersen's draft survey]

A work designed by the German sculptor Herbert Dreiseitl is integrated into the stormwater management system at city hall. The sculpture was paid for through the city’s Percent for Art program and was controversial in large part because of its cost, which exceeded $750,000.

Petersen explained that her intent was to keep the survey short and straightforward, so that the results could give the committee some initial direction. If 80% of respondents indicate that they don’t want the city to fund public art, “then our job’s kind of done,” she said.

Sabra Briere shared preliminary results of an online survey she’d already conducted among constituents, with a majority of the roughly 100 respondents indicating support for public funding of art. [Briere also included a bar chart of survey results in an email newsletter sent to constituents on Dec. 15, but indicated that she hadn't yet finished compiling the complete results.]

At the committee meeting, Margie Teall responded to the idea of a survey by saying she was skeptical of that approach. It’s a loaded issue, she said. She they’d be more likely to hear from people opposed to funding, rather than getting a reliable cross-section of opinion.

Stephen Kunselman also wasn’t enthusiastic about a survey, saying the council had already heard from a lot of people on this issue. As an elected body, the council needs to make some decisions, he said. “I don’t think we should govern by survey.”

Petersen indicated that a survey could at least provide some direction. At this point, there’s no set of consistent data to gauge public sentiment, she said.

Teall felt that the issue is subjective, and councilmembers are elected to make decisions like this. Echoing Kunselman, she said, “We’ve heard from a lot of people already.”

Briere noted that the community has had at least five years of discussion about public art. Although the Percent for Art program was formed in 2007, people didn’t really pay attention until the city went public with the Herbert Dreiseitl piece, she said. Briere added that she was personally uncomfortable asking people to continue with the Percent for Art program specifically, because only a few of the people she’s talked with actually understand how the program works.

Later in the meeting, Teall picked up that thread, saying she was concerned about doing public outreach unless there was an educational component, too.

But Briere felt that trying to educate people first would manipulate the outcome of an attempt to understand what people wanted. It’s important to understand what people don’t understand, she said. Briere noted that she’s heard from a lot of people with opinions, but primarily they’re responding to one piece – the work by Dreiseitl.

Petersen replied that it’s in part a public relations problem. She reported that for the record, she actually liked the Dreiseitl sculpture, but thought it was too small for that space. Teall noted that the city hadn’t been able to afford anything larger, adding that people also don’t understand that the Dreiseitl work is part of a larger system, which added to the expense. [The piece is connected to the stormwater management system at city hall, which includes a rain garden and underground cisterns.]

Defining the Problem

About midway into the Dec. 11 discussion, Sabra Briere pointed out that they hadn’t yet defined the problem they were trying to address. She referred to an exercise that councilmembers had conducted at a planning retreat the previous evening, which involved identifying the problems that the city needed to solve, as a way to help prioritize.

By way of background, the two questions councilmembers had tried to answer for their chosen priority areas were: (1) What is the problem we are solving? and (2) What does success look like?

Sally Petersen identified two problems. The city has a public art program that doesn’t seem to be working, she said, but the city also has a public relations problem.

Briere wondered what the problem was in 2006 that the city was trying to solve, which resulted in forming the Percent for Art program.

By way of background, Margie Teall is the only councilmember on the committee who had served on council when the public art ordinance was proposed. She served on a task force – appointed by the city council at its June 5, 2006 meeting – that led to establishing the Percent for Art program. Other task force members included Margaret Parker, a local artist who since 2002 had been a member of the Ann Arbor Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP) – a group that pushed for public funding of art; Elaine Sims, another member of CAPP who is director of the University of Michigan Hospitals and Healthcare Centers Gifts of Art program; Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations; and Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater.

The council eventually approved the public art ordinance in November 2007. Parker and Sims later were appointed to the Ann Arbor public art commission, an advisory group to oversee allocation of the Percent for Art funds. Their terms on AAPAC ended in 2011.

At the Dec. 11 committee meeting, Teall recalled the problem as it was conceived back in 2006: There was limited public art in Ann Arbor, beyond what was located on the University of Michigan campus. People would donate art to the city, or art would be included in projects like the Fourth & Washington parking structure – which was built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. But there was no coordination and no permanent funding source, Teall said.

Ann Arbor was “light years behind other cities” in terms of public art, Teall said. So the problem had been to address the need for a public art program. She said that the recommendation for the Percent for Art program had been brought forward by Sue McCormick, who at that time was the city’s public services administrator.

Briere observed that there had been no mention of a Percent for Art program by the city council as a body until a recommendation to establish the program was introduced. “So we’re playing catch-up when we talk about community outreach,” she said. [Briere did not serve on the council at that time, but attended council meetings. She was first elected in November of 2007, and took office just after the Percent for Art program was approved.]

Taylor commented that now, the problem is that the city doesn’t have the kind of public art program that it wants. Peterson asked, “What is the program we want?” “Exactly,” Taylor replied.

Kunselman felt the problem is that people don’t have confidence in the funding mechanism, and they don’t have confidence in the type of art that’s being proposed. To Kunselman, decorative manhole covers are not art.

Defining the Problem: Funding Sources

Briere felt the problem isn’t the process. “It’s frankly how much money the system has received.” She noted that in the past, there have been various proposals by councilmembers to limit the amount – cutting the program to a half percent, for example. But none of those efforts were supported by a majority of council.

From left: City councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). In the background is Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Teall pointed out that the funding won’t always be at the level of recent years – it depends on the number and kind of capital projects that the city is undertaking in any given year. That’s true, Briere replied, but the fact is that there’s political pressure now – because of the amount of money that’s in the Percent for Art budget. She didn’t want to rush AAPAC to spend the money, but it’s an issue, Briere said.

Petersen ventured that art will happen in Ann Arbor, regardless of public funding. Her comment echoed the sentiment she’d expressed at the Nov. 19 city council meeting: “[A]rt happens in Ann Arbor; every single day, art happens.” At the committee meeting, Teall replied, ”I think that’s a leap.”

In response, Petersen listed several arts and cultural events that don’t involve city funding, including the annual art fairs, Ann Arbor Summer Festival, the FestiFools parade, and performances sponsored by the University Musical Society and other organizations.

Petersen said she worried that the failed millage vote was an indication that people don’t want the city to fund public art. She said she didn’t agree with that sentiment, but she was afraid that’s what the vote meant.

Teall said that continued financial support for public art might not be popular, but she wondered what Petersen was afraid of. Petersen replied that she was afraid the council would be accused of not listening to what people wanted. That’s why she felt it was important to get a clearer understanding from residents – either through a survey, or public meetings, or a combination of feedback.

Kunselman didn’t feel additional input was necessary. He believes most people don’t object to some funding, but they want a more moderate level and a clear understanding of how the funding works and whether it’s legally legitimate. That’s why he supports Briere’s proposal to limit the sources of funding, and why he doesn’t support Jane Lumm’s proposal to eliminate the program entirely. It’s also important for the bureaucracy – “especially the lawyers” – to get out of the way, he added.

Teall and Taylor both noted that even though the millage failed, more than 20,000 people voted in favor of it.

Options for Funding Public Art

Interspersed throughout the meeting were ideas about other possible approaches to funding public art.

Options: Altering the Percent for Art Ordinance

As he has in the past, Stephen Kunselman questioned the appropriateness of using funds that were originally designated for infrastructure like roads or utilities, and setting aside some of those funds for public art. He said he’d like to see the Percent for Art structure continue, but not take funding from as many capital projects as it currently taps. That change alone would take away a lot of criticism about the program, he said.

Kunselman wants to pursue the strategy of asking the state attorney general’s office for an opinion about the legality of Ann Arbor’s current approach. [It's an issue he's raised at a previous city council meeting.  He has not taken any steps to ask for an AG opinion – as the request must come from a state legislator. The city attorney, Stephen Postema, has not publicly released any opinion on the issue, though he has provided such an opinion, in the form of an "advice memo," to councilmembers.] Kunselman said he planned to talk with state Rep. Jeff Irwin about it, and possibly bring forward a resolution to the council in January for a vote on making a formal request.

If the attorney general deems that the Percent for Art program is legal, Kunselman said, then that opens the door for other communities in Michigan to launch similar programs. Kunselman also complained that the city staff has given conflicting opinions about whether general fund dollars were used to fund public art, especially related to the hanging sculpture that’s been commissioned for the lobby of the Justice Center.

Kunselman also felt that the current program’s “bureaucracy” should be simplified. City staff can’t account for how the money is handled, he contended. He pointed to the change in the definition of what counts as a capital improvement as it relates to eligibility for the Percent for Art, which has increased the number of projects that generate public art funds. He wondered who has been making these policy decisions, noting that it’s not something initiated by the city council.

Options: Creating a Nonprofit

Christopher Taylor noted that the committee’s charge is to look at whether the current program is “susceptible to change” or should be left as is. He believed that the council is operating with the assumption that public art is worth some kind of funding. The committee can accept as a given, he added, that the current program “has operational and foundational complications which inhibit the city’s ability to realize the program we all want.” He preferred that the committee focus on exploring different ways of handling the program.

Asked by Sally Petersen what that might mean, Taylor said there might be other opportunities for city funding. There might be the possibility of “cultivating a nonprofit de novo,” he said – that is, forming a new nonprofit to serve as a public/private partnership for creating public art in Ann Arbor.

When asked by Margie Teall how such a nonprofit would be funded, Taylor replied that this same question would be asked no matter what approach they pursued using public dollars. The advantage of a nonprofit, he said, is that it could more credibly seek private funding. “That’s one notion I’ve heard in the space,” he said, “and I assume there are other possibilities.”

Taylor indicated that he already has communicated with Christopher Frost of the city attorney’s office about the possibility of forming a nonprofit.

There was some discussion about whether any existing nonprofit – like the Arts Alliance, a consortium of arts and cultural groups in Washtenaw County – could fill this role. But committee members seemed to feel that none of the existing nonprofits had a mission that would lend itself to this type of effort.

Briere suggested the possibility of establishing an endowment as a way to leverage private dollars. She noted that the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy set up a 501(c)3 so that it could accept donations through the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The Library Green group is trying to do the same thing, she noted, and it might be something to consider for public art, too.

Next Steps

Each councilmember on the committee took on a task to do before their next meeting. Christopher Taylor said he’d get more information about the possibility of forming a nonprofit to handle public art, working with the city attorney’s office. Margie Teall plans to gather research on public art programs in other communities. Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, offered to help with that effort, noting that the commission had already compiled a lot of information about other public art programs.

Sabra Briere and Sally Petersen both will work on the public outreach component, although it doesn’t appear the committee has interest in the kind of survey that Petersen proposed. Petersen reported that she and her Ward 2 colleague Jane Lumm are planning to hold a town hall meeting sometime in January, and could add the topic of public art funding to that agenda.

Stephen Kunselman plans to talk with state Rep. Jeff Irwin or state Sen. Rebekah Warren about their willingness to request an opinion from the Michigan attorney general about the legality of Ann Arbor’s current Percent for Art program. He intends to draft a resolution to bring to the council, possibly in January, that would formally make the request to Irwin or Warren.

The group also talked about bringing in people who are involved in the local arts community, but decided to wait until after the committee had met again and reviewed the information they’d be gathering.

The committee set its next meeting for Monday, Jan. 7 at 5:30 p.m. – before the 7 p.m. city council meeting.

Councilmembers present: Sabra Briere, Stephen Kunselman, Sally Petersen, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall.

Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, and two members of the Ann Arbor public art commission: Marsha Chamberlin and John Kotarski.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art. 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!

Margaret Parker, former chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, attended AAPAC’s Nov. 28 meeting and volunteered to help with outreach and promotion. (Photos by the writer.)

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator, highlighted several projects that have been in the pipeline and that will likely be completed in 2013: a $150,000 hanging glass sculpture by Ed Carpenter, to be installed in the Justice Center lobby this spring; artwork for a new rain garden being built at Kingsley & First next spring; and public art for the East Stadium bridges, with a $400,000 budget. Artists haven’t yet been selected for those last two projects, but it’s hoped that the work will be finished by the end of 2013.

Much of the conversation among commissioners focused on how to  improve promotion and coordination of the work they’ve done to date, and to explain their vision for public art in Ann Arbor.

“We’ve got a fair amount of work to do in the next few months,” said Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair.

Two members of the arts community – former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker and Deb Polich, executive director of the Arts Alliance and president of Artrain, who had also co-chaired the “B for Art” millage campaign committee – attended the meeting. During public commentary, Parker volunteered to help with outreach efforts, and gave commissioners a list of suggestions for promoting the city’s public art program.

Also attending the Nov. 28 meeting was city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She has proposed changing the public art ordinance to narrow the type of projects that could be tapped for public art funding. The effect would be to dramatically cut the amount of funds available for public art. A second proposal, by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), would simply eliminate the program. Both of those proposals were tabled by the council on Nov. 19. But at its Dec. 3 meeting, the city council is expected to act on yet another proposal – made by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – to appoint a committee to study the city’s approach to public art. Her proposal would also suspend the expenditure of funds, with several exceptions, that have accumulated for public art.

Update: At their Dec. 3 meeting, the city council voted to suspend the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program until April 1, 2013 – except for projects that are already underway. A committee consisting of Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has been appointed to recommend amendments to the city’s public art program. The committee is charged with making a recommendation to the council by Feb. 15, 2013.

AAPAC faces other changes as well. At the Nov. 28 meeting, Chamberlin noted that Theresa Reid has resigned from the commission. Reid, who is executive director of the ArtsEngine at the University of Michigan, had been appointed to AAPAC in February 2012. In response to an email query from The Chronicle, Reid cited time commitments for work and family, and said her resignation was not related to the Nov. 6 defeat of the public art millage.

During the Nov. 28 meeting, Chamberlin urged commissioners to solicit potential candidates for a replacement. An appointment will be made with a nomination by the mayor and confirmation by the full city council. An application for all city boards and commissions is available on the city clerk’s website.

Future of Public Art in Ann Arbor

At its Nov. 19 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered and ultimately delayed action on three separate resolutions related to the city’s public art program.

Councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed to eliminate the program entirely. A second agenda item, put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), would revise the definition of projects to which the public ordinance applies and would add requirements for public participation. The result would be to reduce the amount of public art funding by about 90%. For the last two fiscal years, the Percent for Art program has generated roughly $300,000. If the ordinance revisions had been in place, only about $25,000 would have been generated. [.jpg of chart showing public art allocations] Both proposals were tabled by the council at its Nov. 19 meeting.

The council also postponed a resolution added to the agenda during the Nov. 19 meeting to appoint a committee to study the issue and to suspend the expenditure of funds currently allocated for public art, although there would be exceptions for projects already underway. The resolution on the committee and temporary suspension, which was brought forward by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), was postponed until Dec. 3. The timeframe for a recommendation on how to move ahead with either revision or termination of the Percent for Art ordinance would be April 2013.

Briere attended AAPAC’s Nov. 28 meeting, but did not formally address the commission. In an email sent to constituents on Dec. 1, Briere included an online survey about public funding for art. She had previously surveyed constituents in September on the issue. [.pdf of Briere's September 2012 survey results]

These proposals come in the wake of a failed public art millage that had been placed on the Nov. 6 ballot by the city council. The 0.1 mill tax – which was expected to generate around $450,000 annually – was rejected by 28,166 voters (55.86%), with support from 22,254 voters (44.14%). Although the arts community had campaigned to support the millage, many arts leaders had advised the council not to put it on the ballot at this time. Councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had first put forward the ballot proposal in August, eight weeks before the election. [See Chronicle coverage: "Despite Worries, Art Commission Backs Millage."]

The current funding program remains in place. For all of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – is set aside for public art. There is currently a balance of $1.526 million in the Percent for Art program. Of that, $845,133 has been earmarked for previously approved projects, leaving about $681,000 unallocated. [.pdf of budget summary]

Implications of the council’s possible actions were an underlying theme throughout AAPAC’s Nov. 28 meeting.

