Twenty candidates for political office attended a forum hosted by the Arts Alliance on July 23, held at the Michigan Theater in downtown Ann Arbor and focused on the creative sector.

Arts Alliance executive director Deb Polich. (Photos by Dave Askins.)

The event included presentations by each candidate as well as opportunities for questions from the audience, and drew out policy positions related to the arts.

County-level candidates shared their thoughts on the possibility of a countywide arts millage.

And mayoral candidate Sally Petersen took the occasion to float the idea of an Ann Arbor city income tax as an approach that would generate more revenue, at the same time shifting some of the burden of local government funding to those who work in Ann Arbor but do not live here.

Bryan Kelly, independent candidate for mayor of Ann Arbor in the Nov. 4 general election, made his first public appearance since qualifying for the ballot. “I can say firsthand that being an artist is the toughest damn job in the world. I’d rather run for mayor than keep writing novels,” he quipped.

Ypsilanti mayoral candidate Tyrone Bridges shared an example of his daughter’s artwork with forum attendees.

Favorite public art named by the candidates included the mosaic adorning the Fourth and Washington parking structure, as well as the half-mile of daffodils planted in The Arb.

And Ann Arbor Ward 5 incumbent Chuck Warpehoski delivered his opening statement in the form of a rap.

In her remarks at the end of the forum, Arts Alliance executive director Deb Polich urged candidates and elected officials to tap into the experts who know the creative sector. She encouraged candidates to touch base with ArtServe Michigan and the Arts Alliance to get accurate information. Ann Arbor is losing ground to other communities like Grand Rapids and Detroit, she said, and that’s why public funding and investment in the arts is important. “Private funding is absolutely here in this county, but it’s not enough – there’s not enough.”

It’s not just about funding, however. Polich stressed the importance of public policy to make the city a fertile ground for the creative sector.

Polich reported that the Arts Alliance will be holding a statewide conference called Creative Convergence on March 19, 2015. Thought leaders from across the country, state and Washtenaw County will be coming to speak about these issues, she said.

This report focuses on state and local candidates, including the Ann Arbor mayoral and city council races, Washtenaw County commissioners, and state legislators. It also includes responses to a candidate survey distributed by the Arts Alliance prior to the forum. Not included here are statements by the two Congressional candidates who attended the forum: Democrat Debbie Dingell, who’s running in the primary against Raymond Mullins of Ypsilanti for the District 12 seat in the U.S. House of Representatives; and Republican Douglas Radcliffe North, who’s running against incumbent Republican Tim Walberg for the District 7 seat in the U.S. House.

The outcomes of many of the local races will be determined in the Aug. 5, 2014 Democratic primary elections, if no Republicans or independent candidates are running. More information about candidates can be found on the Washtenaw County elections division website. Check the Michigan Votes website to find out your polling location and view a sample ballot.

Ann Arbor Mayor

Three of the four Democrats running for Ann Arbor mayor attended the July 23 forum: Sabra Briere, Sally Petersen and Christopher Taylor. Not attending the 8:30 a.m. event was Stephen Kunselman. All candidates completed the Arts Alliance survey. [.pdf of Briere survey response] [.pdf of Kunselman survey response] [.pdf of Petersen survey response] [.pdf of Taylor survey response]

There are no Republicans in this race. In November, one independent candidate – Bryan Kelly – will face the winner of the Democratic primary. Kelly attended the Arts Alliance forum, but did not complete the survey.

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Sabra Briere

Sabra Briere said it had been interesting to sit in the audience and listen to what other candidates had to say, as well as being “part of the show.”

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate Sabra Briere.

Art is both passive and active, she said. One person can create a score, a play or a piece of visual art. Some people can work with that one person – as a crew, as a band, as a cast – to create something bigger. But many people enjoy art in a passive way, by going to a lecture or a gallery. She’d like to see more people in the second type of group, rather than the passive group.

There’s no doubt that public art, private art and creativity all create an opportunity for economic development, and that’s important, she said. But what’s more important to her is community development. “I want to see people engaged in creativity, because the more people who are engaged in this, the greater the opportunity they have to enrich their lives.” Being a passive audience is good, but being a participant in art is better, she said.

A decade ago, an artist envisioned a bright yellow line across an uneven surface, Briere recalled. And dozens of community members showed up at The Arb to plant over 10,000 daffodils. It was work, and it was wet, she said. “But it was an act of anticipation.” There wasn’t immediate gratification – you had to spend months waiting for those daffodils to bloom. She’d bet that many of the people who planted those daffodils go back every year to see how that line has changed. They go back to see where it’s gotten fuzzy, because the daffodils have spread, and where it’s nearly disappeared because it was too shady. “This is what I want to see happen in our community – more community building, strengthening our relationships with each other.”

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Bryan Kelly

Bryan Kelly told the audience that this was the first time he’s addressed an audience as a mayoral candidate. He’s a novelist, having studied writing at the University of Michigan.

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate (November general election) Bryan Kelly.

“I can say firsthand that being an artist is the toughest damn job in the world. I’d rather run for mayor than keep writing novels.” He joked that he might drop out of the race and move to Ypsilanti to vote for Tyrone Bridges, because he liked everything that Bridges had to say. [Bridges, an Ypsilanti mayoral candidate, spoke earlier in the event.]

Kelly liked the idea of an art auction, saying that’s a reasonable application of what the city government can do. There’s a long history of scholarship that calls into question whether the public sector should support the arts, he said, based on the idea that the public would be subsidizing one artist over another.

“And it’s not always the case that politicians are the best determiners of what is good art,” he said. “I think the public is, and the people are.” He said he might have some uncomfortable responses to questions that were posed at this forum.

He said that “art begins with the individual and not with funding. You can have all the funding in the world, but if you don’t have artists, you don’t have art.”

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Sally Petersen

Sally Petersen began by talking about her family’s commitment to art. She and her husband, Tim Petersen, have supported FestiFools since it started, she said – “Mark Tucker had us at ‘hello.’” Her husband is a board member of the University Musical Society, and she’s a past board member of the Ann Arbor Art Center, and she’s about to begin her third term on the board of the Neutral Zone, a nonprofit for teens.

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate Sally Petersen.

Petersen had three points. The first related to economic development. When she started on city council, she quickly learned that even though the council had made economic development a budget priority, the city has no economic development staff and only makes a $75,000 allocation to Ann Arbor SPARK for job creation.

And SPARK is very focused on technology jobs, she noted. As mayor, Petersen would focus on job creation in all sectors that do well in Ann Arbor, including arts and culture. She reported that the Americans for the Arts have said that nationally, 4.4% of the companies in the country are in the arts and creative sector. In Washtenaw County, that number is higher – at 5.3%, she said. But nationally, 2.1% of jobs are in that sector, compared to only 1.8% in Washtenaw County. So there’s room to grow here in terms of jobs in the arts sector, she said.

Her second point related to public-private partnerships. Grand Rapids has ArtPrize. So Ann Arbor gets compared to Grand Rapids all the time, she noted, but it’s important to remember that ArtPrize is privately funded. She spent the first five years of her business career in Columbus, Indiana, working for Cummins Engine, which made significant investments in public art in that community. [As one example of public art in that southern Indiana city of about 45,000 people is the sculpture by Henry Moore that stands in front of the public library, which was designed by I.M. Pei.] In Ann Arbor, there’s Sonic Lunch that’s supported by the Bank of Ann Arbor, she said. Neutral Zone’s annual Live on Washington event has lots of private-sector donations. “To me, it feels like the appetite for public expression of art through private donations is pretty healthy in Ann Arbor. We just need to leverage that more as the economy improves.”

Finally, Petersen said it’s important to keep a pulse on the public attitude toward art. The city’s Percent for Art program didn’t resonate with the majority of citizens in Ann Arbor, she said, “and we saw that in 2012 when the public art millage failed.” She said she had supported that millage. As the economy improves, if the city leverages public-private partnerships and creates more jobs in the arts, “we can change the public attitudes towards art so that perhaps in the future, a millage will actually work.”

Petersen concluded by reminding the audience of Ann Arbor Art Center’s motto: “Where creativity and community meet.” This inclusive nature about art is what she’d promote as mayor, Petersen said.

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Christopher Taylor

Art and the arts are important to him as an individual, Christopher Taylor said. Ever since his seventh grade teacher realized that he could carry a tune, arts have been a part of his daily life. He attended the University of Michigan on a music scholarship, and he has a degree in vocal performance. “And like of course many aspiring opera singers, I’m now a lawyer,” he joked. He works at the law firm of Hooper Hathaway on Main Street in Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate Christopher Taylor.

He noted that the arts play an important role in economic development, as others have mentioned. Several candidates have also mentioned the importance of the arts to children, and it’s true that the arts couldn’t be more effective in “helping raise good little people.” But he said he wanted to expand on something that Briere had mentioned – the role of arts in the community. The creation of art by the people of Ann Arbor is important to people’s quality of life and sense of being and place, he said, and to their engagement with one another.

With “all profound respect” to the city’s professional arts organizations like the Arts Alliance, Michigan Theater and UMS, Taylor said, people’s day-to-day lives are most profoundly affected by things like the Water Hill Music Fest, the Burns Park Players and Thurston Community Players. These are events where people come together with common purpose to create something that’s meaningful and personal, that creates connections among neighbors, Taylor said.

They create lifelong friendships, and a “third place” where people can come when they’re not at work or home. As mayor, he’d love to help propagate and expand these kinds of things. If he were mayor, people in the arts would know that they had a true friend and ally and advocate in the mayor’s office, he said. “What you needed, what you could dream of, what you can imagine a mayor could do – ask, and I’ll do everything I can to get it done.”

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: What is your position on public art in Ann Arbor? What elements are necessary to make a public art program successful?

Bryan Kelly: Public art in Ann Arbor could be better, he said. Some of it makes him scratch his head. As a novelist, “I don’t understand physical art….it needs to have words on it.” But if a painting or other type of physical art has words on it, he added, “it usually undermines its purpose.”

Sabra Briere: Briere said she supports public art in Ann Arbor in a lot of different ways. She supports art that’s a physical manifestation – a sculpture or fountain – but she also supports public art that’s a performance. That includes band performances, plays in The Arb and West Park, and “the mimes that occasionally show up at my table.” Art challenges her and makes her think, “and thinking is always a wonderful thing.”

A successful public art program comes from a combination of resources at the governmental level, and creativity bubbling up from the people, Briere said. She supports opening city hall to temporary exhibits of art, and opening up the city parks to temporary exhibits of art. Other ideas include holding a plein air painting contest for amateurs in the park, or closing Main Street for a play to be performed. “I think you can do lots of creative things with art in public, without it becoming something where the public feels bad art is forced on them.” As mayor, she’d do her best to make sure many of these things happen, and she’s open to other creative ideas that include a small amount of financial or staff support, opening up the creative world to a large number of people. She noted that there’s never been a single piece of art displayed in public that someone doesn’t think is bad.

Christopher Taylor: “I support public art – full stop.” It’s important for the city to invest in and advocate for the arts, he said. Public art programs are most successful when residents believe – and when it is factually true – that their other needs are being addressed, he added. “Being satisfied? Who’s ever satisfied? But when the city is making an earnest and consistent effort, that is appreciated and understood by the residents.” This is what allows a public art program to thrive in a political culture and political environment, he said.

The city failed in its initial effort to support public art through the Percent for Art program, Taylor said. It was insufficiently resourced from the staff side, and the public art commission was given a set of tasks with insufficient tools, he said, so it didn’t work out. Integrating public art design into city capital projects on a project-by-project basis is the best way to move forward. If elected mayor, his votes will reflect the fact that he believes public art to be a value. If a new play structure in a park will cost X without art and enhanced design, but will cost X plus Y – “where Y is reasonable” – with art or expanded design, then he’d support that.

Sally Petersen: Regarding her attitude toward public art, it’s really about priorities, Petersen said. “I’m still kind of shrugging my shoulders over a discussion we had at the council table on Monday night.” The council voted 8-2 to inquire about acquiring two more pieces of property for the parks system. She reported that she and mayor John Hieftje were on the losing side. There are 158 parks – does the city need two more? She characterized one property as swampland, and the other parcel as unbuildable. So the question is about priorities.

The city has only $57,000 allocated for community events, and she’d rather double that budget so that the city could support events like FestiFools. The economic development allocation is only for $75,000 – and that’s for technology jobs, she noted. [That amount is for the contract the city has with Ann Arbor SPARK.] She’d like to double that as well, so that the city could support job creation in other sectors, including the creative sector. “So again, it’s a matter of priorities,” she said.

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: What’s your favorite public art in Ann Arbor?

Bryan Kelly: There’s some decent graffiti in town – under the train bridge at Argo Pond, for example.

Sabra Briere: Her favorite piece of public art is the sculpture in Hanover Square, at the corner of Packard and Division. It’s a set of cascading books. [The piece by Ronald Bauer is titled "Arbor Sapientiae."] Briere said she likes it when it’s wet – it makes noise when it’s raining, and it’s fascinating to see what the artist did. “A lot of people don’t get it, but being a book person, I like it.” Her second favorite piece of public art is on the University of Michigan campus – a fountain at the Kellogg Eye Center that was locally designed.

Christopher Taylor: He works on Main Street and has affection for the artwork on the Fourth & Washington parking structure. [The structure includes "Urban Configurations" by Irina Koukhanova and untitled stoneware panels by Barron Naegel and Yiu-Keung Lee.] Taylor said he loves the “big sculpture with the swing” in front of the UM Museum of Art. [Mark di Suvero's "Shang."] His kids love the sound of it and love interacting with it.

Sally Petersen: Her definition of art is broad, and she’s a huge fan of FestiFools. “It is where community and creativity meet,” she said, so that’s her favorite expression of art in Ann Arbor. She values its inclusive nature. Petersen said she also likes art that’s functional, like the mosaic tile on the Fourth & Washington parking structure [a mural by Michael Hall]. She also spends a lot of time running through Gallup Park, and there’s a playground with a climbing structure in the shape of a frog. Art that’s functional makes a lot of sense to her, Petersen said.

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: Comment on the notion that Ann Arbor is being surpassed by other Michigan communities as a creative destination in Michigan.

Sally Petersen: Grand Rapids is probably one of those communities that has surpassed Ann Arbor, Petersen said. They have a lot of private funding for the arts. That city also has a city income tax, she noted. In Ann Arbor, about 68,000 people come into the city each day for work, she said, so the population of Ann Arbor increases by a third during the workweek. If Ann Arbor had an income tax, the state sets the level, she said – a half percent for out-of-towners, and one percent for people who live and work here. For Ann Arbor residents, the current city operations millage would be eliminated, she noted.

When the city looked at a possible income tax in 2009, the net gain was $12 million. Petersen thought the first priority would be repairing the roads, but it might free up other areas of the budget to invest in the arts. “It’s kind of a crazy thing to say – I’m running for mayor, and I want to consider a city income tax? What a crazy thing to run on! But at the same time, it lessens the tax burden for all of Ann Arbor.” It would shift part of the tax burden onto people who are coming from out of town, who are also using the city’s resources, she said.

Sabra Briere: Ann Arbor is best known for performance art – music and vocal art – and is less known for visual art, she said. In the past five years, a lot of people have asked why the city needs to put money into visual art, she added, because the university does that already. As a mechanism for becoming economically healthier, other communities are turning to art and to the expression of the human soul – while Ann Arbor is getting just a little bit more pragmatic and saying “Just fix the roads.” In order to be healthy, to be a growing, vibrant, exciting community, Ann Arbor needs to do both, Briere said. We need to figure out what an expression of the city’s artistic soul may be, she added, and she’d like to see that expression as a community that works together to create art.

Christopher Taylor: Taylor said he didn’t think it was necessarily true that other communities are surpassing Ann Arbor. Grand Rapids receives a great deal of notoriety for ArtPrize. “If any of the local billionaires in the audience are interested helping out in this regard, I think we could certainly move the bar a little bit on that one,” he joked. But it’s true that there’s a competitive environment, he said, and Ann Arbor needs to move forward and be better at what it does, and to advocate for the creative sector.