Future of Public Art: Public Commentary

Two people from the arts community attended Wednesday’s meeting: Deb Polich, executive director of the Arts Alliance and president of Artrain, who had also co-chaired the “B for Art” millage campaign committee; and Margaret Parker, a local artist and former AAPAC chair.

Margaret Parker on Election Day (Nov. 6, 2012) in front of the downtown Ann Arbor library, urging voters to support the public art millage.

Polich did not formally address the board, but Parker spoke during both opportunities for public commentary.

Now that the council is reassessing the Percent for Art program, Parker said, it’s important to get out as much information as possible about what AAPAC has accomplished and how the program works. It takes so much time to actually work on the projects, she noted, that there’s little time available to do promotion.

She noted that Bob Miller, an AAPAC commissioner, has been sending out emails with links to public art programs in other cities and states, including some that use videos to promote their work. That’s great, she said, but she wondered who has time to do that kind of thing in Ann Arbor.

Parker told commissioners that she wanted to offer her time and help to promote AAPAC’s work. She provided a handout with suggestions about possible actions. [.pdf of Parker's handout]

Parker’s suggestions include:

• Arrange a panel discussion on CTN’s Access Ann Arbor, a 30-minute program aired on Channel 17.
• Use the upcoming documentary that Dana Denha of CTN is doing on the Herbert Dreiseitl project – show it continuously in a monitor set up in the city hall atrium.
• Line up stories on upcoming projects in a consistent way so that something is coming out every two weeks. Use upcoming projects to teach how the public art process works.
• Establish a press network that takes a positive approach.
• Involve city councilmembers in the coverage of projects in their wards – make them part of the story.
• Get interviews on public radio.
• Give tours of city hall public art, emphasizing the pedestrian scale of the pieces.

Later in the meeting, commissioner John Kotarski praised Parker’s involvement, including her efforts to create the Percent for Art program several years ago, and her previous work on AAPAC. He noted that she jumped into the millage campaign and worked hard on that, too. ”You are a treasure for Ann Arbor, Margaret,” he said.

Kotarski noted that even though the public art millage proposal was defeated on Nov. 6, about 22,000 people did vote for it. After the defeat, Parker had picked herself up again and is now offering more help, he said, and that’s commendable. Other commissioners offered their thanks to Parker as well.

Future of Public Art: Commission Discussion

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin thanked everyone who attended the Nov. 19 city council meeting, and for those who campaigned for the public art millage. She noted that before the election, she and Margaret Parker had spent time at the Ann Arbor farmers market talking with people about the millage. They’d had some interesting interactions, she said. Chamberlin also praised the Arts Alliance for its support, as well as Mike Henry and Jeremy Peters.

Chamberlin reported that the Allmendinger Park mural dedication earlier this month had been a success. It’s the first completed mural in a program that launched two years ago. “When we feel a little under the gun or downtrodden, one day like that can really bring your spirits up,” Chamberlin said

On Monday, Dec. 3, the Ann Arbor city council is expected to vote on establishing a committee to evaluate the Percent for Art program and to look at how the city might best implement a public art program, Chamberlin noted. So AAPAC has a lot of work to do, she said. When Chamberlin mentioned that she had emailed councilmembers offering the assistance of AAPAC in this process, Bob Miller asked whether she’d gotten any responses from them. Chamberlin noted that this was her last week as president of the Ann Arbor Art Center, so she’d been busy wrapping up her work there and had only sent out the emails within the past two days. But no, she had not received any replies.

At that point, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere – who attended the meeting as an observer – spoke up to say that she hadn’t received the email. Chamberlin then explained that she hadn’t sent it to all councilmembers.

Chamberlin continued, saying that AAPAC needs to make sure that councilmembers and others are aware of the work that’s been done. There’s a lot in the pipeline, she noted. But while it feels like commissioners have talked to a lot of people about these projects, as a percentage, she said, they’ve only reached a relatively small portion of the population.

Future of Public Art: Commission Discussion – Public Relations

Later in the meeting, Connie Brown said she felt the commission should address the issues that Margaret Parker had raised. Commissioners have been working diligently to coordinate their efforts and get the word out about AAPAC’s projects, Brown said, but they weren’t always executing to the best of their ability. Perhaps they needed to better coordinate with the city council, she said, or to improve the tracking of each project’s status, or better inform the general public. The lesson of the “quadrant” meetings in October showed the importance of location in their outreach efforts, Brown added.

Connie Rizzolo Brown.

As background, Brown was referring to an outreach effort that involves setting up task forces to represent four quadrants of Ann Arbor that are designated in the city master plan’s “land use elements” section: west, central, south and northeast. [.pdf map of quadrants] Two or more of the nine AAPAC members will be responsible for each quadrant, charged with soliciting input from residents in selecting public art. Four meetings were held in October to kick off this effort, but in general attendance was low.

At the Nov. 28 meeting, Brown said she felt that AAPAC needed to weave its efforts together more cohesively. She didn’t have a specific proposal, but told commissioners she felt it was something important to contemplate. They needed to learn from and build on their experiences, she said, noting that “we kind of keep coming back to this discussion again and again.”

John Kotarski, who joined the commission in January, said the commission’s vision is blurred and they haven’t shown as much leadership as they could. That fact opens them to criticism, he said. They are citizen volunteers and don’t have the resources to manage a multi-million dollar program, he noted, so their vision needs to be as sharp as it can be, and their processes need to be as open as possible. “That’s what I’m hearing from folks,” he said.

Marsha Chamberlin wondered whether other commissioners felt that AAPAC’s vision and mission weren’t clear. She pointed out that AAPAC has a mission statement, though perhaps it wasn’t always at the forefront of people’s minds.

AAPAC’s mission statement is included in its most recent annual report and its fiscal 2013 annual plan:

To bring public art to the City of Ann Arbor that improves the aesthetic quality of public spaces and structures, provides for cultural and recreational opportunities, contributes to local heritage, stimulates economic activity, and promotes the general welfare of the community.

[.pdf of AAPAC bylaws] [.pdf of AAPAC guidelines] [.pdf of fiscal 2013 annual plan] [.pdf of annual report of activities for fiscal 2011 and annual report for fiscal 2012] [.pdf of strategic plan]

Kotarski felt that the mission statement painted with a broad brush. It doesn’t tell people where AAPAC stands regarding public art for gateways, or an art park, or working with schools or businesses, or a range of other issues, he said. When Bob Miller wondered whether Kotarski was talking about the strategic plan, Kotarski replied that it’s more than a vision – it’s a concrete plan so that people will know what to expect from AAPAC, and when.

Chamberlin pointed out that they were discussing two different things: (1) process-related issues like project tracking and public relations; and  (2) broader issues of strategic direction, which she felt were spelled out in AAPAC’s strategic plan. The commission has been hampered with respect to its long-term strategy, she said, because now they weren’t sure whether the public art program will exist in a few months. That uncertainty makes it hard to know where to focus their energies, she said. In general, it was important to build and communicate the case for having a strong public art program.

John Kotarski.

Kotarski argued that AAPAC shouldn’t be distracted by what’s happening at the city council. They just need to work as efficiently and diligently as they can, he said, and to answer some of these questions about their future direction. It’s not just enumerating projects, he added, but rather putting those projects into the context of a strategic vision.

Malverne Winborne noted that AAPAC seems to have gotten away from using some of the tools it has developed – specifically, its project-tracking spreadsheet, and long-term strategic plan. Because that has happened, he said, “we get lost.”

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said he had previously brought updated versions of the project-tracking spreadsheet to AAPAC’s monthly meetings, but he hadn’t done that recently. He said he’d start that routine again.

Calling for another retreat, Winborne said that even if AAPAC is de-commissioned, public art will continue in some form. So they need to ensure that processes are in place to allow a cohesive continuation of public art in the city.

Chamberlin felt they needed to move the conversation forward, and said she’d like to have AAPAC’s PR committee look at these issues. She offered to coordinate a time for her, Kotarski, Seagraves, and Cathy Gendron – the PR committee’s chair, who did not attend the Nov. 28 meeting – to meet, along with Margaret Parker.

Parker addressed this issue during the meeting’s final opportunity for public commentary. She noted that the public art plan, which AAPAC completes in the spring, should serve as their guide for priority setting. It’s developed based on AAPAC’s mission, she said, and should be tied to the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). That’s the beauty of the Percent for Art approach, Parker said – as capital projects come through the city, they provide funding for public art, which should be coordinated with those capital projects from the beginning. [For all capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – is set aside for public art.] She felt that a millage approach, while providing more flexibility, wouldn’t give the underlying organizing principal for public art to be integrated into city projects.

Chamberlin pointed out that the downside to the Percent for Art approach is the requirement that all public art projects must be linked thematically to their funding source, and can’t be temporary.

Outcome: This was not an action item, and no vote was taken.

Partnership with DDA

John Kotarski reported that he and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had met earlier this month with Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

As a result of that meeting, Kotarski was offering to chair a rapid-response team for AAPAC that could be available to respond quickly to requests from groups like the DDA. Pollay had indicated that the DDA typically needed a timely response when projects arise, he said. The team might be useful in helping the DDA identify artists for potential DDA-funded projects, or help navigate city bureaucracy if necessary. Kotarski invited others to join the team, which he suggested starting informally.

Saying it was a great idea, Marsha Chamberlin also expressed some caution. She wondered if it would open the city to liability, if something went wrong with a project that didn’t directly involve AAPAC, but that AAPAC was helping to facilitate. Kotarski didn’t think there were liability issues – the team would act as liaisons and advocates, not as official representatives of the city.

Charles McGee artwork – “The Spirit of Ann Arbor” – on the Carver Building at 500-506 E. Liberty St.

Pollay believes that a lot of public art is happening that’s not necessarily funded by the city, Kotarski reported. He gave as an example the recent installation of a work by Charles McGee – titled “The Spirit of Ann Arbor” – commissioned by John Carver for a downtown building that Carver owns at 500-506 E. Liberty St. AAPAC should recognize and celebrate projects like this, Kotarski said, even if the projects aren’t funded by the city’s Percent for Art program.

Kotarski pointed out that part of AAPAC’s mission, as laid out in the city’s public art ordinance, is to facilitate public art in general. [The ordinance lists several duties of the commission, including "promote awareness of public art." .pdf of public art ordinance]

Noting that Carver had contacted Margaret Parker to help find an artist, Kotarski said that were it not for AAPAC, Carver would not likely have known to contact Parker. Parker is an ambassador for art throughout the city, Kotarski said, and AAPAC should recognize that. People should realize that making these connections is one benefit of having a public art commission, he said.

By way of background, AAPAC had attempted a formal partnership with the DDA several years ago. A draft set of guidelines was developed that AAPAC could use for assisting in DDA-funded public art projects. Former commissioner Jim Curtis had spearheaded that effort, but when he left AAPAC in 2010, there was no further action on it.

Project Updates

Throughout the Nov. 28 meeting, commissioners and Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – provided updates for several ongoing projects. Here’s a summary:

• Justice Center: Work on the $150,000 hanging glass sculpture for the lobby of the Justice Center – by Oregon artist Ed Carpenter – is moving ahead, and the structural engineering is completed. The sculpture, called “Radius,” was approved by the city council in May of 2012 based on AAPAC’s recommendation. Expected installation: March or April of 2013.
• Argo Cascades: A statement of qualifications (SOQ) will likely be issued in early December for this project to place artwork in the city park along Argo Cascades. [SOQs for the city are posted online here.] AAPAC approved a $150,000 budget for that project in April of 2012. Expected completion: End of 2013.
• East Stadium bridges: The deadline for submitting responses to an SOQ for artwork along the new East Stadium bridges was extended until Dec. 5. There are 15 responses so far, but Seagraves expects more to come as the deadline approaches. The $400,000 budget for that project was recommended by AAPAC in March of 2012. Expected completion of project: End of 2013.
• Kingsley & First rain garden: A request for proposals (RFP) was issued earlier this month for artwork to be included in a rain garden at the city-owned lot at Kingsley & First. [RFPs for the city are posted online here.] Responses are due on Jan. 10. The project has a budget of $27,000. Expected completion: August 2013.
• Forest Avenue plaza: A meeting is scheduled for Dec. 5 with task force members and city staff to discuss a public art project for the plaza, located next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University. AAPAC voted at its Aug. 22, 2012 meeting to move ahead on it, with a budget of up to $35,000.
• State & Ellsworth roundabout: Bob Miller is the AAPAC point person for a project incorporating artwork into a roundabout being built at the intersection of South State and Ellsworth. He reported that they’re still looking for people to work on a task force to guide the project. Marsha Chamberlin suggested employees at one of the several Zingerman’s businesses in that area, or any number of photographers and other artists who work in that part of town.
• Sign for Dreiseitl sculpture: Seagraves reported that a sign explaining the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl – located in front of city hall – will be designed and fabricated by Quinn Evans Architects, as part of their existing contract with the city. When asked by Bob Miller how much the sign would cost, Seagraves again stated that it would be part of the original contract that Quinn Evans has with the city. By way of background, Quinn Evans has provided a range of services related to construction of the Justice Center and renovation of city hall, including oversight of the construction and installation of the Dreisietl sculpture. The Ann Arbor firm’s contracts with the city, as amended over the past few years, exceed $6 million.
• Canoe Art: At AAPAC’s Oct. 24, 2012 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin had proposed a possible community project using about 100 old aluminum canoes that the city was planning to get rid of. She plans to bring forward a formal proposal, but told commissioners on Nov. 28 that she hadn’t yet had time to finish that. She thinks the city will need some kind of outside funding for it. Applying for a state grant – from the Michigan Council for Arts & Cultural Affairs – might be an option.

Seagraves also provided commissioners with a budget summary on Percent for Art funds, showing a balance of $1.526 million. Of that, $845,133 has been earmarked for previously approved projects, leaving about $681,000 unallocated. [.pdf of budget summary] There was no discussion of the budget.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and Marsha Chamberlin.

In his administrator’s report, Seagraves mentioned several other items as well. An update of the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) will be reviewed by the Ann Arbor planning commission in December, he said, and he plans to bring the CIP to AAPAC for review at its Dec. 19 meeting. Commissioners discussed the importance of identifying potential projects as early as possible, and the CIP plan can be instrumental in doing that.

Another item for the December agenda will be a draft SOQ to create a pre-qualified pool of artists for future projects. The intent is to speed the selection process. It’s an approach that’s already being used more narrowly for future murals, and this broader SOQ will provide a pool of potential artists for any type of project.

A discussion about the next steps for the quadrant project was deferred until the December meeting, too.

A proposal for a possible “street art” program, which John Kotarski had brought forward at AAPAC’s September meeting, was not mentioned.

Project Updates: Maintenance

During the discussion about project updates, John Kotarski questioned how maintenance costs were accounted for in completed projects. He raised concerns that it wasn’t clear how maintenance for public art projects would be paid for in the future.

Aaron Seagraves explained that regular maintenance is paid for by the unit where the artwork is located – for example, the tree sculptures in West Park will be maintained by the city’s parks maintenance budget. However, if it’s more than regular maintenance, the funding would come from the Percent for Art funds. Seagraves noted that specific funds aren’t allocated for maintenance currently because there have always been excess funds in the Percent for Art budget. However, he said it would be good to address that issue, in light of current proposals at city council to reduce or eliminate funding.

Marsha Chamberlin asked Seagraves to prepare a report for the December meeting to clarify the maintenance issue. She noted that AAPAC has been guided by information provided by Sue McCormick, the city’s former public services area administrator. Chamberlin also reported that there is a small amount available for public art maintenance in a fund held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Vacancy on AAPAC

Theresa Reid had been the newest member of AAPAC, appointed in February of 2012, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015. At the commission’s Nov. 28 meeting, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin noted that Reid had resigned earlier in the month.

Theresa Reid at a February 2012 AAPAC retreat.