He’d like to see the community propagate and support organizations that want to put on events throughout the city, whether it’s in neighborhoods or downtown. The city has a role there. Also, the city owns a lot of land, including some land that city officials are considering selling. Taylor said he’d be interested in entertaining the possibility of workspace for artists, where appropriate, if a practical proposal is brought forward. It’s a community value, and would help move any misconception about Ann Arbor’s friendliness for arts to the side, he said.

Bryan Kelly: “This is easy,” Kelly said. “Over my dead body. I’d dare any city to be more artistic.” Being more artistic comes down to the individuals that a city attracts, and he takes very seriously the part of the city charter that defines the mayor as the ceremonial head of the city. That’s part of the reason why he was attracted to run for mayor. He intends to be symbolic, as a candidate “who has not found success in their creative life,” but who is able to apply his talents to running for mayor and share a commonality with the artistic experience. “And I’m not going to Grand Rapids to buy any art,” he quipped. “I’ll buy from a neighbor first.”

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: It sounds as if candidates don’t see a significant role for city government funding for the arts via the city’s general fund. Why is that?

Bryan Kelly: The public arts millage wasn’t approved by voters, he noted. And as Briere had pointed out, there will always be people who hate a public presentation of art. So what the city is dealing with is the fallout from the millage. Personally, Kelly said, he’s dealing with the question of whether the public sphere should take the primary role in supporting the arts – or should it be individuals and the private sector.

Christopher Taylor: Taylor said he’s very much in favor of public support of art. At the council table, he said, he’s been a strong supporter for funding public art, and he’s supporting the new public art program that integrates art into enhanced design of city capital projects. The city needs to expand its support of community events, and many of those events are arts-based. The city provides support to the original Street Art Fair, he said, through a direct subsidy. The city also supports the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, Taylor said. He didn’t know whether the city has a role at this point in directly supporting performing arts organizations. The city needs to continue to support the infrastructure and underlying environment where these programs can prosper, he said.

Sabra Briere: Briere noted that she, Petersen and Taylor had all helped rewrite the public art ordinance and removed the Percent for Art concept. Now, the ordinance includes the concept of “baking in” art into capital improvement projects. That allows the city to designate some types of capital improvement to be enhanced by more architectural design, or including art in the design of the project from the beginning – not slapped on as an afterthought. “If you don’t hear a dedication to spending money on public art, it’s not that we aren’t dedicated,” she said. It’s something they might not talk about explicitly because they’ve already thought about it and committed to supporting public art. “We give money to cultural events, though not enough. But we all care about public art.”

Sally Petersen: Petersen addressed the issue of why the city’s general fund doesn’t have a larger line item for public art. “I think it comes back to the current appetite for public dollars for public art.” For a variety of reasons, the Percent for Art approach didn’t work in Ann Arbor, she said. The councilmembers who are running for mayor worked on a task force to transition the program to become part of capital improvements, and to crowdfund public art projects as well, she noted. She thinks there’s an appetite for crowdfunding from the private sector for public art. “I think we need to see some examples of positive art – positive public art that’s privately funded.” If the private sector gets on board, that might “water the soil” for the public coming forward. She’d like to see another try at a public art millage. The time might not be now, but it might be four years from now, she said. “If we can rely on private-sector partners first, maybe we can sow the seeds for that in the future.”

Ann Arbor City Council

Four candidates for Ann Arbor city council attended the July 23 forum: Don Adams, Kirk Westphal, Julie Grand and Chuck Warpehoski.

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Don Adams

Don Adams is running for a seat in Ward 1 currently held by Sumi Kailasapathy, who is seeking re-election. Both are Democrats. Kailasapathy did not attend the forum, but did complete the candidate survey. [.pdf of Kailasapathy survey response] Adams did not turn in the survey.

Ann Arbor Ward 1 city council candidate Don Adams.

Adams said that if elected, he’d like to see the council work with the creative sector more to improve art. Art is something that’s close to his heart. The council can help attract and retain talent to the city. Artists can bring a vibrant community together. Some people say it would attract young talent, but Adams noted that older people love art as well. He pointed out that Debbie Dingell, in her remarks earlier in the forum, had mentioned the STEM (science technology engineering math) approach to education. At Northside Elementary, which his two daughters attend, the program is STEAM – adding art into the mix.

Adams also talked about how art can work with rehab. He’s on the board of directors at the Eisenhower Center, where they work with people who have traumatic brain injuries, including veterans. There’s a music therapist who works with the patients and gets good results, he said. They had an art therapist student too, but she recently finished her degree and moved on. At their Manchester campus, there’s an art therapy program with ceramics, drawing and painting, and a woodshop. Art and rehab is something he holds dear to his heart.

In conclusion, Adams noted that his seven-year-old daughter’s artwork was hung at the Ann Arbor District Library. “So she is now officially a published artist.”

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Kirk Westphal

Kirk Westphal is running against Nancy Kaplan in Ward 2. There’s no incumbent in this race. Both candidates are Democrats, and no Republicans are running this year. Kaplan did not attend the forum, but both candidates completed the Arts Alliance survey. [.pdf of Westphal survey response] [.pdf of Kaplan survey response]

Ann Arbor Ward 2 city council candidate Kirk Westphal.

When his family talks about the arts, Westphal said, his wife literally and figuratively steals the show – she was a Broadway music director who’s now a professor with the University of Michigan musical theater department. He encouraged people to attend the department’s productions, saying “it’s the best value ticket in town.”

Westphal told the audience that he’s an urban planner. His job includes creating educational documentaries about cities and different aspects of urban life. His latest one is based in Ann Arbor, called “Ride ‘Round A2.” It focuses on bus and bike commuting.

The role of the creative sector in this community is absolutely about art objects and entertainment venues, Westphal said. But in the bigger picture, it has to do with creative problem-solving and creativity in different industries. It’s a core competency in today’s economy – whether you’re an artist or an engineer or an architect, creative problem-solving is important, and the arts play a major role in that.

Last year, the Knight Foundation completed a major study, interviewing more than 40,000 people over a three-year period in small to mid-sized cities nationwide. The purpose was to find out what the drivers are for growing people’s affection for their community, he said – what makes people love a city and stay there. The three major drivers were the city’s aesthetics, its social offerings, and its openness. “Now if the creative industry can’t tackle these items, I don’t know who can.”

So how can Ann Arbor leverage and strengthen the talent and organizations that the city has now? First, the city needs an arts and culture master plan, Westphal said. Unless the community can describe what it wants and where – and come up with something that can be measured, documented, and inventoried – it’s much less likely to happen. Creating a master plan would be a great opportunity to talk about what the community values. Another strategy is to empower people to make creativity happen now, he said. There are tens of thousands of people in this community who voted to tax themselves to make public art happen, he noted. [This was a reference to those who voted for the unsuccessful 2012 millage proposal.] “So where are they now, and where’s their money?” Let them envision where they’d like to invest and then let them build it, he said.

This is a conversation that needs to keep happening – and not just during an election, Westphal said. As a city councilmember, he’d help facilitate an ongoing dialogue with the community and artists.

[Regarding the master plan, five years ago the Arts Alliance had developed a cultural master plan for Washtenaw County, with customized "working plans" for several local population centers, including Ann Arbor. Deb Polich, the Arts Alliance executive director, reported that "we're ready to dust it off" and refresh it next spring.]

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Julie Grand

Julie Grand is one of three Democrats running for Ward 3 city council. There is no incumbent for this seat. Other candidates are Samuel McMullen and Bob Dascola, who did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey. [.pdf of Grand survey response]

Ann Arbor Ward 3 city council candidate Julie Grand.

As a parent, Grand sees how her own kids get out their emotions through art – “even if it’s sometimes an X over my face when they don’t like what they hear.” She shared a personal anecdote that she said reflected the community’s relationship with art. She was a dancer from kindergarten through college, and taught dance in high school. Her last performances were in Philadelphia. When she came to Ann Arbor for grad school, she thought she’d keep dancing. She went to the dance department and was told that she wasn’t in the right kind of shape. “So since I was too fat to dance, I stopped.” Grand said she wasn’t trying to engender sympathy, but wanted to point out that it takes a lot of courage to participate in the creative sector. “You have to be willing to put yourself out there to an often anonymous and unkind public.” It’s really easy to abandon a focus on the arts and turn to other priorities, she said.

Similarly, it takes a lot of courage to stand up for public funding of the arts, Grand said. There’s that unkind and anonymous public out there, who would rather see the city spend its money elsewhere. It’s really easy to use the small amount of funding that’s spent on arts as a scapegoat, instead of coming up with real solutions to things like roads and sewers, “which have nothing to do with the arts.”

Grand said she didn’t want to preach to the choir, but from her perspective, the city council can take several actions to help bring the community back to an appreciation and support of the arts. Residents want projects that are smaller in scale, she said, so that’s important. The city also needs to have projects that are unrestricted in theme. “The site should dictate the art, not the funding source.” Residents also really want to support local artists, Grand said. The city needs to do a better job of reaching out to the creative sector. She’d also like to see more opportunities for temporary art that can provide exposure for lots of local artists. The city should promote and provide funding for festivals so that everyone in the community can get exposure to the arts. It contributes to the unique character of this community. Ann Arborites also want to see projects that are accessible, Grand said – not just in the downtown, but in parks, libraries, along the Huron River and elsewhere. The city needs to think about public-private partnerships, as well as partnerships with educational institutions and nonprofits.

Grand pointed out that John Kotarski, vice chair of the city’s public art commission, was in the audience. He has lots of wonderful ideas, she said. Six months was not enough time for the art commission to “turn that process around,” and she’d like to see it reversed. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Grand said she was referring to the defunding of public art and lack of staff support for the public art commission.]

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Chuck Warpehoski

Democrat Chuck Warpehoski is running for a second term representing Ward 5. [.pdf of Warpehoski survey response] Leon Bryson will appear on the Ward 5 Democratic primary ballot, but is not campaigning and announced his intent to withdraw from that race.

Warpehoski delivered his statement in verse:

I’m a politician
I’m not a poet
And here with the Arts Alliance
I don’t wanna blow it

When I think of about the role of arts
Here in our city
It’s about more than just trying
to make things pretty

While we wring our hands 
talking about economic health
the creative sector's a source
of true community wealth

As we rebuild
this great Great Lakes state
we can't do the old things
we have to innovate

And create places
where people want to be
sounds like a job for the arts
if you ask me

Nobody chooses a city
about our sewer drains
Or the miles and miles of
new water mains

Those are important
we have to get them right
but curb and gutter work
doesn’t bring anybody delight

And the kids, man, the kids
Tyrone said it – the kids
corporate culture has them tuning out
watching YouTube vids

Better to nurture
Their creative expression
that's a much more healthy
fulfilling lifelong obsession

You don’t just have to receive
and passively watch
You can create – to do so
is our most fundamental human trait

The arts here in town
They have some challenges
That’s no lie
Studio rents are too damn high

Maybe you wait tables
and do art on the side
I want Ann Arbor to be a place
where you can reside

So whether you sculpt
or dance or sing
We need more 
and affordable workforce housing

So what can you expect
If I'm re-elected?
Funding for the arts
will be protected

From Top of the Park
to FoolMoon in the dark
or that great new mural
Down in Allmendinger Park

But there’s a limit
To what the government can do
That’s why to succeed 
We need all of you

You keep creating
We’ll keep debating
Let’s hope the outcome
invigorating

Hey, I’m a politician
I’m not a poet
But Ann Arbor is art town
I want you to know it.

-

Ann Arbor City Council Q&A: The public art commission is taking a hiatus as the program goes through some restructuring. What message do you have for the art commission and the broader arts community in terms of next steps for the program?

Chuck Warpehoski: There was a fight to get funding to hire an arts administrator to help move to the next stage, he said. The city had put a lot of responsibility on the public art commission without giving them the support they need.

Ann Arbor Ward 5 city council incumbent Chuck Warpehoski.

Now, the city has lined up funds to get a professional arts coordinator to provide that support. “Where that’s gonna go? I don’t know – we’re still figuring that out.” But having institutional support will be vital, he said.

The public art commission has done great work, but if residents want this to be a priority for the city, they need to be involved, and encourage their friends and neighbors to get involved too. That’s important to build support for the arts, he noted, “because the fight to get the funding for the arts administrator was a real fight, and without your support, it’s going to get harder and harder.”

Kirk Westphal: Westphal said he’d echo Warpehoski’s sentiments. “This is a bottom-up fight for culture in our community. We cannot just offload it onto our politicians and our commissioners.” People need to communicate with their elected leaders about what they want. People love Ann Arbor for the culture it has, and “we have to keep infusing it with more.” It takes being proactive action from the bottom up – from citizens asking for it. We need to support the existing institutions and public art commissioners, “and we need more people under the tent.” There are a lot of different tastes in town, and different tolerances for how the city spends money – “so let’s get those ideas together, and expand the people in charge of this process.”

Julie Grand: With due respect to the councilmembers who worked on restructuring the Percent for Art program, Grand said, the public art commission had some really innovative ideas and she was profoundly disappointed when their funding and staff support was taken away. This process can’t happen in six months, she said. The commission was looking to incorporate best practices, and to go through a stronger community input process – which she supports whenever the city is dealing with complex issues. “We can’t expect that private donors are just going to fall out of the sky,” she said. It takes time to build those relationships. She’d be in favor of allowing the public art commission to do its work, and would like to be supportive of their recommendations.

Don Adams: Adams agreed with the other candidates, telling the creative sector that “you’ll always have a seat at my table.” He’s willing to work with the arts community to see how they can make things better. It won’t happy overnight, he said, but he’s willing to work on it.

Ypsilanti Mayor

Tyrone Bridges was the only Democratic mayoral candidate for the city of Ypsilanti who attended the July 23 forum. The other candidates are Amanda Edmonds and Peter Murdock. None of the candidates filled out the Arts Alliance survey. There are no Republicans in this race.

Ypsilanti Mayor: Opening Statement

Tyrone Bridges told the audience that he’s a 45-year-old single parent who’s been an artist for many years.

Tyrone Bridges is running for mayor of Ypsilanti. He brought a piece of artwork drawn by his son.

It started in the late 1970s when he was a breakdance artist. He joked that if there was more room, “I’d cut a little rug for you.” As an African American growing up in a home with abuse, he used art to escape. “Art was the closest thing that I had as a friend,” he said. Most people didn’t think he had artistic abilities, “but I can pretty much draw anything I can see.” God gives us artist ability and energy, he said.

As a single parent with a 15-year-old child, Bridges said he taught his son how to draw. His son was selected out of a group of 40 students to present his art to the public for an auction, he reported.

He’d brought the drawing to the July 23 forum, and showed it to the audience – a colorful Celtic knot. “My son took colors and made beauty.” This is what makes Washtenaw County powerful, he said – our colorful community, and our ability to share beauty. “We are some beautiful people created by God,” he said. He thanked God for giving him the ability to show his child how to be creative instead of being destructive.

As mayor of Ypsilanti, he’d work with the Arts Alliance on a countywide art competition for all students.

Ypsilanti Mayor Q&A: What’s your favorite piece of public art in Ypsilanti?

Bridges said he didn’t have a favorite piece of public art, but he always creates art in his spare time. God is always reaching down for you when you fall, just like parents picking up their children when they fall, he said. “Our communities should reach down and pick up our youth.” As mayor, Bridges said he would inspire more youth to be creative instead of destructive.

Ypsilanti Mayor Q&A: What would be your top public policy change as mayor, to support the creative sector?

Bridges said he didn’t know much about the policies in Ypsilanti, but as mayor, he’d have leverage to do some things. He’d love to bring all artists in the county together. In Ypsilanti, he’d like to do an art challenge for students. The city could do fundraisers and find matching grants, he said. Elected officials need to eliminate the word “can’t” from their vocabulary.

Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners

Five candidates for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners attended the July 23 forum: Felicia Brabec, Wilma Gold-Jones, Ruth Ann Jamnick, Andy LaBarre and Yousef Rabhi.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Felicia Brabec

Felicia Brabec, a Democrat from Pittsfield Township, is the incumbent representing District 4 on the county board. She is unchallenged in the primary, and faces Republican Stanley Watson on Nov. 4. [.pdf of Brabec survey response] Watson did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Democrat Felicia Brabec, a Democrat from Pittsfield Township, is the incumbent representing District 4 on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Brabec said she’s lucky that she grew up as an arts lover because of her parents. Her mom was an educator, and during many summers there was always one day a week when her family would go on excursions – to places like museums or concerts. Brabec and her husband try to encourage an appreciation of arts in their own children. She brought her son to the forum, and on the way over he asked what she planned to talk about. She reminded him of how they look for Sluggo and Philomena – characters by chalk artist David Zinn. “That’s part of our family culture,” she said.

At the county, there are some opportunities to support arts and culture. They can hang work by local artists and children in the county buildings, she said. The county also runs camps for kids, and being able to support arts education is a way to make a difference. It’s an important connection to make between arts and the community. Brabec also mentioned the revenue raised by levying a countywide Act 88 millage – a portion of that is used to invest in cultural preservation. She would continue to support that endeavor. The county also partners with local municipalities, she noted. District 4 includes Pittsfield Township, which recently installed its first public art piece at the township hall. She encouraged people to come out and see it.

Brabec concluded by reading a quote attributed to John F. Kennedy: “If arts is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.” Her hope is to support all local artists, to see where our community can go.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Wilma Gold-Jones

Wilma Gold-Jones is one of four Democrats running for District 5, which covers Augusta Township and part of Ypsilanti Township south of I-94.

Wilma Gold-Jones is one of four Democrats running for District 5, which covers Augusta Township and part of Ypsilanti Township south of I-94.

Other Democratic candidates are Ruth Ann Jamnick, Victor Dobrin and Keith Jason. The winner of the primary will face Republican Timothy King in November. The current commissioner from that district, Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr., is not seeking re-election. Gold-Jones did not complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Art is an educational tool, Gold-Jones said. Kids learn their creativity in school and are energized when they’re allowed to express themselves – through poetry, dance, music or other artistic ways. When she was a child, as an African American, she learned about her rich cultural heritage.

Learning about other cultures helps to dissipate fears and teaches people to appreciate each other. She said she’s not an artist, but she loves to dance.

Music is her way of expressing herself. She also likes to go to festivals and other arts and cultural events.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Ruth Ann Jamnick

Ruth Ann Jamnick is another Democrat running for the District 5 seat. [.pdf of Jamnick survey response]

Ruth Ann Jamnick is another Democrat running for the District 5 seat.

Jamnick began by saying she was born and raised in Ypsilanti, but graduated from St. Thomas school in Ann Arbor. In Ypsilanti Township, there’s a company called Sensitile that asked for a tax abatement to refurbish an old building. They do unique lighting for businesses and homes, she said. The township gave them a tax abatement, she reported.

So that’s one way that government can support businesses that are oriented “in a little bit of a different nuance than what most people think is art.”

Jamnick said she was probably the least “artist-type person” in the room. “My doodles are squares.” She’s been a volunteer for various organizations over the years, including the Heritage Festival and the Festival of Lights.

She would work with leaders in other communities to preserve historic buildings. In Augusta Township, for example, there are two hamlets that could be helped, she said. Funding is still tight, but she’s heartened that the state might be bringing back some deductions for the state income tax.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Andy LaBarre

Incumbent Democrat Andy LaBarre is running for a second two-year term to represent District 7 in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of LaBarre survey response] He’s unopposed in the primary, and faces Republican Joe Miriani in November. Miriani did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Incumbent Democrat Andy LaBarre is running for a second two-year term on the county board to represent District 7 in Ann Arbor.

LaBarre reported that on Monday night he was weeding his garden, and his mom came over to help. “As moms are wont to do, she was telling me a lot of things.” One of those things was a report that friends are coming to visit from London. His mom is meeting them in Chicago and on their way back to Ann Arbor, they’ll be stopping in Grand Rapids for an art festival. She told him that periodic interaction with the arts “recharges my soul.” And it does, he said. Brabec had done a good job in describing some of the ways that the county can support the arts, and he agrees with those. Sometimes people describe art as frivolous or not a basic function of government. “My pledge is that you’re not going to hear that from me.”

There are times when public money has to be spent on other things, but art itself is never a frivolous use of money or a waste of money. It connects you to who you are as a community, he said. To be honest, he added, the most he can do is to be open and receptive to ideas on how to expand the access to arts, and “how we can recharge souls.” That’s the job – don’t denigrate art, and try to promote it when they can, and be receptive to ways in which the arts affect people’s lives.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Yousef Rabhi

Yousef Rabhi is the incumbent Democrat in District 8, who current serves as chair of the county board of commissioners. The Ann Arbor resident is unopposed in the primary, and faces Republican Jeffrey Gallatin in November. Neither Rabhi nor Gallatin completed the Arts Alliance survey.

Ann Arbor resident Yousef Rabhi is the incumbent Democrat in District 8, who currently serves as chair of the county board of commissioners.

Rabhi said that for him, the definition of art is “the organic expression of the human spirit.” He feels that it’s essential to who we are as humans, and to who we are as a community. The founding of this country included the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he noted. “What is the pursuit of happiness if you don’t have art?” So as a fundamental value for government, for communities and for our very being, he said, the importance of art should go without saying. He agreed with the things that Brabec and LaBarre had highlighted, but he wanted to highlight a couple of things that deserve “a little bit more watering of the roots.”

The county invests in the Washtenaw Area Teens for Tomorrow and other youth alliances, he said, to facilitate artistic expression like music, painting and sculpture. Every year, there’s a showcase of youth art and it’s a phenomenal event, he said. Access to art is an important thing, and investment is needed. Art shouldn’t be just for the wealthy – it should be for everyone. That’s why the investments on the east side of the county are important, Rabhi said.

Everyone should be able to be an artist, if that’s their calling. Part of this is a public campaign, he added, to convince the public that art is important. People should be reminded that everyone is an artist, and the role of government should be to create a community canvas where everyone can paint their expression of the human spirit.

Washtenaw County Commissioners Q&A: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a countywide arts millage. Would you support it?

Yousef Rabhi: Rabhi joked that he always likes to talk about taxes. More revenue for art is a good thing. However, when thinking about a millage, it’s something the community has to support. A lot of effort and money would be spent on getting it passed, and that’s a challenge. “But if an arts millage is the way we want to go, then fine. I think that being strategic is important.” Rabhi said he’d advocate more strongly for finding new ways of funding local government in general, including art. “We’re being pinched at every corner.” It’s ridiculous that property taxes are the only way to fund local government in Michigan, and it’s limiting the ability to provide even basic services. Options might be a local sales tax, or a tax on special events – but those changes would need to happen at the state level, he noted. It’s important that state legislators understand that local government can’t continue by relying solely on millages.

Andy LaBarre: He wouldn’t support putting a countywide public art millage on the ballot in the next two to four years. He didn’t think it would pass, and it would be detrimental to efforts to pass possible millages for public safety or human services. But if it were on the ballot, “I’d vote for it,” he said. If the community wants to fund art locally, they need to look at what other tools exist or ask for new tools. He wished he would say that he absolutely supports a public arts millage, “but I think the ‘No’ crowd and the anti-government crowd is still strong.”

Ruth Ann Jamnick: She’d support a public arts millage, with the caveat that there should be a very clear distribution of funds. The county would need to tell people in each community how they’d get a share, and how it could be spent. Every community would want to know what’s going to come to their community, in terms of funding to enhance their quality of life. Ann Arbor is obviously the cultural center of Washtenaw County, she said, but outside of that, people would want to know what their community would get. So they’d need to be very careful about that.

Wilma Gold-Jones: She agreed with LaBarre about the need to convince the public that an arts millage would be for the greater good, when funding in general is very tight. Most creative energy comes through the schools, and through grants that leverage county funds. With that approach, it spills over into the community, she said. Gold-Jones agreed with Jamnick that each community would want to know what its share would be, and what it could fund. It’s important to look at this possibility and do their homework ahead of time, to make sure such a millage would provide the community with the best bang for their buck.

Felicia Brabec: Theoretically, she’d be in favor of an arts millage. However, she’d balance that with the reality of the county’s situation now. Other issues are on the table, including public safety and human services. It was helpful to hear some of the data in ArtServe’s Creative State report, Brabec said, but there are some other pressing needs. She’d try to balance those and ask constituents what they want. But in general, she agreed with Rabhi that more funding tools are needed.

Dexter Township Supervisor

Only one candidate from the townships attended the Arts Alliance forum – Democrat Michael Kundak-Cowall, who’s running for Dexter Township supervisor. [.pdf of Kundak-Cowall survey response] He is unchallenged in the primary, and in November will face the winner of the Republican primary – either Mark Wojno or Harley Rider. They did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Dexter Township Supervisor: Opening Statement

Michael Kundak-Cowall described Dexter Township “solidly rural,” located between Chelsea and Dexter but not including the village of Dexter.

Dexter Township supervisor candidate Michael Kundak-Cowall.

It has a population of about 6,000. The township budget currently has no money appropriated for the arts, he said. However, the township is home to a significant number of artists. Why? “First off, it’s just plain beautiful out there.” The township is at the edge of the Pinckney State Recreation Area, and there are several parks in the area. The infrastructure includes broadband access through Charter Communications, he noted. His neighbor is an oil painter, and the vocal music director for the Chelsea School District lives nearby.

To bring in more people, the township needs to improve its quality of life, Kundak-Cowall said. The township is on the edge of Detroit Edison’s energy grid, he said, so when power goes out, the township is usually among the last to get its power back. The vast majority of roads are unpaved, so whenever it rains there’s massive erosion and flooding, which sometimes makes the dirt roads impassable. A new substation is being built, which hopefully will improve the reliability of power, he said. The township is also doing what it can to help improve the roads, so you won’t have to renavigate the back roads when “part of the road is just kind of mysteriously washed away.”

So by spending less time taking care of your generator and less time trying to make sure the wheels of your car haven’t fallen off because of hitting a pothole, Kundak-Cowall said, you have more time to do what you want to do – whether it’s making art, or spending time with local artists.

Dexter Township Supervisor Q&A: As supervisor, are there concrete ways to support the local artists living in Dexter Township?

The township is currently running a budget surplus of about $200,000, Kundak-Cowall said. Some of that could be used for appropriations and grants, if the rest of the board agrees. That would be the most direct form. Right now the township hall is being renovated, and he’d appreciate art contributions for that. Most galleries in the area are in Dexter and Chelsea, outside of the township. The township appreciates all artists who contribute to the community, he said.

State Level Candidates

Three candidates at the state level attended the July 23 forum: Shari Pollesch, Gretchen Driskell and Jeff Irwin.

State Level Candidates: Opening Statement – Shari Pollesch

Democrat Shari Pollesch is running for a state Senate seat in District 22. The Livingston County resident is unchallenged in the August primary, and faces incumbent Republican Joe Hune on Nov. 4. Hune did not attend the July 23 forum.

Democrat Shari Pollesch is running for a state Senate seat in District 22.

The district covers Livingston County and western Washtenaw County, including the townships of Lyndon, Dexter, Webster, Northfield, Sylvan, Lima, Scio, Sharon, Freedom, Lodi, Manchester, Bridgewater, and Saline, as well as the villages of Dexter and Manchester, and the city of Chelsea. [.pdf of Pollesch survey responses] [.pdf of Hune survey responses]

Pollesch said she’s a strong believer in the arts in terms of education. Especially for at-risk kids, it’s one of the ways to keep them energized and interested in their education. She serves on the board of the Livingston County Concert Band, and they’ve talked about whether millages should be levied to help with the arts.

Any community that’s thriving is doing so in part because it has a thriving arts culture, she said. It’s the hallmark for quality of life. If elected, Pollesch said she’d support the arts and will continue to participate in the arts. “I’m much better at enjoying the arts than participation,” she joked, “but they let me play every week anyway.”

State Level Candidates: Opening Statement – Gretchen Driskell

Gretchen Driskell, a Saline resident, is the incumbent Democrat state Representative for District 52. She is unopposed in the Aug. 5 primary, and faces Republican John Hochstetler of Manchester in November.

Democrat Gretchen Driskell, state Representative for District 52, is seeking re-election.

Hochstetler did not attend the Arts Alliance forum or complete the candidate survey. District 52 covers the northern and western portions of Washtenaw County, including: the townships of Bridgewater, Dexter, Freedom, Lima, Lodi, Lyndon, Manchester, Northfield, Salem, Saline, Sharon, Sylvan and Webster; the cities of Chelsea and Saline; and portions of the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township and Scio Township. [.pdf of Driskell survey responses]

Driskell noted that she’s a freshman legislator and a former mayor of Saline. While serving as mayor, she started an arts & culture committee. She’s lived in this area for 26 years, and has served on various board and commissions that recognize the importance of arts and culture, including the economic importance. The creative sector attracts and retains people, she said. In the state legislature, she’s been working on two initiatives related to the arts. One is a bipartisan talent task force, and ArtServe had spoken to the group. It’s important to educate legislature about the importance of arts and culture. “There seems to be a huge disconnect,” she said, so that’s one thing she’s been working on.

The other effort Driskell cited is to increase investment in public education. Several school systems in District 52 are struggling, she noted, so more funding is needed. “Because as we all know, when education gets cut, they cut the things that they think are the soft things, which I strongly disagree with.”

State Level Candidates: Opening Statement – Jeff Irwin

Democrat Jeff Irwin is the incumbent state Representative for District 53, which covers the city of Ann Arbor. He is unopposed in the primary and will run against John Spisak in November. Neither Irwin or Spisak completed the Arts Alliance candidate survey.

District 53 state representative Jeff Irwin, an Ann Arbor Democrat, is seeking re-election.

Irwin focused on three priorities: money, marketing and education. He said that Driskell had done a good job identifying pressures on the education system. Ann Arbor has felt its fair share of those cuts, though the situation isn’t as bad here as elsewhere. The Lansing public schools cut all of their elementary school art teachers, he said, due to a lack of funding. The state needs to do a better job so that schools can focus on things like arts and culture that inspire kids to learn.

The second piece is marketing. The state spends a lot of money marketing economic development, Irwin said, but very little money marketing the economic development opportunities around the creative sector. If the Michigan Economic Development Corp. spent 10% of what they spent on marketing golf, and instead used that to market theaters and galleries, “I think our citizens would know a lot more about the excellent cultural offerings we have here in Michigan, and I think we’d get more bang for our buck.”

The final priority is money. At the end of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration and the depths of Michigan’s economic recession in 2008-2009, funding for the Michigan Council for the Arts was “beaten down to zero,” Irwin said. There’s been more support for the council in the past couple of state budgets, and if that trend continues, the funding will return to its former level and hopefully beyond, he said.

State Level Candidates Q&A: How would you make an argument for resources to support arts and culture, given that there are so many other pressing needs – from roads to education to social services?

Shari Pollesch: Arts and a thriving cultural community is the hallmark of our lifestyle, Pollesch said. “We can improve the roads – and god knows we need to improve the roads,” she added, “but people want more than roads.” We need to find a way to fund roads and education and the arts – it’s all one equation. “I would argue to find funding for all of it.” A millage might be one approach. She noted that other candidates – including Debbie Dingell and Jeff Irwin – touched on the fact that we don’t do a good job of promoting the arts as the reason why we’re living here, she said. “If we do a better job of selling these great amenities in our communities, people would be willing to fund it, if they know that the funding is being used responsibly.”

Gretchen Driskell: Part of attracting and retaining talent is quality of life, Driskell said, and that includes arts and culture at the top of the list. It’s important to educate state legislators about what quality of life means and how Michigan compares to other states, and why it’s an important investment at the state level. A recent report came out by Michigan Future Inc. that’s focused on prosperity, and compares Michigan to Minnesota. It specifically examines state policies, Driskell reported, and is very enlightening. The report looks at how investments are made for the public good – and arts and culture is a public good, she said. It’s an investment in quality of life, and helps attract and retain talent.

Jeff Irwin: When he advocates for these things in Lansing, he focuses mostly on what Driskell described – partially because that’s what Gov. Rick Snyder is saying and it’s an opportunity to work together and get something done. The argument for talent and economic development is a strong one. Irwin said he also makes arguments based on leveraging and proportionality. These types of investments bring a lot of bang for your buck. It’s something that people love and want to support in their community, so sometimes just a little public investment can be the foundation that private giving and volunteering can be built on. The argument of proportionality relates to spending in other areas, like education and roads. The state spends $15 billion each year on schools, and a little over $3 billion a year on roads – while the Michigan Council for the Arts struggles to reach $10 million in funding. Even if that funding were to increase by 50% or 100% to arts and cultural organizations, “it still would be pushing even a percent of what we’re putting into some of these bigger priorities.”