Reid is executive director of the ArtsEngine at the University of Michigan. In an email to The Chronicle on Nov. 29, Reid said her university job has greatly expanded – she’s launching a national organization, Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities (a2ru). Beyond that, she said she wants to spend any free time with her daughters, ages 16 and 12.

Reid said her resignation was not related to the Nov. 6 defeat of the public art millage, and that she had decided earlier this fall to resign.

She had not mentioned her intent to resign at any of AAPAC’s regular meetings. She did not attend the October meeting, but in September she and John Kotarski had proposed to form a task force that would explore the possibility of starting a street art program.

In her email to The Chronicle, Reid stated that “I hope very much to be able to rejoin the commission, in whatever form it’s in, when I have more time at my disposal.”

During the Nov. 28 meeting, Chamberlin urged commissioners to solicit potential candidates for a replacement. An appointment will be made with a nomination by the mayor and confirmation by the full city council. An application for all city boards and commissions is available on the city clerk’s website.

There was also some confusion about the status of Tony Derezinski, who had been appointed to AAPAC when he served on city council. He did not attend the Nov. 28 meeting, and some commissioners were under the impression that he would no longer be serving on AAPAC because he is no longer on city council. He lost the August 2012 Democratic primary for Ward 2 to Sally Petersen, who was sworn in as a new councilmember on Nov. 19.

Derezinski’s original appointment to AAPAC was not as a council liaison – but rather as an appointment to replace Jeff Meyers in August 2011, for a term ending Nov. 6, 2011. Then at the council’s Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, AAPAC for the first time was included in a list of “council committees” to which councilmembers are appointed annually. And on that list, Derezinski was designated as the appointee to AAPAC for 2012.

AAPAC’s bylaws do not designate a slot for a city council representative to serve as a voting member on the nine-person group. From the bylaws:

Article IV Membership

Section 1. As provided in Section 1:238 of the City Code, AAPAC shall consist of nine (9) voting members nominated by the Mayor and approved by City Council. The City Administrator or her/his designee shall be a nonvoting ex-officio member of AAPAC. Appointments of the nine (9) voting members shall be made from candidates who have the following expertise or affiliation:

Persons who, insofar as possible, have experience and/or an interest in the placement, creation, or design of public art.

Section 2. All members of AAPAC, including members of its subcommittees, shall serve without compensation.

Section 3. All voting members of AAPAC shall be appointed for a three-year term. In order to insure that approximately one third of the voting members’ appointments expire each year, initial appointments shall be three (3) members for a one-year term, three (3) members for a two-year term, and three (3) members for a three-year term as provided in Section 1:238(2)(A) of the City Code.

Section 4. Consistent with City Charter Section 12.2, all members of AAPAC shall be registered electors in the City of Ann Arbor, unless an exception is granted by a resolution concurred in by at least seven (7) members of City Council.

Section 5. Members whose term has expired shall hold over and continue to serve as members of AAPAC until a successor has been appointed. Consistent with City Code Section 1:171, no member shall be allowed to hold over for more than sixty (60) days beyond the appointed term whether or not a successor has been appointed, except that City Council may extend terms for periods of ninety (90) days upon the recommendation of the Mayor and vote of at least six (6) members of Council.

Section 6. Consistent with City Code Section 1:171, the Mayor shall notify City Council of the expiration of a member’s term at least thirty (30) days prior and shall present to City Council all proposed reappointments no later than sixty (60) days after the expiration of the term.

Section 7. Consistent with City Code Section 1:171, any vacancy on AAPAC occurring in the middle of a term shall be filled for the remainder of the term in the same manner as for full-term appointments.

Section 8. Members are expected to attend regularly scheduled meetings and to notify the Chair and the Public Art Administrator or other person designated by the Public Services Area Administrator in advance if they expect to be tardy or absent. If a member misses more than three (3) regularly scheduled meetings in a twelve (12) month period, the Chair shall notify the Mayor and may recommend removal of the member.

Section 9. A member of AAPAC may be removed by City Council for cause following notice and a hearing.

So according to the bylaws, if Derezinski is currently serving on AAPAC at all, it would be as a citizen, not as a councilmember. However, the council did not reappoint him to a full term when the partial term of his original appointment expired in November of 2011.

The second terms for two other commissioners – Connie Brown and Cathy Gendron – end on Dec. 31, 2012. They have not yet been nominated for reappointment.

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

The newly elected members of council are sworn in by city clerk Jackie Beaudry (back to camera). From left: mayor John Hieftje, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). (Photos by the writer.)

Legislative activity on the public art ordinance resulted from the Nov. 6 rejection by voters of an alternate means of funding public art – a 0.1 mill tax that would have generated roughly $450,000 annually. At the Nov. 19 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed ending the existing public art program, which requires that 1% of the budget for all capital projects in the city be allocated for public art – with a limit of $250,000 per project. A competing proposal, from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), would narrow the type of capital project from which Percent for Art funds could be allocated. Briere’s proposal would have the practical effect of reducing – by about 90% – the amount of public art funds generated by the existing program. In the last two years the program has generated over $300,000 a year, and more in previous years.

The council wound up tabling both proposals, a parliamentary move that means there’s no particular time in the future when the council must consider them. The proposals will expire, if the council does not take them up off the table in six months. However, the council’s strategy will likely be to appoint a committee to study the matter and to suspend temporarily the existing program. A resolution to that effect was added to the council’s agenda during the meeting, after the tabling of the other proposals – but that third resolution was then postponed until the council’s Dec. 3 meeting.

Also postponed was a set of revisions to the city’s living wage ordinance. The main change would be to exempt those nonprofits from the ordinance that receive funding through the city’s human services allocation, which has totaled roughly $1.2 million each year for the last several years. The ordinance currently has a waiver provision, requiring a city-council-approved plan for compliance with the living wage ordinance within three years. Only one such waiver has been sought since the living wage ordinance was enacted in 2001. That came at the council’s meeting earlier this month, on Nov. 8, 2012.

Based on council deliberations at the Nov. 19 meeting, the living wage revisions in their current form seem likely to be approved only with great difficulty. Some councilmembers seemed more interested in pursuing exemptions for categories of workers – temporary or seasonal – instead of exempting categories of organizations. The living wage ordinance revisions were postponed until Feb. 19.

Getting initial approval were changes to two other city ordinances – on noise and the storage of cars on streets.

The changes to the noise ordinance were prompted by the impact that recent construction of the Landmark building at 601 S. Forest had on neighbors. If given final approval by the council, the changes would make clear that holidays are to be treated like Sundays and that supervisors can be cited under the ordinance, not just a worker who’s operating a piece of equipment.

The revision to the towing ordinance would make it easier to prevent people from storing inoperable vehicles on city streets. Like all changes to city ordinances, it will need a second vote by the council, after a public hearing.

In other business, the council authorized a $15,000 budget for analyzing alternatives for installing a sidewalk along a section of Scio Church Road. Residents in the area have petitioned the city for a sidewalk.

And Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) used his communications time toward the end of the meeting as an occasion to deliver harsh criticism of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and mayor John Hieftje.

In the first meeting for newly elected councilmembers, the council also chose Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to serve as mayor pro tem, as she has for the last three years. The order of succession to the mayor, based on seniority lines, was also set.

Public Art

The council had two items on its agenda related to the city’s public art ordinance. One proposal would have terminated the program, while the other would have narrowed the range of eligible projects.

Added to the agenda during the meeting was a resolution to appoint a task force of five councilmembers to study the issue and to suspend the expenditure of funds – with several exceptions – currently allocated for public art.

Public Art: Background

The legislative activity was prompted by a failed public art millage that had been placed on the Nov. 6 ballot.

The city’s Percent for Art ordinance currently requires that 1% of the budget for all capital projects undertaken in the city be set aside for public art – up to a limit of $250,000 per project. The proposal to revise the ordinance, sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), focused on the definition of projects to which the ordinance applies. It also added requirements for public participation. The practical effect of the narrowing of project eligibility in the way proposed by Briere is estimated to reduce the amount of public art funding by about 90%. For each of the last two fiscal years, the Percent for Art program has generated roughly $300,000. If the ordinance revisions had been in place, only about $25,000 would have been generated.

Left to right: Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

The other proposal, to terminate the program, was put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). She interpreted results from the failed public art millage on Nov. 6 as an indication that voters wanted the existing, non-millage-based program eliminated. The millage failed by a 10-point margin (55.8% opposed and 44.14% in favor). Lumm had described her intent at the council’s Nov. 8 meeting to bring forward a proposal similar to one she’d made on Aug. 20, 2012 – a resolution that directed the city attorney’s office to prepare an ordinance revision that would repeal the Percent for Art program. In an email sent to other councilmembers, Lumm stated that “… the version I will bring forward on 11/19 will be the proposed ordinance changes themselves for consideration at first reading.” The Aug. 20 meeting was the occasion on which the council voted to place a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. It was meant to provide a more flexible funding mechanism for public art in Ann Arbor. The 0.1 mill tax was expected to generate around $450,000 annually.

The public art millage won a majority of votes in just 13 out of 59 Ann Arbor precincts, with the most support coming from Ward 5, Precinct 4 where 60.5% of voters supported the public art millage. Ward 5 had six of the 13 precincts where the proposal achieved a majority. And the proposal finished in a dead heat in Ward 5, Precinct 5 with 471 voting for and against it. Opposition among in-person voters was strongest in Ward 1, Precinct 9, where only 34.5% of voters supported it.

The proposal did not win a majority of votes in any precinct of Ward 2, which is represented by Lumm and – following her election on Nov. 6 – Sally Petersen. Differing interpretations of the expressed voter sentiment that were part of the council’s deliberations on Nov. 19 included the idea that voters were saying something about: (1) the way public art is funded, or (2) whether public money should be used to support public art at all.

The proposal to modify the ordinance took a different tack from the one Briere has previously explored. In the past, Briere has proposed ordinance revisions based on restricting the funds from which public art projects could draw. But her proposal on Nov. 19 was to narrow the definition of projects to which the existing ordinance would apply. Currently, the Percent for Art ordinance applies to essentially any capital improvement project undertaken by the city. Briere’s proposal would narrow the definition by restricting eligible capital improvement projects to those that are “intended to be open or visible to the public.” Projects to construct roads, highways, paths, and sidewalks would be eliminated from eligibility. Bridges would still qualify.

History of public art funding allocations by year and by fund.

Of the roughly $300,000 that’s been allocated to public art through the Percent for Art program in each of the last two fiscal years, about 90% of it has been generated through projects that have been paid for partly out of the street millage fund and the sanitary sewer fund. The two-year total attributable to the street millage fund is about $250,000. For the sanitary sewer fund, the two-year amount is about $180,000. Given the narrowing of the eligible project scope in Briere’s ordinance revision, that money would not have been allocated to public art if Briere’s ordinance amendments had been in place.

Briere’s proposal also included a financial threshold for qualifying projects: $100,000. Her proposed ordinance amendments would also require a public process associated with proposed art projects. Part of that process would require notification of the councilmembers in whose ward a project is proposed.

Public Art: Public Commentary

Debra Polich introduced herself as a Ward 5 resident who’s worked in the cultural sector for 30 years, and currently works as director of the Arts Alliance. She served with Marsha Chamberlin as co-chair of the public art millage campaign. [Chamberlin, who is retiring as president of the Ann Arbor Art Center, also serves as chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, which oversees the Percent for Art program.] Polich contended that the election results don’t give a clear reason why the measure didn’t pass. She’d heard people were confused about the ballot language. [The question began with "Shall the Charter be amended to limit sources of funding for public art ... ] The campaign committee also heard that people voted against the millage because they wanted to keep the existing Percent for Art program.

The Ann Arbor region is widely recognized as an outstanding arts and cultural community, Polich said, rivaling the offering of cities that are larger and have more resources. Ann Arbor is an arts leader in the region and in the state. And because of that, she said, Ann Arbor is a great place to live, work, play, learn and visit. She asked the council to take time to give some thoughtful consideration to the Percent for Art program. If councilmembers decided to move either of the proposals forward, she asked that 120 days be allowed before the second and final reading, to give some time for discussion and improvement.

Margaret Parker introduced herself as co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden with her husband, Mark Hodesh. She noted that she’d chaired the Ann Arbor public art commission for many years and had worked on the millage campaign. She observed that Ann Arbor has been designated as an arts and culture destination by the convention and visitors bureau and by the state’s Pure Michigan campaign. She characterized that as “just one more success” that had come from the city council’s support for art in public places – which had put a beautiful and environmental fountain in front of the city hall that children can plan in, she said. [Parker was referring to the piece by Herbert Dreiseitl.] Parker pointed out that the council had wanted to replace the current program with a voter-approved millage – with only eight weeks for a millage campaign. The failure of the millage meant that the current program is still in place, she noted. She allowed that it might not be perfect, but contended that “it works.” In the last five years, she said, there’s been more public art than ever before in Ann Arbor, and at least 10 more projects are ready to go out the door.

Parker invited councilmembers to compare Ann Arbor to other cities in the Big 10 athletic conference. She told them that 10 out of 13 Big 10 states have a statewide percent for art program. Of the 13 Big 10 cities, nine fund public art as well, she said. Of those nine, five use a percent-for-art approach, while the other four use a public-private mix. Michigan has a percent for art law, she said, but it’s optional.

Parker contended that by now, Ann Arbor’s public art commission has gotten the hang of the system, and city departments are ready to go, and the community is getting excited, she said. She invited councilmembers to ask neighbors of Allmendinger Park how they like their new mural. She asked what needs to be fixed. She questioned whether now is the time to restrict funding and to add more oversight, by giving the city council more control. She asked councilmembers: “Do you really need more work?” What the city’s public art program really needs, she suggested, is a vote of confidence.

Marsha Chamberlin addressed the council as chair of the public art commission and as retiring president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Art Center. She ventured that we can agree that nobody can agree on what makes good public art: Some people love it and some people hate it. But she contended that there’s agreement that public art is good because it attracts people, excites people, generates interesting discussion and serves as a place maker. Public art is an important thing for cities that have an educated and international population, she said. She reminded the council that she’s stood there before to talk about the serious commitment that the city has made to public art by establishing funding through the Percent for Art ordinance. It takes time to make good artistic decisions, she said. It takes time to engineer pieces of art, it takes time to put the legal agreements in place, and it takes time to nurture the community engagement. The commission has done all of that and there are many projects in the pipeline, she said. The important thing is not to rush a decision that negates the opportunity for the future. Chamberlin supported Polich’s request for a delay.

Public Art: Rescinding – Lumm

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off deliberations by saying that since 2007, when the Percent for Art ordinance had been established, it had been controversial. She reviewed aspects of the program that she described as controversial: the basic premise of public funding of art instead of focusing priorities on enhancing private funding of art; diversion of funds from capital projects to art; and the legal basis of the program, which had never been authorized by the voters. She described the program as plagued by operational challenges, including the requirement that art be permanent and monumental. That constraint on the type of art that could be funded by the program, she pointed out, had been given as an argument for placement of the millage on the ballot.

Lumm continued by saying she felt that the art projects produced through the program had been met with less than universal acceptance. She felt that it stretched the bounds of reason to come back after the millage failed to say that the public art program is fine and that it shouldn’t be changed.

If it’s the council’s collective priority to publicly fund public art, Lumm said, then it’s up to the council to find some other mechanism to do it besides the Percent for Art program. When the council approved the public art ballot question, Lumm reminded her colleagues, many of them said they were confident that the millage would be approved by voters, but if it didn’t there would be a need to reassess.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Lumm anticipated hearing that the vote against the millage was somehow really an endorsement of the existing Percent for Art program, or some other convoluted explanation. She hoped that other councilmembers would agree it’s time to terminate the program. She reviewed how her proposed change would terminate the program effective July 1, 2013. Funding to date would remain in the public art fund, she said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) observed that there were questions raised when the council voted to put the millage question on the ballot. There were legitimate questions about what the appropriate funding was. When councilmembers had said if the millage failed it would be time to reassess the public art program, she felt that time was now, and she felt that more time was needed to do that properly.