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s outgoing public art administrator.

One aspect of that transition is the departure of the part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. His current contract ends on June 30 – the final day of the current fiscal year. Seagraves has been working as the public art administrator on a contract basis since May of 2011.

In addition, one of the art commissioners – Ashlee Arder, who was appointed in March of 2013 – has resigned because of a move to Detroit. She did not attend the June 18 meeting.

Six of the nine commissioners who were present at the meeting approved a resolution about AAPAC’s near-term future. It states that the commission “will not initiate any new public arts projects, nor take any action to seek public or private funds for new projects, until it receives: direction on implementing a transition, a plan to support the Public Art Commission in the furtherance of public art, and guidelines for the funding and management of public art projects…” The resolution also states that AAPAC won’t meet until feedback is needed on the transition plan or for ongoing projects.

AAPAC chair Bob Miller, who introduced the resolution, described it as a way “to tie things up in a neat package for us, until the city has a clear direction for us to move forward.”

In other action, the commission authorized using $10,981 for a project called “PowerArt,” to be administered by the nonprofit Arts Alliance in response to a request by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA is contributing $20,000 to the first phase of the project, which involves wrapping eight traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The expenditure from the city is not from Percent for Art funds, but rather from money donated to the city for public art, and held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Discussion among commissioners focused on the fact that the Arts Alliance is proposing a roughly 40% project management fee for the first cycle – $9,100 on top of the $23,000 budget for the project expenses. The fee, as a percentage of the project’s later cycles, is expected to decrease in subsequent cycles. If the entire project is completed, an additional 34 boxes would be wrapped.

Commissioners also were updated on several ongoing projects that have been previously undertaken by AAPAC: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; (3) artwork for East Stadium bridges; and (4) Canoe Imagine Art.

Another effort that’s being developed by commissioner KT Tomey – maps for walking, cycling or running self-guided tours of public art – is also moving ahead, though it’s not an official city project. Commissioners intend to continue work on these projects to some degree, despite their decision to hold off on meetings and new initiatives.

Future of Art Commission

AAPAC chair Bob Miller added a resolution at the start of the June 18 meeting regarding the commission’s future. [.pdf of resolution] The item included these three resolved clauses:

RESOLVED, That the public art projects now in progress will be carried through to completion under the oversight of the Public Art Commission working in conjunction with the City of Ann Arbor staff and appointed personnel;

RESOLVED, That the Public Art Commission will not initiate any new public arts projects, nor take any action to seek public or private funds for new projects, until it receives: direction on implementing a transition, a plan to support the Public Art Commission in the furtherance of public art, and guidelines for the funding and management of public art projects; and,

RESOLVED, That the Public Art Commission will not meet until feedback on the transition plan is needed, unless there is required oversight on ongoing public art projects.

By way of background, the former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. A new approach to public art was established last year on June 3, 2013, when the council eliminated the Percent for Art mechanism from the city’s public art ordinance. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed with council approval as an integral part of a capital project. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair.

This approach was part of a set of recommendations made by a council committee more than a year ago. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations] The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who subsequently declared their candidacy for mayor in the 2014 Democratic primary: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). That committee work came in the wake of a failed public art millage that was on the ballot in November 2012 – which would have provided an alternative to the Percent for Art funding mechanism. The millage had been put forward by Taylor, over objections from leaders of the arts community, who wanted more time to prepare for a public vote.

More recently, on March 3, 2014 the city council took three actions: (1) directed the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for the next two years; (2) transferred $943,005 out of the public art fund; and (3) extended the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through June 30, 2014. The direction in (1) is reflected in the budget that was approved by the city council for FY 2015 – in the form of an $80,000 one-time expense for art administration.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program, has been tasked with delivering a public art transition plan to the council in October.

Uncertainty about the public art program has already affected AAPAC’s work. During the current fiscal year – from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 – AAPAC has canceled five of its monthly meetings: in July, November and December of 2013, and in February and May of 2014.

At AAPAC’s June 18 meeting, Miller noted that the issue of a transition is something he’d spoken to commissioners about in the past. He described the resolution as a way “to tie things up in a neat package for us, until the city has a clear direction for us to move forward.” The city staff is working on a transition plan, he said. And although AAPAC isn’t the entity that will be creating a new plan, he added, they can give advice.

Future of Art Commission: Discussion

KT Tomey asked about the final resolved clause: “That the Public Art commission will not meet until feedback on the transition plan is needed, unless there is required oversight on ongoing public art projects.” She wondered how that might play out in practice.

AAPAC member Connie Brown.

Bob Miller said the intent is to indicate that AAPAC would meet only when requested. The idea is that the city would come to AAPAC if any initiative needed input from the commission.

Connie Brown supported the resolution, but wanted to know what will happen to projects that commissioners are working on now. For example: Who will be publicizing projects like the East Stadium bridges artwork, or the sculptures at the Kingsley and First rain garden?

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said that project management staff have been assigned to these ongoing projects. The communications staff will also be a resource, he said. Specifically, Robert Keller of the communications staff will be helping to publicize these projects and handle the dedication events.

For the rain garden, Jerry Hancock will be handling project management. For East Stadium bridges, the point person is Mike Nearing, the engineer who oversaw the bridge reconstruction. Staff will be identified for other projects as they move forward, including the Coleman Jewett memorial and Canoe Imagine Art.

Miller said that AAPAC would be kept informed and could remain involved in these projects. Hupy told commissioners that he’d serve as the point person between the project management staff and AAPAC.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, who oversees the public art program.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested the possibility of meeting every-other month, as a way to keep commissioners informed.

Brown thought the intent of this resolution is to make clear that AAPAC is available for feedback, but that it’s not leading the administrative effort during this transition. Miller replied that until there’s a new plan in place for AAPAC’s work, “we’re not going to satisfy council, we’re not going to satisfy ourselves, and we’re not going to move forward in a progressive way.” It’s very difficult to keep moving forward on smaller projects in the current environment, he added. “We’re not going down a clear path right now – it’s muddy waters, and I would like to try to define our role.”

Brown said she understood the intent, but because commissioners will still be involved in ongoing projects, “we’re still in that no-man’s land.” Maybe that’s OK, she added, but unless they stopped working on everything, their role would still be a little “muddy.”

John Kotarski said he supported the intent of the resolution. He didn’t think it changed any of the projects that are underway. If a vote is needed on anything, they can reconvene.

Kotarski thought that commissioners who are working on projects should continue their efforts – like Chamberlin’s fundraising efforts for the Coleman Jewett memorial, or Tomey’s work on maps for walking or running routes that highlight public art in Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. Kotarski felt that the resolution clears the path, rather than muddies it.

Tomey noted that her mapping project is much simpler than the Coleman Jewett memorial. There’s no budget, and very little administrative demand, she said, so it would be more flexible to continue working on it compared to other projects that are underway.

Hupy observed that that Tomey’s mapping project isn’t officially a city project at this point – it hasn’t been funded or “officially sanctioned.” It was not on the list of projects that the city council had supported for FY 2015, he added. However, “we can make the mapping happen,” he said.

AAPAC member Devon Akmon.

Chamberlin clarified with Miller that this resolution in effect puts the commission’s business on hold, except for ongoing projects. Hupy added that he’ll be coming back to AAPAC for input as the city staff develops ideas for the future of the public art program.

Devon Akmon asked about the timeline for this transition. Hupy explained that the city council gave a directive to his boss, city administrator Steve Powers, to have staff develop a transition plan that would be delivered to council in October. It’s not that the transition will be complete, Hupy noted, but there will be a plan for moving forward with the city’s public art efforts. “I can’t tell you if [the transition] will be one year or two years, because we haven’t developed fully yet as to which direction we’re going and how we’ll get there,” Hupy said. “But there will be some change. That’s the only thing I can guarantee you – it will change.”

Responding to a query from Miller, Hupy said $80,000 is budgeted in fiscal 2015 for arts administration. Miller noted that the $80,000 will be allocated as Powers and Hupy see fit. Kotarski clarified with Hupy that part of the transition plan will discuss the role of AAPAC.

Hupy said he anticipates that AAPAC will have the opportunity to review the transition plan before it’s presented to city council. “It will not be a surprise,” Hupy said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution regarding future action by AAPAC.

Future of Art Commission: Other Transitions

The June 18 meeting was the last one for Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator. His current contract ends on June 30 – the final day of the current fiscal year. The FY 2015 budget includes $80,000 for public art administration, starting July 1, but Seagraves’ contract is not being renewed. Seagraves has been working on a contract basis since May of 2011.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program – indicated that it had not yet been determined how that $80,000 will be allocated.

After the June 18 meeting, Hupy and commissioners took Seagraves out to dinner at Grizzly Peak to say farewell.

In another transition for AAPAC, one of the commissioners – Ashlee Arder, who was appointed in March of 2013 – has resigned because of a move to Detroit. She did not attend the June 18 meeting. Another commissioner, Nick Zagar, hasn’t attended an AAPAC meeting since January – though during that time two meetings have been canceled (in February and May). Like Arder, Zagar was also appointed in March of 2013.

From the bylaws:

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.

The nine members of AAPAC are appointed to the city council and serve three-year terms, without compensation. There are no term limits. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

PowerArt

The June 18 agenda included a resolution to grant $10,981 to a project called “PowerArt,” to be administered by the nonprofit Arts Alliance in response to a request by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [.pdf of resolution] [.pdf of PowerArt proposal]

Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance.

These funds represent the entire amount of the balance in a special project fund managed by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, on behalf of the city. However, it’s significantly less than the $20,500 that was originally requested from the city when this project was presented to AAPAC on Sept. 25, 2013.

At that time, Deb Polich – the Arts Alliance’s executive director – described a proposal in which the city would partner with the Ann Arbor DDA to wrap about 40 traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The city of Boise, Idaho was a case study for this project.

The initial pilot phase was originally intended to focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. That cost included a 30% administrative fee paid to the Arts Alliance, which is based in Ann Arbor. Another $80,000 was anticipated for the final phases.

At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the DDA board voted to commit $20,500 to the project. Although AAPAC also agreed on Sept. 25 to participate in the PowerArt project, that decision was contingent on the city’s legal review of potential funding sources. The city’s public art program is undergoing a transition to its approach to funding, following the city council’s decision last year to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism. Ultimately, the city council did not authorize funding for this project.

So the budget and scope of the project was scaled back to $30,981 – $20,000 from the DDA, and a proposed $10,981 from the city’s account with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The funds in the account had been a donation made several years ago to the city for public art.

The total amount from the city and DDA will fund the wrapping of 8 traffic signal boxes.

Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance was on hand to answer questions at the June 18 AAPAC meeting.

PowerArt: Commission Discussion

Marsha Chamberlin said she thought the proposal was very thorough, and that the project was terrific. She asked how the project management fees were calculated. She confirmed with Buck that the Arts Alliance was proposing a roughly 40% project management cost for the first cycle – $9,100 on top of the $23,000 budget for the project expenses.

AAPAC member Marsha Chamberlin.

Buck said that the percentage cost would decrease in later cycles, because much of the legwork would be done initially. She also noted that the project management fee had initially been a lower percentage in the original proposal, because the overall budget had been higher. The project management fee wasn’t scaled back, she said, so the percentage is higher now.

Some of the other costs are fixed, Buck noted. Those include the artist license fee ($1,450 per box), the vinyl printing and installation ($950 per box), box preparation ($50 per box), the “unveiling celebration” ($500 per cycle) and map printing ($1,000 per cycle).

Chamberlin asked about the “jury hosting” line item, which is listed twice, at $300 each. Buck explained that there will be two juries – a jury panel, and a community jury. The panel will be a group of seven individuals who’ll select artwork for six of the boxes. Artwork for the remaining two boxes will be selected by a public vote (the community jury).

After the first pilot cycle of 8 boxes, additional cycles could cover another 34 boxes. If the additional 34 boxes are completed in these later cycles, the estimated cost for those would be $91,000-$94,000 with an additional management fee of between $16,200-$24,300.

Chamberlin said a 40% management fee is “very high.” Bob Miller noted that this was an issue AAPAC had addressed with the original proposal. Part of the issue is that some of the work for the project manager is the same, no matter how many boxes are completed, he said.

John Kotarski said he appreciated that Chamberlin was “drilling into these numbers.” He thought it was a great project, and it’s admirable that the Arts Alliance stepped up and is willing to do it. It’s something new that’s never been done before in Ann Arbor, he said.

Kotarski thought the costs were reasonable, “and frankly no one else has been willing to take on the administration of this.” He was sure that the DDA board and the Arts Alliance board have “challenged these kinds of numbers” and found them to be reasonable. [At the Oct. 2, 2013 DDA board meeting when this project was approved, there was no board discussion of the management fee. Deb Polich, executive director for the Arts Alliance, is married to Russ Collins, a member of the DDA board. Collins did not attend that Oct. 2 DDA board meeting.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously supported funding the PowerArt project with $10,981 in funds held by the AAACF.

Public Art Maps

At AAPAC’s April 23, 2014 meeting, KT Tomey had brought forward a proposal to develop maps for walking, cycling or running self-guided tours of public art.

AAPAC member KT Tomey.

The idea is to develop routes that would be posted online or printed out and distributed through organizations like the Ann Arbor Visitors and Convention Bureau. A later phase might include developing a mobile app and eventually include clips with artists explaining their work.

As a first step, she’s developed three routes – two downtown and one on the University of Michigan’s north campus – and she’s tested them out with some running groups.

Tomey reported that the wife of AAPAC chair Bob Miller – Debbie Miller, a graphic designer – has volunteered to develop a visual presentation for the maps. When that’s finished, Tomey would bring the maps to AAPAC for feedback.

Tomey said she’s met with city staff members to discuss this project and how it might use the city’s GIS system. She’s also met with Deb Polich and Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance, trying to understand how their existing map resources might be helpful. Both the city staff and Arts Alliance have agreed to incorporate these guided-tour maps into existing mapping resources, Tomey said.

Fellow commissioner John Kotarski had connected Tomey with Anna Ercoli Schnitzer, a disability issues and outreach librarian at the Taubman Health Sciences Library. In turn, Schnitzer connected Tomey to a professor at UM’s School of Information, who might take on the mobile app portion of this effort as a student project in the fall, Tomey said.

Tomey reported that she’s been compiling a database of public and private art in the city and on the UM campus, using internet resources. She hopes to use it as these various materials are developed. [.pdf of updated public/private art database]

Other commissioners recommended existing resources that might help. Miller noted that the university has a database of its public art. Marsha Chamberlin reported that several years ago, an intern for the city put together a list of artwork that the city owns. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, added that the database is part of the city’s GIS system.

Chamberlin also offered to loan Tomey a book by Martha Keller: “Public art in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.”

Connie Brown noted that the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects has developed videos that describe some of the architecture and public art around Ann Arbor. Brown also mentioned a “sound garden” tour of Nichols Arboretum that was developed by the UM Mott Children’s Hospital, narrated by children.

Tomey indicated that she had already included some of these resources in the database she’s compiled. She noted that she’d also discussed with Schnitzer how to make these tours as accessible as possible to people with disabilities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on several projects that have been previously undertaken by AAPAC: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; and (3) artwork for East Stadium bridges. Written updates were provided for Canoe Imagine art and a possible project at Arbor Oaks Park.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

AAPAC chair Bob Miller reported that he and vice chair John Kotarski had attended the city council’s June 16 meeting, when Kotarski gave a presentation about the proposed artwork at East Stadium bridges. [Kotarski's roughly 10-minute presentation came at 11 p.m. during a six-hour meeting that lasted until 1 a.m.]

Miller said there were just a few questions from councilmembers, but the council “didn’t really bat an eye” and approved the final funding.

By way of background, a selection panel, and then AAPAC itself, had recommended choosing a proposal from Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery for artwork at East Stadium bridges. At its June 16 meeting, the council was being asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. On June 16, councilmembers were asked to amend the contract, adding art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services.

The design for the bridge features stand-alone, louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels are lit, so that the etchings stand out at night.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

Fabrication will begin later this year, but installation will likely occur in the spring of 2015.

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

The foundations for sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First were installed in early June. The rain garden itself is already in place, with the sculptures to be installed in late July.

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget] The Denver artist has been working with landscapers to incorporate public art into the new rain garden, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

Wiener’s sculptures show the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. “Pretty soon, there’s going to be a lot of big fish on the site,” Connie Brown told commissioners. She’s spearheading communications about this installation, including an event tied to the completed project, with the artist attending.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 in city funds to the project, which has a total project budget of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.

Logo for the Coleman Jewett memorial.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that as of June 18, the project had raised $26,972 in contributions, including the $5,000 that has been committed by the city. Estimates from three foundries came in at about $25,000, so there’s enough money at this point for the project to move ahead, she said. To raise additional funds, a party was being planned later this month at Bill’s Beer Garden for alums from Tappan Middle School, where Jewett was assistant principal.

Chamberlin and Bob Miller also attended the Juneteenth event at Wheeler Park on June 14, and talked to people there about the project. Solicitations for the project will also be made outside of Kerrytown Market & Shops, next to the farmers market. And Chamberlin is planning to do a spot on Community Television Network to promote the memorial.

The city issued an RFP (request for proposals) on June 11 to select the artist or art foundry that will cast the memorial. Bids are due on Aug. 7. [.pdf of RFP]

Chamberlin said the goal is to raise about $40,000 to cover the cost of the fabrication and installation. There’s been one major gift of $10,000, but most of the contributions have been in the $100 range. “This is not like the money’s just rolling in, in big numbers,” she said. “But we’re diligently working away at it.”

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Canoe Imagine Art, a community art project, is intended as a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation of an estimated 25-30 canoes was expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.

AAPAC originally approved $10,000 in funding for the project, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. It was to be used as a portion of matching funds for the state grant, with the remaining $11,000 in matching funds to be raised through donations. However, the city council voted to allocate the entire $21,000 in city funds to match the state grant. That action came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

A written report – part of the June 18 meeting packet – gave an update. The city has asked the Arts Alliance to administer this project. The Arts Alliance plans to seek an extension of the MCACA grant, to redefine the scope of the project.

The project was not discussed by commissioners on June 18.

Project Updates: Arbor Oaks Park

This project is being undertaken in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of artwork. The scope of the work will depend on the availability of funds.

The city applied for a grant from the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation, but it was not awarded to the project. Another grant application was submitted by the Community Action Network to the NEA Challenge America Fast-Track program, but those grants won’t be announced until December. No city public art funds have been allocated.

AAPAC member Nick Zagar is working with the project’s task force, but he has not attended an AAPAC meeting since January.

Donation of Public Art

At AAPAC’s April 23, 2014 meeting, John Kotarski had proposed that the city accept three pieces of donated art from Jim Pallas, an established Michigan artist and friend of Kotarski’s.

AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski.

The pieces were proposed to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center, in the atrium of city hall, and outside of city hall. Other commissioners had seemed supportive of the idea, but some expressed concern that the proposal wasn’t following AAPAC’s guidelines for accepting gifts of art, which include setting up a review committee.

Kotarski had reported that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has offered a $500 honorarium to Pallas for each donated piece. Kotarski said the three pieces have a total estimated value of $100,000. He also mentioned that Pallas’ daughter, a law professor, knows city attorney Stephen Postema and that they had “made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.”

After discussing it at length on April 23, commissioners had agreed that AAPAC chair Bob Miller would work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to set up a gift selection committee to review this proposal and make a recommendation to AAPAC. Commissioners did not officially vote on the item, however.

The May meeting for AAPAC was subsequently canceled. There was no mention of the donation at the June 18 meeting.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – indicated that no further action would be taken regarding the proposal.

Public Commentary

The only speaker during both opportunities for public commentary was Changming Fan, who in recent months has been attending meetings of many city boards and commissions. He spoke about his company, TiniLite World Inc., which is based in Ann Arbor. The firm is the innovator, producer and supplier of new technology called TiniLite, he said. It’s a lighting display using LED lights, cell phones, and wireless Internet. He called it the light of art, and the art of light, and hoped that the city would use the technology for the public’s benefit. He encouraged the city to pursue the strategy of funding public art through public, private and crowdfunding sources.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Kristin “KT” Tomey. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator and Craig Hupy, public services area administrator.

Absent: Jim Simpson, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: No additional meetings are scheduled at this time.

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.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Marsha Chamberlin and Devon Akmon. Akmon is AAPAC’s newest member, and was attending his first commission meeting on Sept. 25. Chamberlin is the longest-serving commissioner. (Photos by the writer.)

The project would involve wrapping about 40 traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The initial pilot phase would focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. That cost includes a 30% administrative fee paid to the Arts Alliance, which is based in Ann Arbor. Another $80,000 would be needed for the final phases.

Deb Polich, executive director for the Arts Alliance, told commissioners that the DDA board is expected to vote on the project at its Oct. 2 meeting.

Commissioners were supportive of the project, but concerned about how to approach the funding, given constraints tied to the remaining Percent for Art funds. “I want to make sure we don’t step in something that we then get slapped for,” Marsha Chamberlin said.

Ultimately, commissioners unanimously voted to approve participating in the PowerArt project, contingent on the city’s legal review of potential funding sources.

AAPAC also authorized allocations for other projects that have been discussed for several months. They approved $10,000 for a community project called Canoe Imagine Art, and $5,000 for a Coleman Jewett memorial at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Both of these projects will rely on grants and private fundraising for the majority of their budgets.

Action on three other projects was tabled, as commissioners wanted more detailed proposals before allocating funds. Those projects were: (1) artwork for a roundabout at State & Ellsworth; (2) a community art project at Arbor Oaks Park, adjacent to Bryant Elementary School; and (3) a proposal for enhancing the fence along the south side of Scio Church Road, between Maple and Delaware.

These projects prompted some discussion about broader issues, included the process that AAPAC uses to vet proposals. Ashlee Arder, one of the newer commissioners, advocated for continuing to develop a more structured approach. “I do think we need to have a larger conversation or retreat about who we are and what we’re trying to do here,” she said.

The commission has been grappling with a transition to a new funding model for public art, after the city council voted to eliminate the previous Percent for Art mechanism this summer. That model set aside 1% of the budget for each of the city’s capital projects for public art – up to a cap of $250,000. Because that money was taken from restricted funds – such as millage funds for parks or street improvements –  a thematic link must exist between the funding source and the public art expenditure. About $840,000 in Percent for Art funds remain available for projects, but there will be no additional Percent for Art funding.

Instead, the city has adopted an approach in which city staff will work with AAPAC to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project. There is also an increased focus on private fundraising and partnerships.

On Sept. 25, commissioners also received several updates from Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. He reported that a reception is planned for Thursday, Oct. 10 at 6 p.m. to dedicate the hanging sculpture Radius, located in the Justice Center lobby next to city hall. Oregon artist Ed Carpenter is expected to attend.

And two finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades – Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland and Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass. – will be coming to town on Oct. 17 to present their conceptual designs to the public. A task force will make a recommendation to AAPAC on which of the artists to select for the project.

The Sept. 25 meeting was the first one for AAPAC’s newest member, Devon Akmon. Appointed by the Ann Arbor city council on Sept. 3, 2013, Akmon is director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn.

“PowerArt” Project

John Kotarski introduced a proposal by the Arts Alliance called “PowerArt.” [.pdf of PowerArt proposal] The city could be partnering with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on this, he said. He introduced Deb Polich, executive director of the Arts Alliance, to provide more details.

Polich started by saying the Arts Alliance can’t take credit for this project, because it was proposed by the DDA, working with AAPAC chair Bob Miller. The DDA had asked the Arts Alliance to develop a proposal, she said.

The proposal calls for wrapping about 40 traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork.

Deb Polich, executive director of the Arts Alliance, made a presentation to AAPAC about the proposed PowerArt project.

The city of Boise, Idaho was a case study for this project, Polich said. That city rolled out the project in phases, she noted, which heightened interest. Boise’s project also resulted in less graffiti on the signal boxes as well as in the surrounding area, she said.

The intent would be for the artists to retain the copyright to their work, she explained, and a licensing agreement would be negotiated to allow the Arts Alliance to use the work. It wouldn’t necessarily require an artist to create a new work, she noted – the image could be taken from an existing piece.

It’s also important to compensate the artists thoroughly, Polich said, so the payment proposed for the artist – $1,400 per box – is about twice the amount that the vendor would charge to make the vinyl replica and install it.

The proposal calls for three cycles, beginning with a pilot project. After review and evaluation, the project would move into the next two cycles over a three-year period. Beyond that, it’s possible that the project could be rolled out into other parts of the city, not just downtown.

Polich told commissioners that she’d made a presentation to the DDA’s operations committee earlier in the day, and that that committee plans to bring the proposal to the full board for a vote at its Oct. 2 meeting. [Polich's husband, Russ Collins, is a member of the DDA board.]

Depending on when the project is approved, the proposal lays out a six-month timeline for the pilot project. The pilot would be for 14 boxes in locations with high pedestrian traffic.

Regarding the budget, Polich noted that it includes $50 per box for maintenance, although she expects maintenance costs will be low, based on Boise’s experience. The licensing fee to artists would be $1,400 per box, with another $650 per box for printing and installation. The other major expense would be a 30% administrative fee for the Arts Alliance, which totals $9,100 for the pilot phase. Work would include negotiating licensing deals, marketing and other tasks. For later cycles, the administrative fee would be slightly lower, at 25% of the total cost.

The work would be selected by a jury, Polich said, which would include volunteers as well as people that she described as “fence sitters on the public art scene.” Engaging them in this kind of process might give them a different perspective on public art, she said. There would also be a crowd selection component for four of the boxes in the pilot phase, with artwork selected by an online vote of the public.

Polich noted that Ward 2 is the only one of the city’s five wards that isn’t part of the DDA district, but all other wards would be part of this project.

“PowerArt” Project: Commission Discussion

Bob Miller clarified that it’s not a city project, so AAPAC would just be deciding whether to provide financial support. Connie Brown wondered who would own the artwork, saying she’d like that to be clarified as the project moves forward.

Bob Miller, AAPAC chair.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that the commission has previously discussed whether to endorse projects, noting that the issue arose when AAPAC was approached about endorsing a “whirlydoodle” project. The commission had decided not to make endorsements. On one level, Chamberlin said, AAPAC could be viewed as endorsing this PowerArt project. “We just need to know that this is something to address,” she said.

Chamberlin said she loved this project. But given the constraints that the city attorney’s office has put on AAPAC, “are we OK with putting city money into this?” she asked. For example, she said, the city attorney’s office has told AAPAC that it can’t limit the artist solicitations to local residents – the call for proposals must be open to artists nationally. Polich indicated that the Arts Alliance would be willing to accommodate that, if necessary, although the original proposal called for seeking Washtenaw County artists.

Kotarski said that in his view, AAPAC is selecting a sole source vendor – the Arts Alliance. The alliance would be picking the artists, not the city, he said. So he didn’t think the same constraints that Chamberlin described would apply.

Miller joked that “the nuts and bolts all kind of fell out of the engine, as Aaron [Seagraves] and I started talking about this.” City funding for this project doesn’t work, Miller continued, because the Arts Alliance didn’t win this project on a competitive bid, as the city requires. No request for proposals was issued. So the city can fund specific parts of the project, he said, such as the vendor who actually wraps the signal boxes, because that vendor would be selected through a competitive bidding process.

But the other part of the project can’t be funded through remaining Percent for Art funds, he noted. Instead, he suggested using unencumbered funds being held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Kotarski referenced a discussion that he and Miller had earlier in the day with Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator. Hupy had indicated that it would be possible to fund the project with remaining Percent for Art street funds, Kotarski said, but Hupy had planned to check with the city attorney’s office about it.

Corrected after initial publication: Not an example of a vinyl-wrapped traffic box with artwork by David Spear. This image was included in the Arts Alliance proposal for the PowerArt project. This image was actually hand-painted by Spear.

Connie Brown clarified that the DDA is also a unit of the city. In that case, she said, she didn’t see why there are complications with the city funding the project, via AAPAC, while the DDA didn’t appear to have that same issue. Kotarski reiterated that Hupy didn’t think it should be a problem for the city to participate, but that Hupy wanted to doublecheck with the city attorney.

Brown didn’t think AAPAC should be put in a position to determine whether the funds could be used legally. She suggested that AAPAC could simply vote on the project, then let the city staff determine the appropriate funding sources.

Chamberlin said it’s a cool project, and AAPAC gains from having partners like the Arts Alliance and DDA. But given the delay of the Canoe Imagine Art and Coleman Jewett memorial projects – because of the time it takes for the city attorney’s office to review these projects – “I want to make sure we don’t step in something that we then get slapped for,” she said. She’d rather take the time to make sure it’s cleared with the city attorney’s staff, or to hear directly from Hupy that it’s fine to move ahead on this project.

Miller said he’d be comfortable with that approach.

Kotarski asked Polich if it would be a problem to table the proposal for a month until AAPAC’s Oct. meeting, in order to sort out the funding issue. That would be fine, Polich replied. “We’re ready to move whenever we need to move, but it’s not going to hurt us one way or another.”

Miller asked Seagraves to clarify with Hupy whether the project can be funded with remaining Percent for Art street funds.

Malverne Winborne made a motion to approve the PowerArt pilot project in partnership with the Ann Arbor DDA and the Arts Alliance, contingent on legal review regarding potential funding sources. Kotarski supported that approach, saying it would show the DDA that AAPAC is serious about the project.

Polich said the Arts Alliance has looked into this very thoroughly, but she recognizes that it’s still a proposal and there are a lot of moving parts. The alliance is willing to work with AAPAC and the DDA to make sure it all works smoothly, she said.

Kotarski hoped that the project could be limited to local artists, if at all possible.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the PowerArt project, contingent on legal review of potential funding sources. The pilot project would entail a $20,500 contribution from both the city and the DDA.

Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin gave an update on a community project called Canoe Imagine Art. At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to participate in the project, but did not commit to providing any funding at that time. On Sept. 25, Chamberlin brought forward a proposal for AAPAC to contribute $10,000. [.pdf of project intake form]

Canoe Imagine Art logo.

The project will use 30 old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which 10 artists and 20 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.

Chamberlin noted that AAPAC had “money in the bank” to fund this kind of project, and approving it would demonstrate the commission’s ability to mobilize and get things done, “because that’s certainly a criticism we’ve been subjected to,” she said. More importantly, Chamberlin added, this represents a large-scale, temporary type of project that many councilmembers have talked about wanting to see. The total budget will be about $100,000, including a lot of in-kind contributions. But organizers of the project also plan to apply for grant funding, she said, and it’s compelling to show that the project already has support from the community.

Connie Brown supported the project, describing it as a fun effort that involves partnerships with other community groups.

John Kotarski said he liked the project, but he wanted to see it presented as a more formal proposal, akin to the packet that had been prepared by the Arts Alliance for the PowerArt project. Chamberlin replied that she had previously provided a written proposal several months ago. [.pdf of canoe project memo presented in March 2013] She said she’d be happy to prepare an updated document, but organizers were applying for a grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs that needed to be completed by Sept. 30.

Kotarski indicated that he understood the deadline, but hoped that Chamberlin could follow up with a proposal to AAPAC that used the Arts Alliance proposal as a model.

Brown noted that Kotarski was likely to make similar comments for all of the projects on the agenda. One-page intake forms had been prepared for each of the projects, but not more elaborate proposals. She wondered whether someone on the city staff – possibly public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – could assemble the kind of proposals that Kotarski wanted.

Chamberlin pointed out that several people on the commission were involved in the Canoe Imagine Art project, as were city staff, and she had thought that the previous material provided to AAPAC was sufficient. But she told Kotarski that she would help prepare a more detailed document, if that was what the commission wanted.

Seagraves noted that commissioners needed to discuss the source of funds for this $10,000. It could come from remaining Percent for Art pooled funds for parks, since some of the canoe art would be located in city parks. However, there is also about $10,000 in an account held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, he said. It had been given by a private donor and intended for a project in 2001 that was never competed. In 2005, the money was made available for any public art project in downtown Ann Arbor, but it hasn’t yet been used.