So Higgins said she wanted to make a motion to lay Lumm’s proposed ordinance changes on the table, then listen to comment on Sabra Briere’s proposal, and then to lay that question on the table as well. She believed that a council committee should be formed to look at both proposals, to find a way to move forward. Ultimately, she said, Lumm was right in that it needed to be explained to the voters. And the council had not done as good a job as it should have. So Higgins moved to table the resolution, which was seconded by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). [At this point, under Robert's Rules of Order, the council should have voted on the tabling, because according to Robert's Rules, a tabling motion is not subject to debate. However, discussion continued.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that it’s legitimate for the council to have a discussion on Lumm’s proposal and later on Briere’s. No one at the table disagrees that public art is beneficial to the city, he contended. The only question is the implementation. He noted that the council had previously considered changes to the ordinance with some frequency – reducing the required allocation to 0.5%, for example. He thought the public art commission needed to be asked for a dollar figure along the lines of: “We can supply really good art to the town for this amount of money.”

Anglin described the program as having gotten off to a rough start. It’s good to admit mistakes, he said. He felt that the Allmendinger Park mural was a success. He was less confident about the Dreiseitl fountain. “Just admit a mistake and move on; it’s not a perfect project. I walk past it all the time … What I like about it is its purple colors – I couldn’t say anything else.” [The bronze structure includes flashing blue lights that are meant to evoke falling water.] He said he was disappointed with the price tag. [In total, the project cost nearly $1 million.] He said the voters had given a clear message with their rejection of the 0.1 mill public art tax, so he wondered how the public could now be sold on a public funding mechanism for art.

Mayor John Hieftje felt that Anglin’s comments supported the idea of tabling the issue.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said that when the public art millage was placed on the ballot, two problems were identified with the existing approach: (1) the money has to be linked thematically to the fund paying for the project; and (2) art that’s paid for through the program has to be monumental and permanent.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) before the Nov. 19 council meeting started. The public art millage ballot question was pushed forward by Taylor over the advice of the larger arts community.

Given that the millage failed, to maintain the existing public art program is problematic, Kailasapathy said. She felt that would undermine the electoral process. She believed that the council should have repealed the existing millage and then put a “clean” proposal before the voters. But the council did not do that. She called the approach the council had taken as “playing games.” She thought that now the council should repeal the ordinance. No one is trying to say that art isn’t valuable, she said.

Hieftje noted that the discussion should focus on the tabling, not the merits of the ordinance revisions.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she was inclined to think about what it means when voters rejected the millage. She was hesitant to interpret the no vote on the millage as a vote against art in public places. She also was hesitant to interpret the outcome as a yes vote for the existing Percent for Art program. But she noted that the legal effect of the no vote on the millage was to continue the existing program. She said the existing program is problematic and that the council doesn’t know what was going through the minds of the public when they voted on the public art millage.

Petersen then delivered a broadly supportive statement about art: “… [A]rt happens in Ann Arbor; every single day, art happens.” She indicated she supported tabling the question, and asked that during the period when the question is on the table, the council take the time to consider it. She asked that during the time of the tabling, any future allocations be suspended that would otherwise be required under the public art program. That would give the council the time to consider what the public is thinking. Councilmembers need to review with their constituents how the city should reflect its support for art.

Responding to Petersen’s suggestion immediately to suspend the program, Hieftje noted that even if the proposed ordinance repeal were to pass, it wouldn’t take effect until after June 30, 2013.

Higgins indicated that if both questions were to be tabled and both referred to a council committee, she had a resolution prepared that would implement Petersen’s suggestion – to suspend the allocation of funds required by the current ordinance.

Lumm said she wouldn’t support the tabling. Like Kailasapathy, she believed that in many ways, public dollars for public art gets to the essence of how we view taxpayer funding of services. She did not feel the community was telling the council “to perfume” the existing Percent for Art ordinance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) didn’t want to address the issue of suspending funding at this time. If the council tables the question, she said, she felt the council would be responding to the message that voters had delivered. Of the voters, 55% said they don’t want a tax on their houses to pay for public art. But 44% actually said they did want to be taxed to support public art. “When we represent our constituents, we don’t only represent those who agree with us; we represent those who disagree with us. We don’t just represent the majority; we represent all the minority voices as well.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Paul Fulton, with the city’s IT department.

Briere was content to see her resolution tabled as well. One of her concerns, after formulating her proposed ordinance changes, was that there was little opportunity for anyone to weigh in on the possible impact of the changes. She had intended to request a two-month postponement of her own proposal. So she encouraged the tabling of the questions, on the condition that the council held firm on appointing some councilmembers to draft new ordinance revisions – or to decide that this is not the way to go.

Kunselman indicated he’d support tabling because it’s important to discuss everything. He wanted everything discussed, not just tweaking. He noted that he’d been one of the strongest critics of the Percent for Art program, because he doesn’t believe it’s legal to take funds that are designated for other purposes and transfer those funds to support public art. He had voted for the original ordinance in 2007 because of the importance of art in the community. He described himself as caught between a lot of emotions. But he didn’t want to vote it up or down without a little more thought. He noted that little time had elapsed since the vote to reject the public art millage and he didn’t want to speculate about what that rejection meant. He wanted a little more time to see the issue discussed thoughtfully.

Outcome: The vote to table Jane Lumm’s proposal to rescind the city’s public art ordinance was 8-3, with Lumm, Mike Anglin and Sumi Kailasapathy dissenting.

Public Art: Modifying – Briere

Briere led off discussion of her proposed changes by saying she didn’t think another round of discussion was required. She noted that the council had in the past more than once voted on reducing the funding to the public art program, but those proposals had failed. She took that as a reflection of the community’s strong commitment to public art and to the strong commitment to the public funding of art. She moved to table her proposal, in the event a committee could be established that could make recommendations.

Lumm said she was ready to vote on the proposal, indicating she was opposed to tabling the proposal. She noted that some information had been provided by the staff that made clear that Briere’s proposal would have the practical impact of reducing public art funding significantly. She wanted to know what was supposed to happen while the question was tabled.

Briere observed that when the council had voted to table Lumm’s proposal, it had been in the expectation that a committee would be formed to look at the Percent for Art ordinance as well as the ordinance establishing the public art commission and to consider how to go forward from there. It’s possible that the committee’s recommendation would be to eliminate publicly funded art. There would be a lot of divided ideas about the outcome of the election, she said. Considering the issue for a longer time seemed wiser, Briere concluded.

Hieftje ventured that what was being proposed with the eventual tabling of both questions was a task force of five councilmembers.

Higgins said that the charge to that task force would be imperative. Whether to go forward at all would be very important, she said. She felt the committee needs to consider all the options. She also felt it needs to be done in an expeditious manner. The task force that’s appointed should come back to the council with a recommendation, she said. In her opinion, Higgins said, that recommendation “should be a repeal of the current ordinance, and anything that you think is the right thing to move forward with – or not.” She felt that the council is an intelligent body and is interested in what’s in the best interest of Ann Arbor.

Anglin ventured that the task force should have one council representative from each ward.

Public Art: Modifying – Rules

As the council appeared ready to vote on the tabling of Briere’s proposal, city attorney Stephen Postema interjected and appealed to Robert’s Rules – which governs all matters of procedure that are not addressed in the council’s own rule set. He expressed the view that under Robert’s Rules for these circumstances – with two questions about the same subject matter that were potentially to be tabled – it was preferable to table one but to postpone the other, or else to suspend the council’s rules. Postema told Higgins that “… the effect of laying on the table of two items that have the same subject matter, the recommended way to go about it is to call the second one a motion to postpone – that’s under Robert’s Rules – so either way, either suspending the rules on that or calling the second one a motion to postpone may be preferable just for the sake of rules …”

By way of background, it’s not clear to what part of Robert’s Rules Postema’s remarks appealed. The section of the rules on tabling a motion does indicate a prohibition against considering a question on the same subject as one that is already lying on the table [emphasis added]:

Since a motion that has been laid on the table is still within the control of the assembly, no other motion on the same subject is in order that would either conflict with, or present substantially the same question as, the motion that is lying on the table. To consider another motion on the same subject, it is necessary first to take the question from the table and then to move the new proposal as a substitute, or to make whatever other motion is appropriate to the case.

However, if this issue were to have been raised in connection with the city council’s deliberations on Nov. 19, then it would have been proper to raise the point of order immediately when the council reached Briere’s proposal – as Briere’s proposal might have been considered to conflict with Lumm’s, which at that point was already lying on the table. It’s not clear how a council action to postpone Briere’s proposal would have solved the issue of not considering a question with the same subject matter as one already lying on the table. Any discussion of Briere’s proposal at all, including deliberations on postponing it, would appear to violate the prohibition against considering a question with the same subject matter as one already lying on the table.

The Chronicle queried Postema by email for a citation of his contention expressed at the council table that under Robert’s Rules there would be a preference against simply tabling both motions and for either postponing at least one of them or else suspending the council rules. Postema did not provide a citation for that strategy. From his email response:

Section 17 deals with Laying on the Table, and in the standard description as to the particular effects of the motion there is some vague and broad language concerning “motions on the same subject.” For that reason, the waiver of the rules was done as a way to simply allow the motions to table to be used as desired, and to preclude any issue.

The tabling of the two motions was a way to deal with both proposed ordinances in the same way. Any proscription against this obviously would not make sense. Waiver of the rules ensured this was clear.

In the end, it is for Council to use the rules so as to make sense. I did not mean to suggest that postponing the second motion was preferable to waiving the rules, or even required.

My only thought about postponing, was that Robert’s Rules about postponing (Section 11 and 14) don’t have the same language as found in Section 17.

I did not intend to suggest that such a method was preferable to waiving the rules.

Obviously, Robert’s Rules doesn’t state preferences; the language provides procedures. My only intent was to work through those procedures.

A rule that could have been applied during deliberations – but was not – was the fact that motions to table are, under Robert’s Rules, not debatable. Considerable discussion was entertained on both motions to table the public art questions. However, because no councilmember objected to the debate of those motions, the discussion continued without a need to suspend the council rules.

In this the council could be considered to be following the advice of Henry Robert:

In enforcing the rules there is a need for the exercise of tact and good sense. In small assemblies, and especially when the members are unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, a strict enforcement of the rules is unwise. It is usually a mistake to insist upon technical points, so long as no one is being defrauded of his rights and the will of the majority is being carried out. The rules and customs are designed to help and not to hinder business.

Public Art: Modifying – Finally Tabling

In light of Postema’s suggestion that either Briere’s proposal should be postponed (as opposed to tabled) or the council rules suspended and Briere’s proposal tabled, Higgins was emphatic in wanting to treat the proposals by Lumm and Briere in the same way. So the council voted to suspend the council rules, and Higgins re-introduced the motion to table Briere’s proposal.

Lumm argued again against the tabling. The Percent for Art ordinance didn’t meet her threshold for a taxpayer expenditure, she said. Responding to Briere’s point that 44% of voters had supported the public art millage, she felt that kind of reasoning could be extended to any millage.

Outcome: The council voted 10-1 to table Sabra Briere’s proposal. Dissenting was Jane Lumm.

Public Art: Committee Recommendations?

Higgins then moved to re-open the agenda to add the resolution she’d alluded to during deliberations on the two public art proposals. That was accomplished over the objection of Lumm, who consistently objects to late additions to the council agenda.

It was placed on the agenda in a slot that came a bit later. Higgins read aloud the entire resolution. Key points of the resolution included the suspension of the use of funds for new art projects until April 1, 2013, but it explicitly did not affect projects for which funding had already been approved, like the Kingsley rain garden, or artwork at the East Stadium bridges or Argo Cascades.

The resolution included in its “whereas” clauses a statement that a committee had been appointed to make recommendations on the public art program – but no such committee had up to that point been appointed. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) requested a short recess to sort things out. When the council returned from the break, the consensus was quickly reached to postpone the resolution until Dec. 3, the council’s next meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone Marcia Higgins’ resolution until Dec. 3.

Living Wage

The council was asked to consider several amendments to Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance. The main proposed changes to the law – which sets a minimum wage of $12.17/hour for those employers providing health insurance and $13.57/hour for those not providing health insurance – would exempt from the minimum wage requirements those nonprofits that receive funding from the city for human services work.

The current law applies to companies that have contracts with the city for more than $10,000 in a given calendar year, and that employ five or more people (10 or more for nonprofits). The current law also provides an exemption for organizations funded from the city’s community events budget – an exemption put in place to accommodate the Ann Arbor Summer Festival’s practice of paying its temporary employees less than the living wage and the city’s desire to fund the festival at a higher level.

Among the other amendments is an increase from $10,000 to $25,000 for the amount of a contract triggering the application of the ordinance. The timeframe would also change from a calendar year to one fiscal year. Also included in the proposed amendments is one that would allow the city administrator to grant a waiver from compliance with the ordinance, instead of requiring the approval of the city council.

At its meeting on Nov. 8, 2012, the council had granted such a waiver to the Community Action Network, which receives funding from the city to do human services work.

At its Sept. 17, 2012 meeting, the council had considered but withdrawn a resolution that appeared to be an attempt to invoke the waiver clause of the ordinance across all nonprofits that receive human services funding from the city. The move was tantamount to revising the city’s ordinance with a simple resolution, which is not a legal way to proceed. The Sept. 17 resolution was prompted by concerns expressed by CAN, although the resolution did not mention that organization explicitly.

The city’s ordinance is likely on dubious legal grounds. A Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 left in place an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

Living Wage: Public Comment

Ian Robinson introduced himself as an Ann Arbor resident and a teacher in the University of Michigan’s department of sociology. He also noted that he serves on the board of the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium – an organization he described as one that seeks to encourage state and local governments to purchase supplies from sources that don’t use sweatshop labor.

He told the council he opposed the proposed changes to the living wage ordinance – raising the threshold from $10,000 to $25,000 and the exclusion of nonprofits. The ordinance itself isn’t being eliminated, so he interpreted that to mean that the proposer must not be opposed to the ordinance in principle. He felt that the two changes taken together might substantially reduce the coverage of the ordinance, which he said would not be a good thing. It would be good have some empirical data to determine how many contracts are covered under the ordinance, but he assumed that the changes would be large enough to have a significant impact.

There are several reasons the city shouldn’t want to change the coverage of the ordinance, Robinson said. First, government is bound by rules to take the lowest bid – rules created to prevent corruption. But that can also have the effect of incentivizing bidders to cut costs by paying sub-living wages, which does not serve the larger public. The best way to prevent that from happening is to put something in the bidding process that neutralizes that potential incentive. When nonprofits are working for the city, they shouldn’t be treated differently from any other employer, he said. When companies pay a living wage, it increases the purchasing power of workers, which increases the purchasing power of the community. He allowed that some nonprofits might have to reduce their employment if they have to pay their workers more, but purchasing power would increase.

During the concluding public commentary at the end of the meeting, Michael Benson said that as a student at the University of Michigan, he was glad the issue had been postponed. Commenting on the idea that students don’t need to be paid at the level of the living wage, he said that while it might be true that some students don’t use a wage to support themselves, that wasn’t true of all. About half of the masters degree students at the university receive financial aid, he said. For the half that don’t receive financial aid, it doesn’t mean they don’t need it.

Living Wage: Council Deliberations – Preliminaries

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off deliberations by disclosing that she sits on the board of the Neutral Zone, which receives funding through the coordinated process for funding human services in which the city of Ann Arbor participates. [The other partners in the coordinated process are Washtenaw County, the Urban County consortium, United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. For the current 2013 fiscal year, the Neutral Zone was allocated $10,000 from Washtenaw County for its S.C.O.R.E. (School, Career, Opportunities, aRe, Endless) program.] Petersen did not believe that there’s a conflict of interest that would preclude participation in deliberations and voting, but she was declaring the relationship in the event that other councilmembers wanted to vote to excuse her from voting.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that she’s on the on board of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, which also receives funding through the coordinated funding process. She stated that she did not think it reflected a conflict of interest. [The funding through the coordinated funding program in FY 2013 was $43,460, which comes from Washtenaw County for a youth mentoring program.]