If AAPAC decided to use these funds for the Canoe Imagine Art project, it would free up remaining Percent for Art parks funds for other projects, Seagraves said. The majority of the canoe art would be located along downtown streets, so Seagraves recommended using the community foundation funds.

Bob Miller indicated that other projects – like the PowerArt proposal – might make use of the foundation funds. He suggested voting to agree to spend $10,000 on this project, but not to identify a specific funding source at this time.

Seagraves said the commission could vote on a funding source at its October meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to spend $10,000 on the Canoe Imagine Art project, with the specific source of funding to be determined later.

Coleman Jewett Memorial

Marsha Chamberlin also gave an update on the memorial for Coleman Jewett. [.pdf of Jewett memorial intake form]

At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to accept developing the memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project. 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 foundation 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.

From left: Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves and John Kotarski, a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

A memorandum of understanding has been negotiated between the Jewett family, the city, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as a fiduciary for fundraising. The plan now calls for two full-sized replicas in bronze, at an estimated cost of $15,000 each. Materials for fundraising have been developed, and about 300 personalized letters to potential donors will be sent out soon, Chamberlin said.

The donor who has indicated an intent to contribute $5,000 to the project had asked for a detailed proposal, Chamberlin said, adding that she had provided the proposal several weeks ago but hadn’t heard back from him. She recently learned that he’s out of the country, so the city still doesn’t have a formal commitment on those funds.

The total budget is estimated to be $30,000 to $35,000. Chamberlin proposed allocating $5,000 of AAPAC funds to help kick off the additional fundraising.

As he did during the Canoe Imagine Art discussion, John Kotarski said he’d like a more elaborate proposal for this and all projects that come to AAPAC for approval. He thought that the fundraising materials that Chamberlin had developed might serve that purpose.

Chamberlin pointed out that this project was approved about six months ago and has been discussed at virtually every meeting since then. “I just assumed people were up to speed on it,” she said.

Kotarski said his intent isn’t to get AAPAC up to speed. Rather, this kind of documentation will show the public that AAPAC was thorough in its work, before making decisions. He said he was critical of all the intake forms, and he’d emailed Aaron Seagraves with his comments. “I think our approach now is shoot, ready aim,” Kotarski said. “We are making decisions before we really, fully have a fleshed out concept and idea.” He’d like to change their approach, and said the Arts Alliance proposal provides a good model.

Chamberlin replied that the commission had developed the process of using project intake forms, so it should be a commission decision if they want to change that approach. These projects have been documented and presented to the commission at previous meetings, she noted.

Connie Brown felt that Kotarski was raising a broader issue, and she agreed that going forward, each project should have a more detailed packet of material. Bob Miller asked Seagraves to provide that type of packet in the future.

Chamberlin noted that this would dramatically change the process that AAPAC has developed. That process entails initial approval by AAPAC to move ahead on a project, followed by the formation of a task force to flesh out a more detailed proposal, on which AAPAC then votes.

After further discussion, commissioners reached consensus for Seagraves to compile more detailed proposals for AAPAC projects.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to allocate $5,000 from the remaining Percent for Art parks funds to the Coleman Jewett memorial.

Artwork in Arbor Oaks

At AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting, commissioners approved setting up an exploratory task force for possible artwork in the Arbor Oaks Park, located in the Bryant neighborhood on the city’s southeast side. [.pdf of Arbor Oaks intake form] Task force members include public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Nick Zagar; Derek Miller, deputy director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN); and CAN board member David Jones, as well as local residents.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Malverne Winborne.

Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves reported that the task force met on Sept. 5, although neither of the public art commissioners could attend. The task force reviewed some examples of projects in other communities, he said, and talked about the kind of artwork they’d like to see in the park, which is adjacent to Bryant Elementary School. The project is envisioned as more of a community arts project, Seagraves said, similar to the mosaic mural that was completed at Allmendinger Park last year. It would involve an artist working with community members to design and create the artwork.

The request is to allocate $5,000 to the project from remaining Percent for Art parks funds. The idea is to raise private funds in addition to the city’s funding.

Connie Brown raised a broader issue, asking how AAPAC should decide whether to fund only a portion of a project, or to provide all the funding. She noted that AAPAC had funded the entire project at Allmendinger, and her inclination for the Arbor Oaks project is to fund more than just a small portion of it.

Marsha Chamberlin characterized it as a larger planning question. She noted that this project is very different from Canoe Imagine Art, where corporations will be approached for fundraising. It might be more appropriate for the city to fully fund projects like the one in Arbor Oaks, she said, and for AAPAC to develop criteria for that – like neighborhood participation.

John Kotarski wondered what would happen if no money were raised, and only $5,000 had been allocated to the Arbor Oaks project. “Are we setting it up for failure?” he asked. He said he’d be more comfortable having more description of the project, and a better sense of the budget. He pointed out that the Allmendinger Park mural was totally funded by the city, at $12,000.

Brown noted that the previous projects AAPAC had voted on during the meeting – Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial – were very well developed. She said she’s in favor of the Arbor Oaks project, but wants to make sure it’s funded appropriately.

Chamberlin pointed out that AAPAC has already accepted this as a project.

Bob Miller said there’s value in crowdsourcing, to engage the community. It’s worth investigating how that might happen. He asked Seagraves to develop a more detailed proposal, before AAPAC allocated any funding.

Chamberlin moved to table action on the funding allocation.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to table the funding proposal.

Scio Church Street Fence

Aaron Seagraves presented a proposal for enhancing the fence along the south side of Scio Church Road, between Maple and Delaware, including the I-94 overpass. [.pdf of fence intake form] The city is planning for installation of sidewalks along that stretch and will also be installing a fence there as part of that project.

The city staff was planning to install a standard kind of chain link fence, but Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – thought there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wanted to explore that possibility. The construction work would likely occur next summer. The budget for the fence enhancement was recommended to be between $40,000 and $80,000 from the remaining Percent for Art street funds.

Public art commissioner Ashlee Arder.

When Bob Miller asked for a more detailed proposal, Malverne Winborne pointed out that these projects begin with the initial step of an intake form, which gives a very brief overview of the concept. Devon Akmon observed that it seems like a two-step process, with this initial step simply confirming whether AAPAC wants to move forward with a project.

Commissioners again discussed whether they needed more information at this point in the process, and how to vet projects before investing significant time in developing a fuller proposal. Aaron Seagraves offered to put together a more detailed proposal for AAPAC’s October meeting.

John Kotarski explained to Akmon, AAPAC’s newest member, that the funds for this project would come from the remaining Percent for Art funds, which won’t be replenished after they’re spent. In the future, the funding will come from partnerships, fundraising and any money that the city council allocates to “enhance” capital projects. He noted that the remaining Percent for Art funds must be spent on projects that are tied thematically or physically to the funds of origin. “It’s an entanglement that the council felt was too much, and [the Percent for Art approach was] dissolved,” he said. “We’re trying to reinvent a ship that’s left port, and it’s challenging.”

Ashlee Arder supported a more organized proposal process. That will help everyone conceptualize the projects, she said, and will force the person who’s bringing forward the project to think about everything that’s involved in it, in terms of time and resources. Everyone has ideas, but do they have the capacity to implement them? “I do think we need to have a larger conversation or retreat about who we are and what we’re trying to do here,” she said.

Akmon suggested defining the parameters of the types of information AAPAC needs, in order to make decisions about which projects to move forward. Miller said it sounds like the idea is to make a template for making a proposal, so everyone knows what’s expected. He asked Seagraves to develop such a template.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to table the Scio Church fence project.

Roundabout at State & Ellsworth

Artwork for the new roundabout at South State and Ellsworth had been initially approved in concept by AAPAC, but without a budget attached to it. Aaron Seagraves reported that the roundabout will be finished soon.

Bob Miller noted that action had been suspended on this project because AAPAC had wanted to tie it into the city’s South State Street corridor plan. He wasn’t sure about the status of that plan, and said that if it’s not moving forward, then AAPAC should go ahead and take action on artwork for the roundabout. [By way of background, both the planning commission and city council have approved the South State Street corridor plan to be added to the city's master plan. The council took that action on June 15, 2013.]

Seagraves reported that although the plan has been approved, many of the recommendations won’t be implemented for several years.

John Kotarski suggested tabling it until AAPAC can get more information. He asked Seagraves to provide a report with some options about how to proceed.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to table action on possible artwork for the State & Ellsworth roundabout.

Forest Avenue Plaza

An item on the Sept. 25 agenda requested that AAPAC reallocate the previously approved budget for public art at the city’s Forest Avenue Plaza, putting the funds back into pooled Percent for Art parks funds. The action would also remove its status as an AAPAC project.

AAPAC had previously accepted this as a project at its Aug. 22, 2012 meeting, allocating between $10,000 to $35,000. The intent had been to work with the city’s parks staff and the Ann Arbor DDA to improve the plaza, which is located next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University.

Bob Miller said there had been buy-in on this project and several meetings were held over the past year, but when Percent for Art funding was suspended, the parks staff moved ahead with renovations there without incorporating public art.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to remove the project and return the allocation to the pooled Percent for Art parks fund.

Project Updates

Several other projects were discussed briefly during the Sept. 25 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.

Here are some highlights.

Project Updates: Annual Planning

The city is beginning its update of the capital improvements plan (CIP). Deb Gosselin, who manages the CIP process, will attend AAPAC’s Oct. 23 meeting to talk about how the process works. Gosselin had previously attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27, 2013 session, when she gave an overview of the CIP process.

Seagraves noted that under the city’s new approach to funding public art, the CIP process will directly affect the planning for public art. Projects in the CIP are eligible for public art “enhancements,” if approved by the city council.

The CIP will also start the process for developing AAPAC’s annual plan for the next fiscal year, which is due Feb. 1, 2014.

Project Updates: Radius Reception

A reception is planned for Thursday, Oct. 10 at 6 p.m. to dedicate the hanging sculpture Radius, located in the Justice Center lobby next to city hall. Oregon artist Ed Carpenter is expected to attend.

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

Two finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades are Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland and Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass. They will be coming to town on Oct. 17 to present their conceptual designs from noon to 2 p.m. at city hall. The presentations will be recorded by Community Television Network, and will include feedback from the task force.

Task force members are John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Saam, Margaret Parker, Cathy Fleisher, Bonnie Greenspoon, Julie Grand, and Colin Smith. The project has a budget of $150,000.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

In early August, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's proposal]

Seagraves reported that the selection panel provided feedback to Widgery, who subsequently revised her proposal. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. A conference call with the artist was held on Sept. 6 with panel members to discuss the proposal. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The new design incorporates glass paneled louvers with tree images in three locations on and under the bridge, to connect the locations thematically.

John Kotarski reported that he and Bob Miller will be taking this latest design to some of the city’s boards and commissioners for feedback, before the task force makes a recommendation to AAPAC. They had done similar outreach before Widgery was selected as the artist for this project. The intent is to create community buy-in before a project is finalized. It would need final approval by the city council.

Project Updates: First & Kingsley Rain Garden

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden, to be located at the southeast corner of First & Kingsley. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget] On Sept. 25, Seagraves reported that Wiener continues to finalize designs, for installation in the spring.

The Denver artist is working with landscapers to incorporate public art into a new rain garden at that location, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

Wiener visited Ann Arbor on July 15 to present his design to the public. His proposal is for sculptures showing the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. The largest sculpture will be just under 8 feet tall, 20 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. Two of the fish will be large enough to serve as benches.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Malverne Winborne, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 23, 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 city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mark Tucker, founder of the annual FestiFools and FoolMoon events.

At that meeting, he indicated a desire to start a conversation about public arts funding, and expressed the hope of getting input from the Ann Arbor public art commission and the community in general.

Some of that conversation took place at the public art commission’s Aug. 15 meeting, which ended in a vote of support for the millage proposal.

Much of the reaction so far from the arts community has focused on the short timeframe until the November election, and the lack of clarity that a yes or no vote would indicate, based on the wording of the proposal.

In response to that perceived lack of clarity, on Friday, Aug. 17, councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added a resolution to the Aug. 20 council agenda that would lead to a choice for voters on Nov. 6 between: (1) a millage to support public spending on art; or (2) no continued accumulation of public funds to be spent on art. Her resolution would direct city attorney staff to prepare ordinance language to repeal the funding mechanism in the Percent for Art ordinance – effective July 1, 2013. The intent is to repeal the ordinance in a way that allows funds already set aside for art to be spent on art, and to provide for maintenance of existing works.

If approved by the council on Aug. 20, Lumm’s resolution would lead in late September to the first of two city council votes necessary to repeal the ordinance section. In part, Lumm’s resolution states that “to truly enfranchise residents, voters should be offered a clear, yes/no choice on public funding for public art rather than an either/or choice of the mechanism used to fund public art; …” [.pdf of Lumm's draft resolution and memo]

Lumm’s resolution hadn’t been proposed when AAPAC held its special meeting on Wednesday to focus on Taylor’s millage proposal. The commission had essentially been forced to call a special session because its next regular meeting, on Aug. 22, falls after an expected vote by the council on Aug. 20.

The special meeting drew more public commentary than at any of AAPAC’s previous meetings. Nine people spoke, including leaders of several local arts institutions: Deb Polich of the Arts Alliance, Russ Collins of the Michigan Theater, Mark Tucker of FestiFools, and former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker, among others. Several more people attended but did not formally address the commission.

It seemed clear that neither commissioners nor members of the arts community who spoke during public commentary had been consulted about the millage proposal, and only a few had been informed that it would be brought forward. While there was broad support for the idea of a public arts millage, many people questioned the timing and felt that 11 weeks until the Nov. 6 election was too short a time to mount a successful millage campaign.

When asked by commissioners who would lead such a campaign, Taylor said he assumed it would be led by the arts community, with money raised from private contributions. He felt the amount of time was sufficient, and that the millage would be approved by voters. He thought the November election would be a good time for the vote, with higher participation by students and renters – that’s a good core, he said.

During AAPAC’s meeting, Taylor told commissioners that if a millage vote is delayed, that puts the current Percent for Art program at risk. He said his sense is that the risk is growing, though he was unclear about why he believes that’s the case. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, wondered whether the concern stems from a change in composition to the council, following the November election. Taylor did not respond directly to that question.

In the Aug. 7 primary election, Democrat Sally Petersen defeated incumbent Tony Derezinski in Ward 2 – Derezinski also is a member of AAPAC, though he has not attended a regular meeting since May, and did not attend the Aug. 15 special session. No incumbents ran in the Ward 1 and Ward 5 races, where Democrats Sumi Kailasapathy and Chuck Warpehoski prevailed in their respective primaries. No Republican is running against Petersen or Kailasapathy in November. And though Warpehoski faces Republican Stuart Berry in Ward 5, it’s likely that Warpehoski will win that heavily Democratic ward. Taylor is also running for re-election, but was unopposed in the Ward 3 Democratic primary and is unchallenged in November.

In a pre-election survey conducted by the Arts Alliance, Petersen indicated support for the Percent for Art program, though she suggested some changes. Warpehoski supported “looking for ways to establish a more flexible funding stream for the arts.” Kailasapathy did not respond to the survey, according to the alliance, but her campaign website did not list public art among her priorities. [.pdf of Arts Alliance candidate survey]

In general, another complicating factor with the millage proposal is a separate effort to develop a countywide plan and funding mechanism for public art. The Arts Alliance is leading that initiative, and earlier this year applied for a $100,000 grant through the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” program to help fund it. At AAPAC’s Aug. 15 meeting, Polich – the alliance’s executive director – advocated for more time so that a fully-developed, comprehensive strategy could be prepared.

Polich questioned how the millage rate was determined in Taylor’s proposal – a 0.1 mill tax for four years. She raised the concern that the city is “leaving money on the table” – that is, it’s possible that voters would be willing to pay more for public art than the amount proposed. Polich also mentioned concerns about the millage’s potential impact on private contributions to arts and cultural organizations, which wouldn’t necessarily get funding from a public arts millage. There might be confusion about that, making fundraising more difficult.