Lumm reviewed the history of the council’s Sept. 17 agenda item and the wavier granted to the Community Action Network (CAN) on Nov. 8, which she characterized as a “one-off” action. Based on the council’s discussion at the Nov. 8 meeting, Lumm said it was clear that the issue was complex. Lumm said the nonprofit community supports the living wage, but in a challenging economic climate the requirement made it more difficult to maintain programs.

Lumm expressed the view that when the ordinance had been enacted, it could not have been anticipated that it would put the city’s nonprofit partners in this kind of difficulty. The need for the human services provided by nonprofits has continued to grow, Lumm said. Since 2008, city funding for nonprofits has dropped by 11% but the living wage specified by the ordinance has increased 18%. She described the situation as a “squeeze” that was resulting in some nonprofits ignoring the living wage ordinance or causing them to drop programs. Other nonprofits are structuring their budgets in a way that segregates employees who’d be subject to the city’s living wage ordinance so that they’re not funded with city money.

Lumm indicated that her thinking on this issue was guided by trust in nonprofit human services providers that they’ll weigh the right balance on the question of how much to pay their workers.

Living Wage: Council Deliberations – Legal Issues

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) queried about current legal status of the city’s living wage ordinance. City attorney Stephen Postema seemed keen to discredit the idea that there was a significant question as to the legal basis of the city’s living wage ordinance. Referring to a Detroit case, where the Michigan court of appeals found Detroit’s living wage law to be unconstitutional, Postema said that some people begin to cite a case without realizing it may have no broader applicability. Postema then argued that the Detroit case had no binding effect on the city of Ann Arbor, because the court chose not to publish the case.

By way of background, it’s the classification of the case as published versus unpublished that matters, not whether the case is broadly disseminated. In actual practice, however, judges may use the logic and reasoning available in unpublished opinions to inform their thinking about how to correctly analyze a case. And it’s this practical issue that has led many observers to conclude that Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance is not on a solid legal foundation – not a mistaken belief that the unpublished opinion is binding. Attorneys sometimes rely on unpublished opinions to provide advice to their clients, even if those opinions do not impose a binding precedent. For example, Postema relied on an unpublished opinion in advising the city council that a failure to provide unrestricted access to a special meeting posting for an 18-hour period before the meeting – for an Aug. 29, 2011 session – was not a violation of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

In the Detroit living wage case, the court of appeals felt bound by a 1923 Michigan Supreme Court decision that found the regulation of wages to be assigned by the state’s constitution only to the state legislature. [.pdf of court of appeals opinion] Although the court of appeals analyzed that precedent as binding, it expressed frustration that the basis of the 1923 decision – the Michigan state constitution – had changed since then. Specifically, the court of appeals cited a change to Section 34 of Article 7:

The provisions of this constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in their favor. Powers granted to counties and townships by this constitution and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution.

On that basis, the court of appeals expressed the view that the state Supreme Court should review the case: “…we respectfully urge our Supreme Court to revisit Lennane [the 1923 decision] and reconsider whether the rule therein continues to have a place in today’s jurisprudence. ”

However, a Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 declined to hear the appeal on the Detroit living wage case, leaving the court of appeals ruling to stand in that case – a result that’s led many observers to conclude that a challenge to Ann Arbor’s living wage law would be struck down at least initially and would require an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court to maintain it. As a practical matter, that kind of challenge is unlikely to come from the set of nonprofits to which the city provides human services funding.

In his remarks to the council, Postema characterized the Detroit living wage case as “sort of a historic relic.” The general rule, Postema said, is that an unpublished case has no precedential effect. Postema said that in his view, the court of appeals was not required to follow the 1923 Supreme Court precedent that it felt it was bound to follow. The Supreme Court, Postema said, had allowed the unpublished case to stand, which left people to wonder about it, and to “spread information about it that is sometimes incorrect,” he said.

Left to right: city administrator Steve Powers and CFO Tom Crawford.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the city’s enforcement of its ordinance. The city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, explained that enforcement is based on complaints – which are forwarded to the city’s purchasing office when someone believes there’s a violation of the city’s living wage ordinance. In the last couple of years, he said, he was aware of one complaint, which had been investigated and found not to be a violation. Responding to follow-up from Kunselman, Crawford confirmed that enforcement is complaint-driven and that he wasn’t aware of any complaints that found a violation – but he couldn’t speak to the entire 10-year period since the ordinance had been enacted.

Kunselman followed up with Postema on the enforcement question. Postema said there’d not been enforcement action, although he’d heard some allegations. He wasn’t aware of any violations.

Living Wage: Council Deliberations – Continued

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled that she had worked for a nonprofit, and when that organization had a contract with the city, it had to agree to pay the living wage, post the current living wage amount on bulletin boards where it could be read, and to report what wages it was paying to the city. She had written those reports, so she remembered it, Briere said.

So Briere wanted to establish that the lack of enforcement activity that Crawford and Postema had described did not mean there’d been a failure to ask for that documentation. Crawford returned to his point that the process was primarily complaint driven – and if the purchasing office does become aware of something, they do pursue enforcement. “We will not contract with an organization that is not in compliance,” he said. He was not sure how many companies might start the bidding process and not finish it because they weren’t in compliance – but was not aware that it was a large or frequent number.

Briere imagined from Crawford’s remarks that few complaints had been received and that no contracts had been cancelled as a result of proving a case that an organization wasn’t paying the living wage. Briere ventured that the city required the same thing from for-profit and nonprofit organizations.

Crawford responded by saying that the city is very clear about its requirements. Briere concluded that it would be misleading to say that the city has not enforced the ordinance. Crawford provided some support for Briere’s comment by saying he was aware of some companies saying they would not submit a bid because of the city’s living wage requirement. In terms of “enforcement,” Crawford said, the city documents well what it expects, and that results in companies sometimes deciding not to pursue a contract. Briere finished out her speaking turn by saying she was happy the city did not have sufficient staff to go look at every contractor’s books to verify living wage compliance.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) mentioned that during the council’s previous deliberations on Nov. 8, there’d been a lot of discussion of part-time and seasonal positions. She observed that there was no mention of that kind of position in the ordinance revisions.

Lumm responded to Teall by re-stating that the ordinance revisions address a category of nonprofits – those that receive funding from the city to do human services work – that also tend to hire part-time and seasonal workers to do a lot of their work.

Teall noted that the exemption granted to those nonprofits is not limited to just positions that are part-time, seasonal or temporary. Lumm confirmed that was the case and compared it to the 2008 revision to the ordinance that exempted those organizations that are funded from the community events fund.

Kunselman noted that the proposed ordinance revision exempted a class of organizations. He wondered if that violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. Postema offered to provide further information on that before the council considered the ordinance at second reading. Postema said there needs to be a reason for exempting a particular class of organization.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if Lumm’s intention was to deal with the issue on a contractual basis. Some back-and-forth then took place between Anglin, Lumm, and Mary Jo Callan – director of the city/county office of community and economic development, which oversees the coordinated funding process. The discussion centered around Anglin’s question about handling things at a contractual level. Anglin asked if the idea was that a nonprofit would approach the city and say that due to economic hardships, they were proposing that the living wage would not be paid to a specific list of employees: “We’re going to hire 15 employees to teach reading at this pay scale.” He ventured that this would be clear, if it were included in the contract signed by a human services nonprofit. Anglin wanted to know if that was the kind of mechanism that was being proposed.

Callan responded by saying that she was not sure she understood the question – as all the work is done through contracts. Anglin observed that CAN had come back and said it couldn’t fulfill the contract – so he wanted to know if this was now the proposed vehicle that would be used. Callan said that as far as the mechanism goes – by which a nonprofit would share its hardship – she explained that a nonprofit completes a “self-survey” indicating that it’s paying the living wage. In order to execute a contract, she explained, the nonprofit has to self-certify that it’s paying the living wage. In the case of CAN, that triggered a process of applying for a waiver.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated she didn’t think the intent was to exempt all employees for a nonprofit. She’d heard from some people who were part of the effort to establish a living wage 10 years ago, who were really concerned about exempting a whole class of employers. The ordinance was aimed in part exactly at these nonprofits, Higgins said. If the council was going to say that the living wage didn’t apply to certain kinds of workers, she said, that would have to be spelled out in the ordinance. It’s not something that can be done administratively, Higgins said.

Higgins ventured that she and mayor John Hieftje were the only two councilmembers still serving on the council who had voted to establish the living wage ordinance. A concern at the time was that everything looks great on paper, but after implementation there might be some evidence that the council didn’t get it right. But at the time the council felt that they’d hear about it if the nonprofits were being harmed by the living wage ordinance. After implementation, the council hadn’t heard that the living wage ordinance was doing harm to the nonprofits. She indicated that the issue was supposed to be monitored, but she was not aware that the question of harm to nonprofits had been pursued. Higgins felt that Lumm had brought up a good issue, but she was not ready to move forward with it.

Callan responded to Higgins by indicating that the question of the possible harm to nonprofits done by the living wage ordinance has not been revisited. Higgins indicated her disappointment at that.

Higgins said she was dismayed about what CAN executive director Joan Doughty said at the council’s previous meeting about many nonprofits who receive funding from the city for human services work. Doughty had indicated that many nonprofits are not paying the living wage to some of their workers. So Higgins wanted to know what the checks-and-balances process was.

Callan echoed the description that Crawford had given, saying that the process is complaint-driven. It’s basically the honor system, she said. There’s not a separate monitoring process for the living wage. When her office monitors an agency, they look for the living-wage poster that’s supposed to be placed in a visible spot, but Callan said her office doesn’t monitor every agency every year. Callan said she thinks that nonprofits are paying the living wage – because she hears how “tortured” they are as a consequence of having to pay it. Nonprofits take contracts with the city or county seriously, she said. She allowed it was possible that there were some nonprofits that did not pay the living wage.

Higgins said that based on the council’s Nov. 8 deliberations on CAN’s request for a waiver, it seemed that after CAN submitted its letter requesting a waiver, the request had languished. It was Higgins’ understanding that Callan had people in her office who could help put together a business plan for compliance with the living wage – a plan that would not just be the dire things a nonprofit would do. [This was an allusion to CAN's compliance plan, which was critiqued along those lines at the council's Nov. 8 meeting.]

Callan told Higgins that the expectation of help from her office with a business plan is an appropriate one. She allowed that CAN’s application for a waiver did languish and she took that on her shoulders. She said that CAN’s plan was written with strategic intent, which was separate from offers to work on sustainability and capacity building. Higgins said she appreciated Callan’s candor.

Before the meeting, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) gets a hug of support from Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, who was re-elected on Nov. 6 to represent District 8 in Ann Arbor.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) observed that the living wage is supposed to help the most vulnerable – so she wanted to know if an exemption from the living wage applied to just the lowest-paid workers, or if there was a wage freeze across the board. Callan responded by saying that the exemption sought by CAN was the first one to be requested – and her office doesn’t certify that an organization cannot pay the living wage, but rather only that they are paying it. If the organization certifies that it’s paying the living wage, then she executes the contract.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the current hourly rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance [$12.17/hour for those employers providing health insurance and $13.57/hour for those not providing health insurance] worked out to about $24,000-26,000 annually for a full-time employee. Callan confirmed for Warpehoski that such an employee would be eligible for support through the city’s human services nonprofits. She said that most people who work in the nonprofit sector would be eligible for such services, as would many city and county workers.

Kunselman wanted to hear why it took so long for any nonprofit to seek a waiver from the living wage ordinance. Was it because the process is so arduous? He wondered if it would solve the problem to tweak the ordinance – by exempting just part-time or seasonal employees. He felt that might be a better way to go. Together with the proposed ordinance revision to allow the city administrator to grant an exemption, he felt that would result in a greater use of exemptions and better compliance.

Callan told Kunselman that the nonprofit sector is squarely in favor of the living wage – and no director of a nonprofit wants to stand in front of the cameras and say, “I don’t want to pay the living wage.” Kunselman wondered if granting an exemption for nonprofits’ seasonal workers would create an incentive to hire seasonal workers. Callan’s response indicated that she didn’t think so, noting that the nonprofit sector is about empowering people.

Living Wage: Council Deliberations – Who Supports?

Hieftje indicated he couldn’t support the ordinance revision. The issue had been the subject of great discussion when the ordinance was passed. He reiterated Warpehoski’s point that someone who’s making the living wage qualifies for human services. One of the big worries at the time was that exclusion of part-time workers would encourage the hiring of those workers to get around the ordinance requirements. He observed that it’s taken “all these years” before a nonprofit asked for an exemption, yet the council was now discussing major changes to the ordinance. Many people who work for human services organizations are themselves on the edge of being clients, he said.

Hieftje then responded to criticism that the city has exempted itself from the living wage ordinance. But he contended that the city had recognized that it could get on a path to bring those workers up to a living wage standard, and gave two examples of having done that: workers at the materials recovery facility (MRF) and employees who work in the public parking system.

[In neither case were city employees at issue. For example, in September 2004, the council reopened a contract with FCR Casella, the private operator of the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), in order to undertake a $5.6 million expansion of Ann Arbor’s recycling facilities. The contract with FCR – which extends to 2015 – thus became subject to the living wage ordinance. FCR was not willing to come into compliance, so the city council agreed to pay the wage differential. In the case of the public parking system, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is responsible for its oversight, and contracts with Republic Parking, a private firm. For more background on the city's decision not to abide by the levels set forth in the living wage ordinance for the workers it hires directly, see "Living Wage: In-sourcing City Temps."]

Hieftje characterized the changes as chipping away at the living wage ordinance, thus weakening it as a standard of pay.

Lumm elicited from Crawford that fact that a company in Texas had inquired about responding to a city contract for call center work. The company had pointed out that the cost of living in Texas was different than in Ann Arbor. Crawford said the company had been told that this was nevertheless the city ordinance. He didn’t recall if the company had bid on the contract, but he didn’t think so.

Some back and forth between Teall and Lumm focused on the previous exemption – which does not name the Ann Arbor Summer Festival but rather any organization that receives funding from the city’s community events fund.

Teall called it a difficult vote and wanted to look more seriously at limiting it to part-time, temporary employees. What made her inclined to support the changes is the difference between nonprofits and for-profit entities.

Briere returned to her perspective of having worked in the nonprofit sector, saying the impact of being paid a living wage was enormous. Knowing that you were one step above poverty was better than being paid a minimum wage, she said. For people who had to support children, the extra couple of dollars an hour made a tremendous difference. Most people who work for nonprofits didn’t do it for the money, she said, but rather because they are passionate about what they are doing. Briere noted that a question had come up at the council’s previous discussion about the applicability of the living wage ordinance to college students – with an accompanying assumption that college students are wealthy. Briere felt that a college student who was doing an internship at a nonprofit was not necessarily wealthy. Briere indicated she wasn’t inclined to support the ordinance revisions.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen indicated she’d be inclined to take it to second reading, with a focus on seasonal or part-time employees. A nonprofit is a professional business organization like any for-profit enterprise, she allowed, but she didn’t think that a consequence of an exemption would be to lowball salaries. Nonprofits know that employees can go elsewhere. She’s concerned that nonprofits might meet the living wage requirement by cutting services.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed the sentiments of Petersen, agreeing that there’s tension between an important social justice issue and the need to maximize services. People should receive a living wage, he said, but he wasn’t certain that the proposed revisions were exactly the best means to support it. However, he indicated support for advancing the revisions to a second reading.

Kunselman indicated he’d support moving the proposed living wage ordinance changes to a second reading but wouldn’t support the changes as written, characterizing them as too far reaching. He wanted to look for ways of finding a middle ground on part-time and seasonal workers. He characterized as a failure of the ordinance the fact that there’s been only one nonprofit has applied for an exemption waiver in 10 years. He looked forward to discussing amendments that deal with the exemption section – like giving the city administrator the authority to grant exemptions.

Kailasapathy also indicated her support to move the changes to a second reading. She indicated she didn’t worry as much about a nonprofit taking unfair advantage of workers as she might about a for-profit company.

Anglin ventured that many nonprofits have left the field. He said he receives much more mail soliciting donations than he ever has before. He noted that the council has directed nonprofits to share resources and has asked them to get lean. Callan noted that she’d only been working in the county/city office for community and economic development for five years – but she’s seen a handful of nonprofits become defunct.

Warpehoski ventured that a lot of unanswered questions remain, some related to whether workers are part-time or seasonal. The council had heard from CAN that their after-school workers weren’t in need of being paid a living wage, because they weren’t trying to make a living. He felt like this would be a difficult issue to address. He wondered if it would be possible to refer the question to a committee of councilmembers or others and work it out.

Hieftje told Warpehoski that there were several options. The ordinance changes could be passed at first reading with a second reading and public hearing set two months from now. He also said if the ordinance changes were voted down, then the issue might continue to simmer for quite some time.

Left to right: Paul Fulton, with the city’s IT department, and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Briere picked up on Warpehoski’s suggestion and wondered if there were a committee that would normally review a matter like this. Lumm responded to Briere by saying that when she and Sandi Smith had brought forward the Sept. 17 resolution, they’d done so as city council liaisons to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). That’s a discussion that would be continuing at HHSAB, Lumm said. [Sandi Smith formerly was a councilmember representing Ward 1, but she did not seek re-election this year.]

Briere got Hieftje to confirm that the council’s action on the ordinance revisions could be delayed and referred to a committee or commission.

Briere noted that in the five years she’s served on the city council, the council has endeavored to hold steady on human services funding. But if you hold steady, you are losing ground, she said. The problem is that Ann Arbor is expensive. Part of the reason the living wage ordinance was enacted was because of the expense of living in Ann Arbor. She noted that the city is funding human services less fully than what might be ideal, but the solution is not to cut wages, she said.

Higgins asked Crawford what the current funding level for human services is. Working from memory, he said that it was around $1.3 million. Higgins recalled in the early 2000s the city was allocating around $1.1 million. And Mike Reid, who represented Ward 2 at the time, had led a move to raise that allocation by $250,000. Higgins noted that the human services funding comes from the city’s general fund. She wouldn’t look to lower it, but wanted to observe that Ann Arbor is one of the few communities in the state that funds human services at all.

Higgins still had some real questions, and expressed a desire to have HHSAB weigh in on the question. She suggested a postponement until the council’s second meeting in February to give HHSAB a chance to do that. Callan indicated that some amount of time would be needed to weigh in and offer recommendations. A consensus quickly emerged at the table to postpone the question of revising the living wage, with a request that HHSAB give the council advice on the subject.

Outcome: Consideration of the changes to the ordinance was unanimously postponed until the second council meeting in February 2013 and referred to the city’s housing and human services advisory board for more study in the meantime.

Towing Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial approval to a change to the city’s towing ordinance that makes it more difficult to store cars on the streets of Ann Arbor.

The city’s current strategy – of placing notices on cars that give owners 48 hours to move their vehicles – appears to be thwarted by people who simply push their vehicles a few feet. The proposed change in the ordinance would address directly the issue of whether a vehicle is operable, in part by adding the following language:

If a vehicle appears to be inoperative based on outward appearance or otherwise appears to not have been driven after a 48 hour notice has been affixed to the vehicle pursuant to section 10:136, the city administrator or his/her delegate may demand that the registered owner demonstrate that the vehicle is operative. Failure or refusal to demonstrate that the vehicle is operative shall be considered conclusive proof that the vehicle is inoperative.

Towing: Council Deliberations

The scant deliberations on the ordinance included a request from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) that both ordinance sections that were being changed should be mentioned in the agenda item.

Left to right: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Ann Arbor firefighter Amy Brow, and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Kunselman wanted to highlight a change to the heading of an ordinance section, from “Abandoned Vehicles” to “Storage of Vehicles.” Kunselman felt that the word “abandoned” created confusion. What’s really being addressed is not people abandoning vehicles, but rather people using the city streets as storage, by leaving them longer than the 48 hours allowed by state law.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) added that the ordinance change is meant to tackle one set of problems related to towing. The council is not trying to legislate relationships among neighbors, she said.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the changes to the towing ordinance.

Noise Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial approval of a change that strengthens the city’s noise ordinance. The amendments to the ordinance, sponsored by Ward 3 councilmember Christopher Taylor, were related to the now-completed construction of The Landmark at 601 S. Forest, an apartment building located in Ward 3. Construction noise was one of several aspects of the construction activity that came under sharp criticism at the council’s Oct. 1, 2012 meeting from nearby resident Eleanor Linn. Linn also addressed the council at the Nov. 19 meeting.

The revision adds language to the text of the ordinance to make clear that the ordinance can be enforced against those in a supervisory capacity – people who are causing the work to be done that is generating the noise, not just the workers who are operating the equipment causing the noise:

The persons to whom this subsection applies shall include, but not be limited to, construction managers, foremen, property owners, developers, contractors, and subcontractors who direct, order, require, authorize, or commission another person to perform these activities in a manner that violates this section. If the person is an entity, this subsection shall also apply to the officers, directors, partners, limited liability company members, or other individuals constituting such entity.

The revision also explicitly adds legal holidays to the time during which excessive noise levels caused by construction activity are prohibited:

Construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, drilling or excavation work at any time on Sunday or a legal holiday and between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday-Saturday …”

Legal holidays are defined in the ordinance as “New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Veterans’ Day, Christmas Day.”

Noise Ordinance: Public Comment

Eleanor Linn reprised comments she’d made at the council’s Oct. 1, 2012 meeting about her experience living near to the site of the Landmark building construction, which was recently completed.

Residents Eleanor Linn and Marc Gerstein chat with councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) before the council’s Nov. 19 meeting.

She supported the amendments to the noise ordinance, and related specific anecdotes that supported the two revisions. On Memorial Day she was awoken at 7 a.m. by construction noise, and learned that the code doesn’t explicitly state that holidays are to be treated just like Sundays.

And on another occasion, when construction noise was continuing past the time limit, a police officer was reluctant to issue a ticket – because the citation would go to the person doing the work, not the supervisor. Linn thanked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), in whose ward the construction took place, for moving the ordinance change forward.

Noise Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Taylor summarized the changes to the ordinance, characterizing them as modest but important for residents who are affected by construction activity.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the revisions to the noise ordinance. To be enacted, the initial approval by the council will need to be followed by a second approval at a subsequent meeting, following a public hearing.

Sidewalk for Scio Church Road

The council was asked to authorize $15,000 to pay for a study of alternatives to filling a gap in Ann Arbor’s sidewalk system along Scio Church Road. The area of study will extend from Maple Road to Delaware Drive. [.pdf of map showing area to be studied]

Around 75 residents submitted a petition to the city in August requesting that the lack of sidewalks along the stretch be addressed. Margie Teall (Ward 4), in whose ward the stretch is located, mentioned the lack of sidewalks along Scio Church during deliberations at the council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting. At that meeting the council considered, but rejected, a proposal from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to enact a general plan to fund a program for eliminating sidewalk gaps.

On approval of the project budget, city staff are supposed to develop conceptual alternatives and rough cost estimates. Those alternatives and costs will then be presented at a public meeting for discussion and input. After getting that feedback, city staff would make a recommendation to the council and possibly proceed with development of a final design.

Sidewalk for Scio: Public Commentary

Peter Hauk introduced himself as a resident of the Churchill Downs neighborhood. He had circulated a petition asking that a sidewalk be installed on a stretch of Scio Church Road near his neighborhood. Seventy-five of his neighbors had signed the petition, he said. A lot has changed since the neighborhood was built. More residents live west of town, which means there’s more traffic along Scio Church. Important destinations are nearby, like the Ice Cube and the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Lately there are a lot of young kids in the neighborhood, including his two daughters, Hauk said. On his court there are eight houses, and there are 10 kids under the age of 18, he reported. There had been only one child under 18 when he moved into the house 12 years ago. He’s looking forward to a time when his kids and everyone else in the neighborhood have a safe pedestrian route to nearby destination. So he asked the council for their support of the resolution.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Michael Benson spoke more to the general issue of sidewalks. As the city replaces sidewalk slabs, he said, it might be worth looking at inserting re-bar in the slabs to improve durability.

Sidewalk for Scio: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that the resolution simply established a process to look at how a sidewalk might be installed and authorized a budget for a study. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she supported the resolution and noted that there was a demand for a lot of sidewalks in a variety of locations. Ann Arbor is lucky that in a town that was not really built for pedestrians, she said, so many people want to be able to walk to their destinations.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Scio Church sidewalk study.

Environmental Commission Nomination

Patti Smith was nominated as a replacement for John Koupal on Ann Arbor’s environmental commission (EC) – for a three-year term. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the current Ann Arbor city council appointee to the commission, put Smith’s nomination forward. The commission provides advice to the city council on “environmental policy, environmental issues and environmental implications of all City programs and proposals on the air, water, land and public health.” Smith’s educational background is as an attorney, and she now works in the field of special education.

Unlike the majority of nominations to city commissions and boards, which are made by the mayor and confirmed by the city council, the environmental commission nominations are made by the council. The vote on Smith’s appointment will come at the council’s next meeting, on Dec. 3.

When the council arrived at the mayoral nominations on the agenda – which are placed toward the end of the meeting – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that there was a “Patti Smith” who was included as a nominee to the recreation advisory committee (RAC). She wanted to know if this was the same person as the Patti Smith who had been nominated to serve on the environmental commission. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that it was the same person, saying “she is eager to serve.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) then noted that Smith already serves on the city’s commission on disability issues, which is listed on her application. Also listed on her application is an interest to serve on the historic district commission. Petersen observed that Smith was being nominated to serve on two bodies – RAC and EC – that were not listed on her application for service. [It emerged in subsequent conversation that the city uses a single one-size-fits-all application form.] While Smith might be eager to serve, Petersen wondered if there might be a limit to the number of boards and commissions someone can serve on.

In support of Smith’s nomination to the environmental commission, which was not listed on Smith’s application, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that when the vacancy on the EC had been announced several months ago, Smith had immediately contacted Briere and indicated her interest in serving on that commission. It had taken some time for the council to move forward with that, but in that time Smith’s eagerness to serve on the environmental commission had not diminished, Briere said. She allowed that it’s unusual to find someone who’s willing to take on as big a load as Smith is, but Briere did not feel that indicates an inability to do the work.

Outcome: The council is expected to vote on Smith’s appointment at its Dec. 3 meeting.

Call for Accountability: AATA

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took advantage of the final agenda slot assigned to council communications – toward the end of the meeting – to pick up on a topic the council had discussed at its previous meeting: opting out of the newly-incorporated transit authority. [The new transit authority, called the Washtenaw Ride, was incorporated on Oct. 3. After several jurisdictions exercised their right to opt out within a 30-day window, the city of Ann Arbor followed that lead, and itself chose to opt out of the authority that it had been expected to help move forward.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman said he wanted to point out some problems related to the communication that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority had sent out.

A letter dated Sept. 28, 2012 – sent to the city of Ann Arbor as well as all other jurisdictions in the county – stated that requests to withdraw from the new transit authority after Nov. 2 would be null and void. [That timing was keyed to a 30-day window starting from Oct. 3, 2012, when the new authority was incorporated.] A follow-up communication from the AATA and Washtenaw County indicated that the first letter had raised a legal question and that additional time would be given. The letter from the Washtenaw County administrator had indicated that the first letter was not the official 30-day notice.

By way of background, the contrast that Kunselman was highlighting were the following two passages from the respective letters. From the AATA’s letter:

A legal question has been raised recently regarding the 30-day withdrawal period. Out of an abundance of caution, it has been decided to provide communities with additional time to make their decision to participate or withdraw from the transit authority. It is likely that this will result in new notices being sent out to all communities on or about Nov. 3, 2012, starting a new 30-day withdraw period. [.pdf of AATA Oct. 19, 2012 letter]

And from Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel:

The letter dated Oct. 3 was sent by AATA, not the new TA [transit authority]; as such, it was not the official notice under Public Act 196 which triggers the 30-day opt out period. [.pdf of Washtenaw County administrator Nov. 5, 2012 letter]

In his subsequent remarks, Kunselman ventured the possibility that the intent of the AATA in sending out the letters specifying an earlier deadline of Nov. 2 was to prevent the new edition of the Ann Arbor city council from voting to opt out of the transit authority. [A deadline of Nov. 2 – if accurate – would have also precluded the prior council's Nov. 8, 2012 vote to opt out of the new transit authority.]

In his remarks, Kunselman said he was bringing this topic up because he’s deeply concerned about the professionalism of the AATA. The AATA’s letter, which was sent to every elected official in Washtenaw County, was “deeply embarrassing” to him. The AATA’s follow-up letter reflects a lack of accountability for the error, Kunselman said. It wasn’t the case that the AATA could extend the deadline, Kunselman said, but rather that the AATA had no authority to send the letter with that deadline. “Yet we continue as if nothing had happened … When we see this level of incompetence, in my opinion, it needs to be addressed.”

He said he didn’t have anything specific in mind as a way to address the issue. [One option he has reportedly weighed is to ask for the resignation of all AATA board members.] But he wanted to see something that shows the AATA leadership is cognizant of the error, that shows humility, and that will “restore the credibility of their way.” He stated that he does not have the confidence in the AATA’s leadership to move forward with the council’s direction given at the Nov. 8 meeting to work with other urbanized communities to improve transit.

The AATA has yet to “make amends” for the error, Kunselman said, and until the AATA makes amends, he’s deeply embarrassed as an elected official of Ann Arbor who has to oversee the AATA leadership. He again indicated that he did not have an answer but had some ideas. He noted that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had suggested at the previous meeting that the city council should meet with the AATA leadership – and Kunselman said that could take place in the context of some kind of work session.

The AATA needs to own up to the error that it made and recognize that they had no authority to write that letter, Kunselman said. When he saw the sentence about the Nov. 2 deadline, he said, it “just sent chills down [his] spine” because he knew that it was not true.

He said the AATA needs to do something to restore credibility to the organization. Until the issue is resolved, he won’t have any confidence in the AATA. He noted that one of the AATA board members is also a city staff member – Eli Cooper, who would have occasion to appear before the council as the city’s transportation program manager.

Kunselman stated that he would ask Cooper whenever he had the opportunity at council meetings: Did you have the authority to send out that letter? He’d also ask if there was an intent to send out that letter in order to close the 30-day opt-out window so that the new edition of the council would not have the opportunity to opt out. Kunselman then revealed a larger point to his remarks, saying to mayor John Hieftje: “Mayor, I have to put this on your lap, because you are the one who appoints these AATA leaders, and I think we should somehow deal with it.” [The mayor makes nominations, but the entire council votes on those appointments. Kunselman voted against confirmation of Cooper.]

Following up on Kunselman’s remarks, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said she’d received several requests from residents for accountability from the AATA. She wanted to know how much it cost for the planning, marketing and advertising for the countywide effort.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Ann Arbor Mayor Pro Tem

On the council’s agenda was the election of a mayor pro tem and the order of succession to the mayor. According to the city charter, the Ann Arbor 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. 19 – the first meeting for new councilmembers who won their seats in the Nov. 6 general election.