Despite a range of concerns, AAPAC ultimately voted unanimously to recommend that the council place the proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot. Among the commissioners, John Kotarski appeared to be the most enthusiastic supporter of the proposal, praising Taylor for bringing it forward.

Background

The city of Ann Arbor already has one means of paying for works of art with public funds – the Percent for Art program, which is funded through a city ordinance. The context of the proposed millage is this existing funding program.

Background: Percent for Art

The current Percent for Art program has been in place since 2007. It requires that 1% of the budget for any capital improvement project be set aside for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per project. The program has generated just over $2 million, and more than $1 million in Percent for Art revenues have been expended to date – primarily for the program’s first and largest project, the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall.

Projects paid for with Percent for Art funds are restricted in two major ways. They must be permanent “monumental” type art, which means that “temporary” art like performances or artist-in-residency programs can’t be supported with Percent for Art funds. The projects must also have some link to the funding source – that is, art paid for out of street millage revenues must be part of a street project, or incorporate street or transportation themes. This lack of flexibility has been a frequent criticism of the program. Questions also have been raised about the legality of diverting funds intended for capital projects to use for public art. The city attorney, Stephen Postema, has never made public a legal opinion on this issue.

The amount of funding has also been a point of contention. There have been three proposals brought by city councilmembers over the past few years to reduce funding for the program, though none have received enough votes on council to pass. There has never been a formal proposal to eliminate the program completely.

The idea of a millage for public art had been mentioned by councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) earlier this year, during the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting when councilmembers voted on artwork for the city’s new justice center. However, no formal proposal was presented or further discussed by the council. Nor was the issue pursued by the city’s public art commission, even though they recently crafted and approved a four-year strategic plan at their July 2012 meeting.

Background: Public Art Millage – Ann Arbor

So it came as a surprise to many – including Kunselman and other councilmembers, AAPAC members and leaders of the arts and cultural community – when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) proposed putting a public arts millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. He took that action at the council’s Aug. 9 meeting. An email from assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to Taylor and mayor John Hieftje on July 25 indicated that by then the ballot language had already been reviewed by the state’s attorney general.

The ballot proposal would levy a 0.1 mill tax for a four-year period, which would bring in an estimated $450,000 annually. The proposal is worded so that passage of the millage would suspend the collection of Percent for Art funds under the city’s ordinance only during the four-year period of the millage. So if voters approved the public art millage this year, and then failed to approve a millage renewal four years from now – either because the council did not place a renewal on the ballot, or voters rejected the renewal – the Percent for Art ordinance would again require that funds from capital project budgets be set aside for public art.

If approved by the city council on Aug. 20 as proposed, the ballot question would read:

Shall the Charter be amended to limit sources of funding for public art and to authorize a new tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill for 2013 through 2016 to fund public art, which 0.10 mill will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $459,273?

The corresponding charter language would be [emphasis added]:

Funds for Public Art
SECTION 8.24. In addition to any other amount which the City is authorized to raise by general tax upon the real and personal property by this Charter or any other provision of law, the City shall, in 2013 through 2016, annually levy a tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill on all taxable real and personal property situated within the City for the purpose of providing funds for public art, including but not limited to the permanent and temporary acquisition, maintenance and repair of works of art for display in or on public structures or sites and/or as part of or adjacent to public streets and sidewalks, and performance art on City streets, sidewalks or sites. Except for funds previously raised, set aside, allocated or otherwise designated to be used for public art, including such funds in the July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 fiscal year budget, and except for funds that are received by grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City for public art, for the duration of this millage, the City shall not raise, set aside or designate funds for public art in any other manner. This millage also shall not preclude the grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City of works of art.

The reaction on Aug. 9 from councilmembers to Taylor’s proposal was generally positive, though considerable dissatisfaction was expressed regarding the secretive nature of the work that had produced it. In making the proposal on Aug. 9, Taylor first read a prepared statement then asked for postponement of the resolution. The council agreed unanimously to postpone action until its next meeting, on Aug. 20.

During council deliberations, Taylor indicated that he hoped to receive input from the public art commission, before the council voted on whether to put the proposal on the ballot. This essentially forced the commission to schedule a special meeting on the issue, as its next regular meeting – on Aug. 22 – fell after the Aug. 20 council meeting.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ballot Questions: Parks, Public Art Funding” and “Column: Two Questions on Public Art.” Or click here for a list of Chronicle reports on past meetings of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Background: Public Art Millage – Countywide?

Part of the dynamic related to the current Ann Arbor millage proposal is connected to a quiet discussion that’s been taking place about a possible countywide millage for public art. That effort is being led by the Arts Alliance and its Cultural Leaders Forum – an invitation-only group focused on advocacy and sustainable funding for local arts and culture.

Earlier this year, the alliance submitted a $100,000 grant proposal to the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” program. If awarded, the funding would be used to help develop a public arts master plan for Washtenaw County over an 18-month period. According to an excerpt from the grant proposal, the total budget for this effort would be about $400,000, with other funds anticipated to come from Washtenaw County government ($25,000); ArtServe Michigan ($5,000); the city of Ann Arbor/Ann Arbor public art commission ($5,000); the Cultural Alliance of Southeast Michigan ($5,000); the University of Michigan’s ArtsEngine program ($92,825); and the Huron River Watershed Council ($10,000).

Update after publication: The alliance has been informed that the NEA grant for this project would not be awarded. In an email to the proposal’s partners, Polich described it as a “blow to the full project” but indicated an intent to explore options and move forward with some aspects of the proposal.

The grant proposal noted that in 2008, the Arts Alliance developed a Washtenaw County cultural plan, as well as individual plans for seven communities within the county: Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Dexter, Manchester, Milan, Saline and Ypsilanti. Public art wasn’t a part of that plan, however. More recently, according to the proposal, the alliance “convened a meeting with all interested parties during which it was decided to have the Arts Alliance apply its expertise and the methodologies it used for the Cultural Plan to create a Washtenaw County Master Public Art Plan.”

Among the activities cited in the grant proposal, one major goal would be to “assign responsibility, stewardship and accountability” for public arts in Washtenaw County: “With citizen input, guiding principles, goals and best practices will be set to determine who is accountable for how public art is to be administered, funded, proposed, selected, installed and maintained in each city specifically and in the county in general.”

During the Aug. 15 AAPAC meeting, Theresa Reid – the commission’s newest member who’s also executive director of UM’s ArtsEngine – noted that the alliance’s Cultural Leaders Forum has discussed the possibility of a countywide millage. She said there doesn’t yet seem to be a consensus on how to proceed with that effort, and it’s unclear how long it might take to put forward a countywide public arts millage. She noted that one concern is whether a public arts millage in Ann Arbor would undermine that broader effort.

Public Commentary: Pre-Vote

Eight people spoke to the commission at the start of AAPAC’s Aug. 15 meeting.

Margaret Parker introduced herself as an artist and co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden – her studio is located above the Ashley Street store. She noted that she served on the commission since it started in 2004, and had been chair for many of those years. She had helped get the Percent for Art ordinance passed and had helped develop the guidelines for the commission. Parker said when she first heard about the millage proposal, she had been shocked because it had happened so fast. She allowed that she’d made some errors in calculating how much the current program generated in revenues. She had been worried that the millage wouldn’t bring in as much, but now she felt it would be generally an even exchange. It would be a good start. She’s been told that a lot of the administrative duties would be the same, but there would also be different guidelines so a lot of their previous work “would be thrown out the window, but that’s how it goes.”

Parker was also concerned about the short time – until Nov. 6 about 11 weeks – but said it doesn’t appear they have a choice about it. She noted that other millages have passed, so while she was initially worried, she’s feeling better about the situation now.

Lynne Friman, a Saline resident and chair of the Ann Arbor-based Arts Alliance board, noted that the Ann Arbor region is widely recognized for its arts community. The area is an arts and cultural mecca and destination that’s known throughout the country. The community places a high value on arts and culture, she said. Adequate funding is critical to the growth and sustainability of the arts community throughout Washtenaw County. It’s disappointing that while other cities nationwide invest in their public art, Ann Arbor must continually defend the Percent for Art program. Friman noted that the Arts Alliance is exploring public arts funding across the county, possibly through set-asides in individual communities, or through with a countywide millage.

Friman told commissioners that the alliance is developing a public arts master plan for the entire county, an effort that has included several members of AAPAC, she said. While she applauded Taylor’s initiative, she would have preferred it if he had consulted the arts and cultural community to get a better understanding of the risks and impact of his millage proposal. The alliance believes that more time and thought is needed to work together, improving the current functioning program and determining what’s necessary to ensure that the Ann Arbor region benefits from a well-conceived, successful funding plan.

Standing: Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski and Margaret Parker, former chair of the commission. Seated is Cathy Gendron, another art commissioner.

Shoshana Hurand, program manager for the Arts Alliance, said that everyone in the room supports arts and culture. Her points would be more focused on process and timing. If approved by voters, the millage would reflect that the community highly values the arts. But it takes 12-18 months to do a millage campaign properly, she noted – to consult with community leaders, get a sense of the appropriate millage rate, educate the community and select the right time to put it on the ballot. There needs to be sufficient time for all this to happen.

Hurand acknowledged that the Percent for Art program has issues. For example, she said she’d love to know the language that explains exactly what the Percent for Art funding can support. There needs to be time to explore other models. “We want to make sure we do this right,” she said, and that will take more than 11 weeks.

Tom Petiet introduced himself as a commercial artist and illustrator, and member of the Ann Arbor Comic Opera Guild. He indicated that the millage vote was essentially a good idea, in that it would allow everyone to know the public’s view. He wanted the support for arts to expand beyond the visual arts. This area probably has more performing artists than any other city of its size in the country, he said. But there’s no place to perform other than the university, and that’s too difficult. There’s no affordable rehearsal and performance space, he said. Arts groups are suffering from a lack of funding, and audience levels are also falling. That means more money has to be spent on advertising – all of this needs to be considered, Petiet said. The public art ordinance should be more inclusive, and should include funding for the creation of a public performance space. There’s an opportunity now, he said, and people would be receptive to the idea.

Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, began by thanking commissioners for the work they do. He noted that he serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and indicated that he knows how hard it can be. He said he was glad that Taylor had brought forward the millage proposal, because now it creates a dialogue about funding arts in this community. He noted that the community hasn’t really funded the arts very much. Ann Arbor aggressively funds other things that contribute to quality of life – parks, schools, public transportation, the library. But the thing that’s missing is governmental funding of the arts. The No. 1 source of government funding for the arts comes from local communities, not the state or federal levels, he said. And in that regard, in general this community’s public funding for the arts hasn’t reflected its community values.

Collins said he was sorry that this conversation had been imposed on the commission, but it’s now the start of a dialogue. Yes, it’s a short time, he said, but he hoped this proposal could be leveraged into a dialogue about the broader role of government in subsidizing the arts. Our community has been very generous in private giving to sustain the arts, Collins said. The University of Michigan has also been very generous, and that’s often taken for granted. There needs to be a broader discussion within the county, he said, and they need more time to talk about these issues.

Mark Tucker told commissioners that he was there as a representative of FestiFools, FoolMoon, and as a resident and artist. Because Taylor had mentioned FestiFools and FoolMoon as a possible recipient of funding from a millage, Tucker felt it was appropriate to comment about it. The millage is a good idea, he said. It takes what’s already strong about the public art commission and the Percent for Art program, and releases some of the baked-in restrictions of the current ordinance. That’s beside the fact that FestiFools and FoolMoon might benefit from millage funding, he added – he noted that he’s been an outspoken supporter of the Percent for Art program even after receiving a letter from the commission stating that FestiFools couldn’t be funded by it. Tucker said he didn’t know about the timing of it, but he supported a millage. He hoped everyone could leave the room on the same page, heading in the same direction – with or without a millage.

Shary Brown, an Ann Arbor Township resident, described herself as a retired arts administrator. She was director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair and before that was director of the Ann Arbor Summer Art Fair. It would be a terrific thing to look at funding episodic, temporary art events, she said. Ann Arbor is known for its stellar line-up of art festivals, which brings money into the community – money that’s spent locally. The Street Art Fair alone pays the city close to $60,000 in fees, she noted. She urged the commission to take a broad look at the issue, but she observed that the timing is very short to educate the arts community, let alone the community at large.

David Esau, of Cornerstone Design Architects, is an Arts Alliance board member, and said he endorsed the alliance’s position. He supports waiting on the millage, but if it does move forward, he’d encourage publicity about the parameters of what the millage can or can’t fund. He doesn’t want people to stop funding arts organizations, thinking that those organizations would be supported by the millage revenues.

Public Art Millage: Taylor’s Comments

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, asked Christopher Taylor to talk about his proposal, joking that he’d get more than the three-minute speaking turn allowed for public commentary.

Taylor began by saying that he hadn’t prepared anything, because he hadn’t anticipated making a presentation. He noted that his proposal is clearly “animated” by the principle that public art is a public good. Arts and culture are one of the community’s core values, and it ought to be something that people can rally around and support. The current incarnation of the public art funding is contentious in a manner “that we all regret,” he said. To the extent that the program is contentious, it relates to the manner in which it’s funded, he said. It takes infrastructure dollars and uses them in a related manner for public art. That’s a policy matter, he said, and there’s some controversy about it. The current program also constrains the commission’s work and its ability to make decisions, he said. Those strong limitations are inhibiting the program’s success – it’s a vicious circle.

Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, with city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

It appears that the way to fix this, Taylor said, is to revitalize the program by changing the funding model. He believes the millage would pass, and would demonstrate wholeheartedly the citizenry’s support for public art. And it would free the commission to use its best judgment about what to fund. The millage funds could be used for a broader range of projects, including performing art and temporary art.

Taylor explained that the current program is a “creature of the city council,” so passage or rejection of the millage wouldn’t automatically alter the Percent for Art ordinance language. The millage vote would be a point of information, one way or another, he said, as to whether the program would be continued. The millage wouldn’t terminate the program, he said.

The millage proposal was intended to initiate a conversation, Taylor said – and that’s happened, so that’s good. He thinks 11 weeks is sufficient time, and the November election is a good time for the proposal to be on the ballot. His emails are running more than 2-t0-1 in support of the millage, Taylor reported. That’s not scientific, but it’s encouraging.

Taylor told commissioners that there’s risk in delaying a millage vote. The current program is contentious. We live in a politicized environment, he added, and if nothing is done now – if there’s a delay in order to prepare for a millage vote several months away – that puts the current program at risk. What that risk is, he added, is impossible to say. But his sense is that the risk is growing.

Taylor concluded by joking: “Fix it or risk it, if I can go Johnnie Cochran on it.”

Public Art Millage: Deliberations

Commissioners spent much of the next hour asking Taylor questions about his proposal. And at the behest of John Kotarski, the meeting rules were relaxed to allow for input from the public during the discussion. This report organizes that discussion thematically.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Timeline

Connie Brown began by noting that the city’s parks millage will also be on the Nov. 6 ballot, and she wondered how Taylor would compare the timeline for that proposal with the much shorter timeline for the public art millage, and whether the shorter timeline is adequate.

By way of background, the renewal of the city’s parks maintenance and capital improvements millage – at the rate of 1.1 mills from 2013-2018 – has been discussed by city staff for months. The park advisory commission was first briefed about the millage renewal at its March 22, 2012 meeting. At its June 19, 2012 meeting, PAC voted to recommend that council place the millage on the ballot, which the council did at its Aug. 9 meeting.

Responding to Brown, Taylor said the public art millage proposal was made with the stated and actual intent of starting a conversation. If it’s the consensus of the community’s cultural leaders that a millage is generally a good idea, but that the vote should be held off until a future date, then he’d be inclined to defer to that. So holding off is a real possibility, Taylor said. There are many possibilities, and he’d be open to them.

Broadly speaking, he continued, there’s been a lot of discussion about the benefits of public art for a long time. In discussions about problems with the current program, there’s virtually always the statement that the criticism isn’t about funding public art, but about how the city is going about that funding. So the groundwork for a millage is laid, he said. The economic benefits of public art are well known, he said – that’s largely a given throughout the community.

Connie Rizzolo Brown, an AAPAC member and local architect.

What if the millage isn’t put on the Nov. 6 ballot? Tom Petiet asked. What would be the next opportunity for it?