Mayor John Hieftje and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

New councilmembers include: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Petersen won the August Democratic primary against incumbent Tony Derezinski, while Kailasapathy and Warpehoski won their respective Democratic primaries against Eric Sturgis and Vivienne Armentrout, when incumbents Sandi Smith and Carsten Hohnke did not seek re-election. Petersen and Kailasapathy were unopposed in the general election, while Warpehoski prevailed against Republican Stuart Berry.

The mayor pro tem acts as mayor when the elected mayor is unable to do so. Mayor John Hieftje won election on Nov. 6 for a seventh term, against independent Albert Howard. 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 salary is the same as other councilmembers – $15,913 per year. 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.

The order of succession to the mayor considered by the council adhered to the same principles as it has for the last several years. It’s seniority-based with a secondary sorting based on alphabetical order by last name. The order of succession, with the councilmember’s year of election, is as follows: Margie Teall (Ward 4 – 2002), Mike Anglin (Ward 5 – 2007), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 – 2007), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3 – 2008), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 – 2009), Jane Lumm (Ward 2 – 2011), Sally Hart Petersen (Ward 2 – 2012), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1 – 2012), and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5 – 2012).

The nomination of Higgins as mayor pro tem was put forward by Taylor. She has served in that capacity since Christopher Easthope left the council in 2008.

Except for Higgins’ observation that the compensation for mayor pro tem is the same as for other councilmembers – despite some perception to the contrary – there was no discussion on the question.

Councilmembers were sworn in without incident.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the order of succession and to have Higgins serve as mayor pro tem.

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: Divestment from Israel

Blaine Coleman passed out a copy of an Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) resolution passed in 2003 that called for arms divestment and cessation of U.S. military aid to Israel. Coleman note that newly-elected Ward 5 councilmember Chuck Warpehoski is executive director of ICPJ, which Coleman described as the only visible peace group in Ann Arbor. Coleman said he wanted to put Warpehoski on the spot and ask him when he was going to enforce the resolution. The resolution pledges the ICPJ to push the city of Ann Arbor to divest from companies that support the Israeli military.

Coleman continued by saying that right then that night, “Israel is bludgeoning Gaza.” He described the situation as the fourth biggest military on earth attacking a tiny helpless strip of land populated by 1.5 million people “packed like sardines” in a tiny space. He called on the city council to boycott the “apartheid state of Israel.” The billions of dollars of aid that have been given to Israel should instead be spent on rebuilding Detroit and the cities of the U.S., he said. Coleman characterized cited a statement he attributed to an Israeli official – stating that Israel would bomb Gaza back to the Middle Ages – as a “Nazi statement.” and said in his opinion that  Israel is a Nazi state.

[Coleman has a lawsuit pending against the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for refusing to run an advertisement on the sides of its buses that states, "Boycott 'Israel.'" The initial substantive ruling in the case was in Coleman's favor, when the judge granted a motion for injunctive relief. But the nature of that relief – which could include forcing the AATA to run the ad – has not yet been determined.]

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani addressed the council on the same topic as Coleman. [Chronicle archives indicate that she last appeared before the council on July 6, 2010.] She told the council she was there after a long absence, but said she still recognized many of their faces. She drew a laugh when she told them flatly: “You have all gotten a lot older.” She added that to their shame, however, they’d done nothing to stop the genocide of the Palestinian people. She had consistently tried to get the city to boycott Israel, so she had something to show for her age, she said. Today children in Gaza are being bombed – and many parents are mourning the death of their children. She was hopeful that Warpehoski would spearhead a city-wide boycott of Israel and stop arming Israel so that it’s no longer able “to slaughter children.” She asked the council to pass a resolution that called for the cessation of military aid to Israel.

Henry Herskovitz delivered commentary on Israel’s Law of Return. He described the law as granting the right of Jews anywhere in the world to “return” and gain citizenship there. The term “return” indicates a claim that Jews lived in the region thousands of years ago. He then went through some arguments that he said showed that there was no basis for the contention that Jews were expelled from the region, which would justify the notion of “return.”

Comm/Comm: Coordinated Funding

Lily Au told the council that she had three items she wanted to talk to them about. The first was that a traffic light is needed on Huron Parkway. The second was a request for a warming center – which is needed, she said, because many people are turned away from the Delonis Center. The third item was a criticism of the coordinated funding approach the city uses to support human services. She contended that it’s not a moral policy and she accused the United Way of paying its staff inappropriately high salaries.

Comm/Comm: City-Owned Property

Alan Haber greeted the new councilmembers by saying that he hoped it was a creative period for them. He said that some same-old questions persist – for example, about the future of the city-owned Library Lane site above new underground parking garage.

Left to right: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Alan Haber.

People want a public place there, Haber said, but the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s committee has not entertained any notion of a park or an expansion of the small concrete space that had been part of a conference center proposal. [Haber was referring to an advisory committee formed as part of the DDA's Connecting William Street initiative.] He contended that the DDA’s committee had totally stonewalled all comment that supported the development of the Library Lane as a public place. Haber hoped that the council would send back whatever report it received from the DDA’s committee with a request that a public space be considered with various amenities.

Haber also noted that freezing weather is approaching and it will be a hardship for homeless people. He contended that the city-owned building at 721 N. Main could be rehabbed for a community center, with no city expense.

Comm/Comm: Council Rules

During the period for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Michael Benson suggested that the council consider reviewing its rules on speaking and reserved time at the start of the meeting. There’s a priority list, he noted, for people to speak on agenda items as opposed to items that are not on the agenda. He essentially suggested that this priority ranking be further refined so that agenda items on which the council is taking action get higher priority than those where the council is not voting on something.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 3, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to 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!

I prefer to make a funny face and ask: How is a judicial candidate like the city park system? Or for a question that sounds less like the set-up to a punch line: What’s the deal with downtown Ann Arbor and its connection to the art millage and the library bond proposal?

Voting results from two Nov. 6, 2012 proposals on the Ann Arbor ballot: The Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal and the public art millage. Maps do not include the portion of the library district outside the city boundary. Maps show only in-person votes, not including absentee voters. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no. (Maps by The Chronicle.)

Of course, politicians are at least partly right when they say that the voters have spoken. But what did the voters actually say? It’s easy to make true statements about voter sentiment – if you stick to the text of the ballot.

For example, in the non-incumbent race for judge of the 22nd Circuit Court, more voters preferred to have Carol Kuhnke decide future Washtenaw County court cases than to have Jim Fink decide them. You can tell that just from the ballot and from the results. But it’s possible to make a stronger claim: More voters preferred the kind of person Kuhnke is – a candidate endorsed by the city of Ann Arbor Democratic Party. And to support that claim, we’d need to look at other results, like those from the presidential election.

Or by way of another example, the election results indicate that a majority of Ann Arbor voters said they do not want the city to levy an 0.1 mill tax to pay for art in public places. That’s all you can tell from the ballot question and the results. To make stronger claims – related, for example, to what (if anything) voters were trying to say about the existing Percent for Art program – you’d need to find some other way to explore the content of voters’ minds.

The same goes for the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal and the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage renewal. “Do not tax us to make the bond payments for a new downtown library building, but please continue to tax us to pay for city park needs.” That’s all voters said. They didn’t say anything about their favorite books, or which city park is the best. (By the way, it’s West Park, located in Ward 5, which is indisputably the highest-numbered ward in the city.)

Yet we’d like to divine something more from the results than just the results.

This column, which is heavy on impressionistic conclusions based on maps, and light on rigorous statistical analysis, begins with mapped illustrations of some basics. For example, mostly Democrats live in the eastern portion of Washtenaw County. And in Ann Arbor, Wards 2 and 4 are the strongest city wards for Republicans – even though those wards also lean Democratic. That’s still true 20 years after Ann Arbor’s ward boundaries were drawn to achieve that effect.

The column concludes by illustrating a possible geographic connection between the failed public art millage and the failed downtown library bond proposal – namely, downtown Ann Arbor. 

Ann Arbor City Ward Boundaries

The ward boundaries in the city of Ann Arbor underwent their last substantial revision in the early 1990s. The goal of the redistricting was to establish three heavily Democratic wards (1, 3 and 5), leaving two Republican-leaning wards (2 and 4). Comparing the ward boundaries in Map 1 and the results of the presidential race in Map 2, the ward-wise distribution of Democrats and Republicans has remained fairly stable. Except in the northwest precincts of Ward 4 – where the Ward 5 Democratic strength bleeds down into Ward 4 – the ward boundaries are reflected clearly in the presidential results.

Map 1: Ann Arbor ward boundaries.

Map 2: Ann Arbor 2012 presidential election results (in-person voting only.) Darker blue reflects greater strength for Democrat Barack Obama.

Judges, Dems, Parks

Judicial races are non-partisan. But in the non-incumbent race between Carol Kuhnke and Jim Fink, the local Democratic Party endorsed Kuhnke. And Fink himself, during a candidate forum hosted by the Democratic Party, acknowledged that if it were a partisan legislative race, ”you would not even think about voting for me.” So it was not a secret that Kuhnke was “the Democrat” and Fink “the Republican” in the race. Fink’s pitch to Democrats as voters was that he would follow the law and as a judge set aside his personal views. And in fact, several high-profile Democrats supported his campaign.

In Map 3, the results within the city of Ann Arbor show that support for Kuhnke shows a vaguely similar pattern to the presidential results. But it was not by any means an exact mirroring of the pattern of support received by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. In fact, the geographic distribution of Kuhnke’s support within the city of Ann Arbor seems to resemble more closely support for the parks millage (Map 4) than it does support for Obama.

Map 3: Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor city results for 22nd Circuit Court non-incumbent judicial race (in-person voting results only). Darker blue areas reflect stronger support for Carol Kuhnke, who defeated Jim Fink.

Map 4: Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor city results for parks maintenance & capital improvements millage renewal (in-person voting results only). Darker green areas indicate greater support for the parks millage.

Countywide Judicial Race

Countywide, the race between Kuhnke and Fink (Map 6) also showed a roughly similar pattern to the presidential race (Map 5), but it was not by any stretch an exact mirroring.

Map 5: Washtenaw County presidential results for the Nov. 6, 2012 election. Blue shades indicate a majority for Democrat Barack Obama. Red shades indicate support for Republican Mitt Romney.

Map 6: Nov. 6, 2012 Washtenaw County results for 22nd Circuit Court non-incumbent judicial race. Blue shades indicate a majority for Carol Kuhnke. Red indicates support for Jim Fink.

So I think it’s fair to conclude that a substantial number of people voted for the kind of person that they perceived Kuhnke to be (a Democrat, with whatever associations that comes with) as contrasted with the kind of person they perceived Fink to be (a Republican, with whatever associations that comes with). But it’s also fair to conclude that many voters appealed to something other than the “party” in making their choice.

Art and the Library: Downtown Connection

I don’t think the geographic distribution of results in the presidential and judicial races is particularly surprising, even if they do make for pretty maps.

But the distribution of results within the city of Ann Arbor for the public art millage (Map 7) and the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal (Map 8) reveals something interesting: One factor underlying voter sentiment on those two questions seems to be proximity to the downtown.

Both proposals drew their strongest support from areas near the geographic center of the city. Opposition was strongest in areas further away from the geographic center. For the library bond proposal, which would have funded construction of a new downtown library building, that’s not surprising. For the public art millage, it’s not as obvious that this should be the case.

One possible theory is that folks who live in or near downtown are just more “cosmopolitan” and “arty” and for that reason supported the millage. More plausible, I think, is the idea that greater support in the core areas really reflects less opposition – and that the opposition was based in part on the perception that the public art millage was all about only the downtown. That perception could be based on the fact that the two highest profile, most expensive, and most controversial pieces of public art produced by the city’s current Percent for Art program are located downtown: Herbert Dreiseitl’s fountain sculpture, and Ed Carpenter’s interior piece, both at the new Justice Center. [Carpenter's hanging sculpture has been commissioned, but not yet installed.]

Perhaps some of the votes against the public art millage might be seen as votes against a downtown-centric art program. The Ann Arbor public art commission has recently been working toward an approach that would be more geographically balanced – based on quadrants of the city. And a revision to the city’s public art ordinance that’s expected to be brought forward at the Nov. 19 city council meeting also has a geographic component. The proposed revision to the ordinance includes a requirement that councilmembers for the ward where a piece of art is proposed be notified of that proposal.

To the extent that the results on these two proposals reflect something about attitudes toward the downtown, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority should take notice. Part of the logic behind enacting a downtown development authority – with its ability to “capture” taxes of other jurisdictions – is to pay for investments in the downtown area that wouldn’t otherwise be made.

Those investments wouldn’t otherwise be made, because the downtown would likely lose every single time, if the use of those taxes were put through the regular budgeting process. That’s because voters in the periphery (who’ll vote like any voters at least partly in a self-interested way) outnumber those in the core. The enactment of a downtown development authority is a mechanism for enforcing the discipline of making infrastructure investments in the downtown, without subjecting them to the relatively volatile annual city budgeting process.

I think one of the minor lessons of the 2012 general election in Ann Arbor is that the case for investments in the downtown is not obvious to many voters, and will need to be made on an ongoing basis.

Map 7: Results of the Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor public art millage. Maps show only in-person votes, not including absentee voters. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no.

Map 8: Results for the Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal (in-person voting results only). Results from townships outside Ann Arbor are not included. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no.

Links to Maps

Links to the dynamic maps built by The Chronicle on geocommons.com:

• 2012 Ann Arbor city parks millage
• 2012 Ann Arbor public art millage
• 2012 Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal for a new downtown library
• 2012 Washtenaw County non-incumbent 22nd Circuit Court judicial race
• 2012 Washtenaw County U.S. presidential race results
• 2012 Ann Arbor city non-incumbent 22nd Circuit Court judicial race
• 2012 Ann Arbor city U.S. presidential race results

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of civic affairs like elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Campaign signs outside the polling location on Nov. 6 at Eberwhite Elementary School in Ann Arbor.

Voters rejected a public art millage and a $65 million bond proposal for a new downtown Ann Arbor District Library building. But renewal of a millage for park maintenance and capital improvements won overwhelming approval.

In countywide races, Carol Kuhnke of Ann Arbor defeated Jim Fink of Ypsilanti for a judgeship on the 22nd Circuit Court, replacing Melinda Morris, who is retiring. Incumbent judge Tim Connors retained his seat over challenger Mike Woodyard.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will see changes following Tuesday’s election. Incumbent Republican Rob Turner was defeated by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz, decreasing the number of Republicans on the nine-member board from three to two. Republican Alicia Ping won the District 3 seat over Democrat Wes Prater – the two incumbents faced each other due to redistricting that took effect with this election cycle. Other incumbents won their seats, as did Democrat Andy LaBarre, who secured his first term on the board.

Democrats prevailed in all local races for the Michigan House of Representatives, most notably with Gretchen Driskell – the current mayor of Saline – defeating incumbent Republican Mark Ouimet in District 52.

Details of these and other races are below. For complete election results throughout Washtenaw County, check the county clerk’s elections website.

Ann Arbor Library Bond Proposal Defeated

Two items on the Nov. 6 ballot related to the Ann Arbor District Library: a $65 million bond proposal for construction of a new downtown library, and the election of four positions on the AADL board of trustees.

The $65 million, 30-year bond proposal was rejected, gaining support from 33,604 voters (44.83%), with 41,359 votes (55.17%) cast against it. Support inside the city of Ann Arbor was slightly stronger, with 46.4% voting for the proposal compared with 41.2% voting for it outside the city. In addition to the city of Ann Arbor, the district includes parts of the townships of Pittsfield, Scio, Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Salem and Superior.

The funds would have paid for the demolition of the existing library at 343 S. Fifth and the construction of a new building on that same site. Four campaign committees had formed, including three that opposed the project: Protect Our Libraries, Save the Ann Arbor Library and LOL=Love Our Library. The Our New Downtown Library campaign led by Ellie Serras supported the proposal.

In the nonpartisan AADL board elections, five candidates contested four open seats for four-year terms. The top four vote-getters were all incumbents: Nancy Kaplan (30,508 votes – 23.14%); Margaret Leary (28,060 votes – 21.29%); Rebecca Head (26,827 votes – 20.35%); and Pru Rosenthal (23,498 votes – 17.82%). Challenger Lyn Davidge received 21,670 votes (16.44%). Outside the city of Ann Arbor, Davidge and Rosenthal finished in nearly a dead heat, with Davidge receiving 6,800 votes compared to 6,839 for Rosenthal.

The board has said that the current downtown building needs major repairs. Options they’ll likely consider include placing another proposal on a future ballot to pay for renovations or a scaled-back project. The AADL board’s next meeting is on Monday, Nov. 19.

Ann Arbor Voters Reject Public Art Millage

A more flexible funding mechanism for public art in Ann Arbor was defeated by voters on Nov. 6. The 0.1 mill tax – which was expected to generate around $450,000 annually – was rejected by 28,166 voters (55.86%), with support from 22,254 voters (44.14%).

The proposal won a majority of votes in just 13 out of 59 precincts with the most support coming from Ward 5, Precinct 4 where 60.5% of voters supported the public art millage. Ward 5 had six of the 13 precincts where the proposal achieved a majority. And the proposal finished in a dead heat in Ward 5, Precinct 5 with 471 voting for and against it. Opposition among in-person voters was strongest in Ward 1, Precinct 9, where only 34.5% of voters supported it. The proposal did not win a majority of votes in any precinct of Ward 2.

The city’s current funding mechanism for public art, the Percent for Art ordinance, will remain in place unless action is taken by Ann Arbor city council to change it. It’s possible that an amendment would be brought forward to redefine what counts as an eligible project is under the ordinance. One of several previous attempts by the council to revise the ordinance had included a restriction on the eligible funds that could be used.

The Percent for Art program, in place since 2007, requires that 1% of all city capital projects be set aside for public art, up to a limit of $250,000 per project. According to the most recent budget update at the Oct. 24, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission, the Percent for Art program has a balance of $1.533 million. Of that, $847,104 has been earmarked for previously approved projects, leaving about $686,000 unallocated. [.pdf of budget summary]

The millage proposal had been introduced without public input in August, brought forward by city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), to the surprise of the arts community. Leaders of many local arts organizations had urged the city council to hold off and take a more strategic approach to floating a millage. Concerns included a lack of clarity for voters about how yes or no votes would impact public funding for art, the short time frame during which a millage campaign could be mounted, and the fact that Ann Arbor voters would also be voting on two other millages on the Nov. 6 ballot: (1) renewal of a 1.1 mill tax to pay for park capital improvements and maintenance; and (2) a library millage to support construction of a new downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. [The library bond proposal was also defeated. The parks millage renewal passed.]

Those concerns were not compelling to the majority of councilmembers, who voted on Aug. 20 to put the millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. Subsequently, supporters of the arts community formed a campaign committee (B for Art) to support the millage.

The Percent for Art funds are overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission, which makes recommendations to the city council about spending decisions for public art. The city’s most high-profile – and controversial – project to date has been the water sculpture in front of city hall, designed by German sculptor Herbert Dreiseitl.

Ann Arbor Parks Tax Renewal Passes

Renewal of the park maintenance and capital improvements millage was overwhelmingly approved by Ann Arbor voters on Nov. 6, with 34,959 voters (68.44%) casting yes votes compared with 16,123 (31.56%) voting against it.

The millage was approved by a majority of voters in every precinct in the city, with the strongest support coming from Ward 1, Precinct 3, where 82.3% of voters supported the parks tax.  Weakest support for the parks tax citywide came in Ward 2, Precinct 2 where 53.6% of voters said yes.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. The renewal runs from 2013-2018 and will raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo distributed to PAC in June. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities. [More projects are listed on the city's website.]

There had been no formal opposition to this millage renewal. Ingrid Ault, a member of the city’s park advisory commission, formed a campaign committee (Friends of the Parks) in October  to promote the renewal.

Mexicotte Re-Elected to Ann Arbor School Board

One seat was on the Nov. 6 ballot for the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of trustees, a nonpartisan position for a four-year term starting Jan. 1, 2013. Incumbent Deb Mexicotte, who serves as board president, defeated Dale Leslie by a vote of 31,436 (63.19%) to 17,758 (35.69%).

Leslie’s support was somewhat stronger outside the city of Ann Arbor where he received 41.3% of the vote compared to 33.1% inside the city. The school district also includes portions of the townships of Ann Arbor, Lodi, Northfield, Pittsfield, Salem, Scio, Superior, and Webster.

Mexicotte was first elected to the seven-member board in 2003, and has been elected by her peers on the board for three terms as president.

Kuhnke, Connors Elected to 22nd Circuit Court

Two nonpartisan countywide races for seats on the 22nd Circuit Court bench were on the Nov. 6 ballot, each for a six-year term. In a race with no incumbents, Carol Kuhnke won with 67,051 votes (54.14%), compared to 55,704 votes (44.98%) for Jim Fink. Kuhnke will be replacing judge Melinda Morris, who is retiring because of state-mandated age limits.

Incumbent Timothy Connors retained his seat, defeating challenger Michael Woodyard with 83,101 votes (75.66%) compared to Woodyard’s 25,432 votes (23.15%). Connors was first appointed to the 22nd Circuit Court in 1997 by then-Gov. John Engler, a Republican, to replace judge Karl Fink – the older brother of Jim Fink. In his three subsequent elections, Connors has been unopposed. Before making the circuit court appointment, Engler had appointed Connors in 1991 to a seat on the 15th District Court in Ann Arbor.

Kuhnke carried just seven out of 24 countywide jurisdictions, but had a large enough plurality in those areas to win. She carried Ann Arbor with 68.1% of the vote.

Connors carried every jurisdiction in the county with a minimum of 72% – the amount of votes he received in Augusta and Northfield Townships.

According to documents filed with the state, Connors raised over $100,000 in campaign contributions. Woodyard’s campaign finance report shows contributions of $7,266.

Other local judicial races were on the ballot, but the incumbents were unopposed: Darlene O’Brien, probate court judge; Cedric Simpson, 14A District Court; and Joseph Burke, 15th District Court.

In the Michigan Supreme Court race, Bridget Mary McCormack – an Ann Arbor resident and University of Michigan law professor – is likely to win one of two contested judgeships for a full eight-year term, according to reports in the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, and based on results posted on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website.

Democrats Finish Strong in County Races

There were few surprises in the races for Washtenaw County elected offices, with Democrats – and two out of three Republican incumbents – winning their respective races on Nov. 6.

The three seats representing Ann Arbor districts on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners were on the ballot for two-year terms. Due to redistricting that takes effect with this election cycle, the county board will shrink from 11 districts currently to 9 districts on the new board, starting in January 2013. [.pdf file of 9-district county map] District 2 also includes a small portion of Ann Arbor, but the incumbent in that district, Republican Dan Smith, was unopposed.

In District 7, Democrat Andy LaBarre defeated Republican David Parker with 12,817 votes (77.37%) compared to Parker’s 3,675 votes (22.18%). The incumbent, Barbara Bergman, did not seek re-election.

Democrat Yousef Rabhi was re-elected to serve as District 8 representative with 10,562 votes (77.75%) compared to 2,922 votes (21.51%) for Republican Joe Baublis. And in District 9, incumbent Democrat Conan Smith won with 15,849 votes (79.88%) over Republican John Floyd’s 3,878 votes (19.55%).

Most incumbent commissioners fared well in other parts of the county, but not every current commissioner was returned to office. In a close race in District 1 on the west side of the county, Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz defeated incumbent Rob Turner by a vote of 10,904 (51.34%) to 10,258 (48.3%).

District 7 – covering Pittsfield Township – saw the re-election of Democrat Felicia Brabec with 10,506 votes (66.61%) over Republican Richard Conn’s 5,186 votes (32.88%).

On the east side of the county, District 5 incumbent Democrat Rolland Sizemore beat Republican Richard Deitering with 12,850 votes (71.49%) to Deitering’s 5,035 votes (28.01%). And District 6 incumbent Democrat Ronnie Peterson prevailed over Republican David Raaflaub with 13,462 votes (83.44%) to Raaflaub’s 2,544 votes (15.77%).

Because of redistricting, two incumbents – Democrat Wes Prater and Republican Alicia Ping – faced each other on Nov. 6 for District 3, covering parts of southern Washtenaw County, including Saline. Ping won that race with 10,896 votes (55.69%) compared to 8,603 votes (43.97%) for Prater, who had served for five previous terms.

Several other elected county incumbents – all Democrats – prevailed in their races for four-year terms.

County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie defeated Libertarian Justin Altman with 123,148 votes (85%) compared to Altman’s 21,032 votes (14.52%). There was no Republican in this race. For Washtenaw County sheriff, Jerry Clayton was re-elected over Republican Jeffrey Gallatin with 115,731 votes (70.53%) compared to Gallatin’s 47,621 votes (29.02%).

For the county clerk/register of deeds race, Larry Kestenbaum was re-elected with 109,324 votes (68.39%) over Republican Stanley Watson, who received 49,649 votes (31.06%). County treasurer Catherine McClary won re-election over Republican Marlene Chockley, with McClary drawing 109,236 votes (68.51%) to Chockley’s 49,528 votes (31.06%).

The current county water resources commissioner, Democrat Janis Bobrin, did not seek re-election. In that race, Democrat Evan Pratt – who was endorsed by Bobrin – defeated Republican Eric Scheie. Pratt received 108,354 votes (68.76%) compared to 48,498 votes (30.78%) for Scheie.

Hieftje Re-Elected, Warpehoski Wins Ward 5

Only two races were contested on Nov. 6 for Ann Arbor mayor and city council – both for two-year terms. Incumbent Democrat John Hieftje defeated independent Albert Howard with 42,255 votes (84.11%), compared to 7,649 votes (15.23%) for Howard. Hieftje was first elected mayor in 2000, and will now start his seventh term in that office.

In Ward 5, Democrat Chuck Warpehoski was elected over Republican Stuart Berry, winning with 10,371 votes (81.49%) compared to 2,281 votes (17.92%) for Berry. The incumbent Democrat, Carsten Hohnke, did not run for re-election.

The four other city council races, also for two-year terms, were not contested. Democrat incumbents Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were on the ballot, along with Democrats Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sally Hart Petersen (Ward 2). Petersen had defeated incumbent Tony Derezinski in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary. Kailasapathy prevailed in the primary over candidate Eric Sturgis. The current Ward 1 councilmember, Sandi Smith, did not seek re-election.

The 11-member city council includes the mayor and 10 city councilmembers, two from each ward.

Democrats Win State House Seats

Four districts in the Michigan House of Representatives cover parts of Washtenaw County, and all will be represented by Democrats following the Nov. 6 election. District 53, which covers most of Ann Arbor, is represented by Democrat Jeff Irwin – he won another two-year term by defeating Republican John Spizak. Irwin drew 32,569 votes (80.48%) over 7,670 votes (18.95%) for Spizak.

In District 52, incumbent Republican Mark Ouimet was defeated by Democrat Gretchen Driskell, who currently serves as mayor of Saline, by a vote of 26,646 (52.86%) for Driskell to 23,609 (46.83%) for Ouimet. The district covers western, northern and parts of southern Washtenaw County.

Winning re-election was Democrat incumbent David Rutledge of District 54, representing the eastern portion of Washtenaw County, including Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. He defeated Republican Bill Emmerich by a vote of 29,869 (76.77%) to 8,716 (22.4%).

In District 55, Democrat Adam Zemke won a three-way race with 26,195 votes (64.33%) over Republican Owen Diaz (13,029 votes – 32.0%) and Green Party candidate David McMahon (1,415 votes – 3.48%). District 55 covers parts of northern Ann Arbor, the townships of Ann Arbor, Augusta, Pittsfield and York, and a northern part of the city of Milan.

Bernstein, Diggs Ahead In UM Regents Race

Based on unofficial results posted on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website, Democrat Mark Bernstein of Ann Arbor is leading in the race for two open seats on the University of Michigan board of regents. Two current regents – Libby Maynard and Martin Taylor – did not seek re-election this year for another eight-year term on that eight-member governing body. The top two vote-getters to replace them were elected from a field of 10 candidates statewide. Results have not yet been posted for nine of Michigan’s 83 counties, including Wayne, Kent, Genesee and Muskegon.

Results as of 6 a.m. on Nov. 7 show Bernstein with 1,359,293 votes. Second place – by a relatively narrow lead – is held by the other Democrat on the ballot, Shauna Ryder Diggs, with 1,181,274 votes. Diggs is the daughter-in-law of outgoing regent Taylor. The two Republicans vying for the seats – Dan Horning and Robert Steele – have received 1,176,275 and 1,176,256 votes, respectively, according to the Secretary of State’s posting.

In Washtenaw County, Bernstein and Diggs won a decisive majority. Bernstein got 105,953 in Washtenaw County, or 33.47% of the vote, while Diggs received 95,184 votes (30.07%). Republicans Horning and Steele got 47,555 votes (15.02%) and 48,129 votes (15.2%), respectively.

Incumbents Returned to WCC Board

Three seats on the seven-member Washtenaw Community College board of trustees were on the Nov. 6 ballot in nonpartisan races. The race for a partial term ending Dec. 31, 2014 had only one candidate – incumbent Patrick McLean of Ypsilanti. He currently serves as treasurer of the board, and was elected with 85,262 votes (98.33%).

Two other incumbents were also re-elected to full six-year terms in a three-way race. Richard Landau and Diana McKnight Morton, both of Ann Arbor, received 56,875 (35.23%) and 68,797 (42.62%) votes, respectively. Challenger William Hazen Figg of Dexter got 34,002 votes (21.06%). The top two vote-getters were elected in this race.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government – we hope you elect to help. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The proposal won a majority of votes in just 13 out of 59 precincts with the most support coming from Ward 5, Precinct 4 where 60.5% of voters supported the public art millage. Ward 5 had six of the 13 precincts where the proposal achieved a majority. And the proposal finished in a dead heat in Ward 5, Precinct 5 with 471 voting for and against it.  Opposition among in-person voters was strongest in Ward 1, Precinct 9, where only 34.5% of voters supported it. The proposal did not win a majority of votes in any precinct of Ward 2.

The city’s current funding mechanism for public art, the Percent for Art ordinance, will remain in place unless action is taken by Ann Arbor city council to change it. It’s possible that an amendment would be brought forward to redefine what counts as an eligible project is under the ordinance. One of several previous attempts by the council to revise the ordinance had included a restriction on the eligible funds that could be used.

The Percent for Art program, in place since 2007, requires that 1% of all city capital projects be set aside for public art, up to a limit of $250,000 per project. According to the most recent budget update at the Oct. 24, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission, the Percent for Art program has a balance of $1.533 million. Of that, $847,104 has been earmarked for previously approved projects, leaving about $686,000 unallocated. [.pdf of budget summary]

The millage proposal had been introduced without public input in August, brought forward by city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), to the surprise of the arts community. Leaders of many local arts organizations had urged the city council to hold off and take a more strategic approach to floating a millage. Concerns included a lack of clarity for voters about how yes or no votes would impact public funding for art, the short time frame during which a millage campaign could be mounted, and the fact that Ann Arbor voters would also be voting on two other millages on the Nov. 6 ballot: (1) renewal of a 1.1 mill tax to pay for park capital improvements and maintenance; and (2) a library millage to support construction of a new downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. [The library bond proposal was also defeated. The parks millage renewal passed.]

Those concerns were not compelling to the majority of councilmembers, who voted on Aug. 20 to put the millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. Subsequently, supporters of the arts community formed a campaign committee (B for Art) to support the millage.

The Percent for Art funds are overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission, which makes recommendations to the city council about spending decisions for public art. The city’s most high-profile – and controversial – project to date has been the water sculpture in front of city hall, designed by German sculptor Herbert Dreiseitl.