Taylor replied that the state now limits elections to four times a year. They can be held on the fourth Tuesday in February, and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May, August and November. Petiet clarified with Taylor that it would therefore be possible to put a millage on the ballot within a year.

Taylor noted that if the commission stated that the Nov. 6 election is too soon for a millage question, and if the council concurs, then the council could postpone action on the issue until a later meeting.

Margaret Parker weighed in, saying that November will be a huge election because of the presidential race. She felt that the more people who turn out to vote, the better chance the millage will have to be passed. Mark Tucker asked if that’s what Taylor thought, too.

Taylor thought the November election would be a good time, with higher participation by students and renters – that’s a good core, he said. [Those two groups do not pay property taxes directly – and the millage is a property tax.] He said he liked the idea of asking more people about something like this, since it has been the subject of some controversy.

Cathy Gendron pointed out that if they don’t have time to educate the community, then voters won’t be informed. There might be less risk with a smaller turnout, when people would be well-informed and feel strongly about it.

It’s a judgement call, Taylor acknowledged. With a February election, you can know with a fair degree of “granularity” who the voters will be, he said. In November, you’ll get a wider swath of the community.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 councilmember who attended the meeting, added that in a special election, you’ll get a certain kind of voter who’ll likely feel passionate about the issue, compared to the November general election. Another factor is that on Nov. 6, there will be a significant number of statewide and local issues on the ballot, she noted. An issue like this public art millage might get lost, she said, yet it might still garner enough votes. If it’s the only item on the ballot – during a special election, for example – then it becomes difficult to sell, she said.

Lynne Friman of the Arts Alliance board reported that in her day job, she works for the Cultural Alliance of Southeast Michigan. That group was involved in the recent successful millage campaign for the Detroit Institute of Arts, which had been on the Aug. 7 ballot. There had been many conversations about the timing of that vote, she said, and much research was done about when to place the millage on the ballot. They learned that a general election is not the best time for an arts issue, she said. The DIA specifically put the millage question on the August ballot in order to reach a certain kind of voter, Friman said. She suggested looking at the timing of similar arts millages that had been successful.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Relationship to Current Program

Connie Brown wondered if the current Percent for Art program would automatically be suspended, if the millage passes. The funding would be suspended, Taylor replied, but the ordinance would be “live and active” until the council acted to change it.

Theresa Reid asked what would happen in four years if a millage renewal doesn’t pass. Does the other Percent for Art funding kick in again? Taylor said it would surprise him if there weren’t changes to the ordinance before then, assuming that the millage passed in November. He would suspect that some aspects of the ordinance would be changed by the council. But right now, the only thing that would change is the funding.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that when the current ordinance was created, there was tremendous support for it from the arts community. With a millage, it would expand the ability to fund projects like FestiFools. In a way, it would be simply switching funding mechanisms while opening up the options for projects to fund. That’s one way of looking at it, she said. Taxpayers currently fund the existing program, and would be paying taxes on it in a different way with a millage.

Taxes would be raised with a millage, Taylor said. The current program might need to be tweaked to allow for the freedom of the new funding model, he added, but there wouldn’t be the need to start from scratch. [This might have been an indirect response to Margaret Parker's public commentary earlier in the meeting, when she stated that a lot of work they'd done to create the program's guidelines would have to be thrown out the window.]

Reid said there seems to be support for fewer restrictions on how the money is spent. Why couldn’t the council simply change certain aspects of the current ordinance, such as decoupling the artwork from its source of funding, or allowing for temporary art? That might be a way to address these issues while they work toward a longer-term solution, she said.

Taylor didn’t think that was possible. He said the ordinance had been created in this way based on state law, not the council’s whimsy.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Assessing Risk

Theresa Reid noted that people who are concerned about funding for public art are weighing the likelihood of losing funding because of city council action versus a public vote. She acknowledged that Taylor and others felt confident about the passage of the millage, but she observed that voters had recently rejected a schools millage. Sabra Briere clarified that the millage Reid mentioned was a countywide millage, not one in Ann Arbor. [In fact, Ann Arbor voters in May of 2012 approved a technology bond, at an estimated annual average millage rate 0.51 mills. Reid perhaps was recalling a countywide school millage that was on the November 2009 ballot, and defeated – though supported by a majority of Ann Arbor voters.]

Theresa Reid, an AAPAC member and executive director of the University of Michigan’s ArtsEngine program.

Wiltrud Simbuerger pointed to Taylor’s statement about the risk of waiting. But if the millage is voted down, what does that mean? Is that a statement against public art? That result could be a greater risk for the existing program than waiting and taking more time to educate the public, she said.

That’s clearly true, Taylor replied. If the millage loses 40% to 60%, that means one thing, he said. If it loses by a single vote, that means something else.

Briere observed that now they’re talking about voter intent – which was something the council had discussed with regard to a proposed parks charter amendment that councilmembers voted down at their Aug. 9 meeting. Reasons for voting no could vary from voter to voter, she said. Some might vote no because the millage rate was too high or they didn’t support any public funding for art or they liked the current funding model. Defeat of the millage wouldn’t automatically mean that the council would agree not to fund public art, she said.

Taylor agreed with Briere’s assessment. He noted that he’s received about 170 emails about the millage, and some of those are against it because they like the current funding.

Simbuerger cautioned that defeat of the millage could be used as an argument to cut other funding, too. Taylor said defeat of the millage wouldn’t be a definitive sign, but it wouldn’t be a win, either.

Marsha Chamberlin raised another issue. Some councilmembers don’t think the current funding is legal or appropriate, so a no vote on the millage would fuel that fire. She didn’t think the majority of councilmembers felt that way, but some did.

Chamberlin said the commission has felt hamstrung by the current ordinance, because of restrictions that tied projects thematically to their funding sources, and that required a level of permanence that prevented the funding of temporary work. There’s been no doubt that the program took a while to get up and running, she added, as the commission developed policies and procedures. Now they have a strategic plan and 14 projects in the works, but their work isn’t yet visible – except for the Dreiseitl sculpture, which has been controversial.

For the past 1.5 years or so, Chamberlin said, the commission has been hearing from some city council members and others that the city is spending public dollars on art, but the public hasn’t voted to do that. The sense is that some of the new councilmembers feel strongly about this, she said, and that perhaps the Percent for Art ordinance might be repealed. She asked Taylor if that’s true – could the current ordinance be repealed?

Taylor replied that if someone wanted to draft a resolution to that effect, they could do so. It would require an initial vote, a public hearing, then a final vote at a second meeting. Briere, who had been out of the room at the start of Chamberlin’s question, said she didn’t think the council would consider simply eliminating the Percent for Art ordinance [leaving no public art funding in place].

In that case, Chamberlin said, it didn’t sound like that was an immediate concern. Taylor said the objections had primarily been related to funding, not to the overall program.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Communication, Mounting a Campaign

Connie Brown noted that there hasn’t been much dialogue on the public art commission or among leaders of the arts community about this millage. She asked Taylor to address this lack of engagement.

That’s a legitimate concern, he said. The council is under a time pressure because of the deadline to place a question on the Nov. 6 ballot – they would need to vote at their Aug. 20 meeting, he said. But if the arts community speaks with a clear voice that it wants to seek a millage – but not just now, then that would be something to weigh very seriously, he said.

Brown wondered how the voice of the arts community will be part of the publicity, assuming that the council decides to pursue a millage. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about the current ordinance, she noted, even though it’s been in place for several years. If a millage question is placed on the Nov. 6 ballot, there’s such a short time to communicate what that vote will mean, she said.

Taylor clarified with Brown that she was essentially asking how to run a millage campaign. Theresa Reid added: And who pays for it? Private donations would pay for a campaign, Taylor replied.

John Kotarski asked who would run such a campaign? “I don’t know,” Taylor said. He suspected that arts leaders would be engaged and do it.

What if arts leaders are divided on the issue? Reid asked. That sometimes happens, she joked. Taylor said it depends on the nature of the disagreement, and the manner in which it’s articulated.

Later in the meeting, Brown asked how much it would cost to mount a campaign. Taylor estimated it would cost about $25,000. Lynne Friman of the Arts Alliance board thought it would cost significantly more than that. [By way of rough comparison, in for the Aug. 7 primary, the eight city council candidates, in four two-way races, raised about $50,000 combined. As a one-way race, a campaign for the millage could conceivably be mounted for half that, or $25,000.]

Responding to another question, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – explained that although the city staff can’t advocate for a millage, they can provide information about it. Reid jokingly asked if the commission could spend Percent for Art funding on yard signs “if we keep them for five years?” [The reference to five years is an allusion to the need for current art projects funded through the program to be "permanent," because the funding comes from capital projects. The timeframe for what constitutes permanence has been somewhat fluid over the years.]

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Commissioners Weigh In

John Kotarski read a prepared statement expressing his support for the millage to be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot. It will strengthen public art, and if it passes, it could be the start of expanded support countywide for public art. It appears it might have support even from councilmembers who oppose the current funding mechanism, he said. The current funding arrangement doesn’t allow for things like performing arts and artist-in-residence programs. Art monuments are important and Ann Arbor should have more of them, he said, but temporary art is also important, adding to the creative energy of the city. He cited Christo’s installation in New York City’s Central Park (The Gates) as an example of temporary art that generated more than $250 million in the local economy over the 14 days that it was in place.

From left: AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin, who also is president of the Ann Arbor Art Center; Shary Brown, former executive director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair; and Mark Tucker of FestiFools and FoolMoon.

Kotarski also said that the millage would allow the public art program to be more accountable, and give the commission a chance to explain what they do. He might be naive, he said, but he takes councilmembers at their word when they say they’d support a millage and campaign for its passage. The art commissioners aren’t politicians, he said, so they need to trust that these seasoned politicians mean what they say. He thanked Taylor for giving Ann Arbor a chance to weigh in on this issue.

Theresa Reid began by noting that she’s a member of the countywide Cultural Leaders Forum. The CLF has talked about a possible countywide millage to support arts and cultural organizations, she said, but there are still a lot of questions. There isn’t a consensus yet on important issues like the timing and amount of that possible millage, she said, and how it might affect funding for local arts and cultural institutions.

Reid said she understood the concern of some CLF members and the Arts Alliance about putting forward an Ann Arbor-specific millage. But Kotarski had assured her, she said, that in the experience of other communities, passage of a city millage later ended up helping pass a broader millage, too. She was concerned about the 11-week timeline, but felt it would take the CLF and Arts Alliance a long time to bring forward a countywide millage proposal, and she didn’t think the Percent for Art program could wait. If it doesn’t hurt the countywide effort, she thought they should move forward quickly. She “cautiously trusted” the council’s sense that the millage would pass. So the next 11 weeks would be spent on educating the public and moving this forward, she concluded.

Connie Brown spoke next, saying that the millage proposal is an improvement, and there are a lot of good things about it. She was concerned about the timing – she’d been surprised by that. But now she’s leaning toward faster movement. Her biggest concern is for the educational campaign to be effective, and so far, for the current program, it hasn’t been, she said. You want to have informed voters.

Cathy Gendron agreed with what others had said. She’s also concerned about the timing, but said she’s willing to dig into it.

Wiltrud Simbuerger said there’s no question that a millage would be a better funding mechanism. She just wondered how they can do it in such a short time. She still didn’t know how that would work out, but she would love for it to pass so it would resolve the whole question about how the public feels about funding public art.

Kotarski said the commission wasn’t going to do a millage campaign alone. They need the support of all arts and cultural organizations in the county, and he encouraged everyone to support it. There’s a synergy that everyone can build on, he said. If it passes, it will be a start. They’ll learn how a cultural millage campaign can work locally, and use that knowledge to support a larger, more vibrant cultural community. They want to raise everyone’s boat, he said, and this is an easy start. The city is willing to support it, and if they can present a united front and pass this millage, it will bode well for everyone.

Kotarski said he enthusiastically moved to recommend that the city council put a public arts millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Malverne Winborne entered the meeting just as a roll call vote was beginning on this resolution. He asked for clarification about what exactly he would be voting on.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend that the council place a public arts millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. Two commissioners – Bob Miller and Tony Derezinski, who also serves on city council representing Ward 2 – were absent.

Public Commentary: Post-Vote

Four people addressed commissioners after the vote.

Russ Collins pulled out one of his frequent observations – that politics is the art of the possible. The commission had spoken very strongly about its intent, he said. He appreciated Taylor’s intent, but said there are a lot of unknown dynamics in politics. He guessed they should all keep their fingers crossed and see what happens on Monday, when the council votes. He hoped councilmembers would think clearly about how things play out in the November election, in the press, and what the long-term benefits and liabilities might be. In 1982, citizens voted to support the Michigan Theater [by voting for funds to pay off its mortgage], but that didn’t include any operating funds, he noted. The theater has been supported through private giving, he said.

City leaders and the electorate need to be encouraged to think carefully about the role of government funding in supporting the arts, he said. Currently, community values aren’t reflected, and this proposed narrow millage doesn’t change that in any significant way. It’s a start, he said, and he hoped it could be built into something more dynamic. “Hope is something we should always have,” he concluded.

Margaret Parker told commissioners that she was proud of them, of the arts community and of city council. It’s tremendous that there’s so much more discussion about the arts. Artists are being looked at as adults who should be paid, and who live all over the county – it’s a much broader conversation, she said. It’s important to see each of these actions as a building block, Parker said. The Percent for Art program was a tremendous accomplishment, Parker said, because it showed the community how public art funding could be allocated in a targeted way. That narrow focus was used to accomplish a lot of things, she said. And now there’s further planning at the county level. In Seattle, which was used as a model for the Ann Arbor program, Parker said there are many different groups that fund public art. It’s always been known that the Percent for Art program couldn’t provide all the funding, she said. In addition to grants and private giving, the millage is just another, larger building block. People have expressed the wish to support more Michigan artists, too, Parker noted: “I say yes!”

Deb Polich introduced herself as president of the Arts Alliance. Based on discussions about the millage since it was proposed on Aug. 9, everyone thinks that a millage is a good idea, she said, but the timing of it is a great concern to leaders of cultural institutions and members of the Cultural Leaders Forum. For one thing, there are a lot of other issues on the Nov. 6 ballot. Also, the CLF has been quietly talking about a possible countywide millage, but one of the concerns about that has been the impact on private contributions to arts and cultural organizations that wouldn’t get funding from a public arts millage. That remains a great concern, she said. The messaging for a millage is critical, and many people don’t believe 11 weeks is sufficient time for an effective millage campaign. A millage, and the ability to fund a broader range of projects, could be a very positive thing, Polich said, so it’s important that it’s successful.

Another concern is whether the city is “leaving money on the table,” Polich said. It’s not clear how the amount of the proposed millage was determined, she said – some people believe that voters would support a higher millage. But the real concern is whether there’s enough time to make this happen. The proposal is well-intended, and the Arts Alliance supports a millage. But they encouraged Taylor to withdraw the current proposal to allow time for a more fully-developed, comprehensive strategy to be prepared. More time is needed for a well-conceived, comprehensive, sustainable public arts funding plan that’s worthy of support from the city council and local citizens.

Mark Tucker said that as an artist, he’s pleased about the direction of this discussion. He noted that there’s the expectation that you’ll hit a home run, but as artists know that it’s rare to hit a home run. You rarely come up with fantastic pieces, he said. So the risk of not moving forward is that it will make the commission’s job more difficult, because people will expect home runs from the projects that are funded. If the millage fails, the only thing worse is to walk around and see a lot of disappointing public art.

Meeting Coda

Marsha Chamberlin concluded the meeting by noting that they now have their work cut out for them. They’ll begin at AAPAC’s next regular meeting, she said, on Aug. 22. [The meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron.]

Speaking personally, she said, her career has been in the visual arts and she’s been torn on this issue. Professionally, she felt caught in the middle. If she didn’t support the millage, it would run counter to her day job [as president of the Ann Arbor Art Center]. She said she’d heard encouraging things that evening, and she urged people to attend AAPAC’s Aug. 22 meeting too. Assuming that city council votes to put the millage proposal on the November ballot, “we’ll need help in keeping the ball rolling,” she said.

Margaret Parker added that if anyone is interested in speaking to the city council at its Aug. 20 meeting, they’ll need to call the city clerk’s office first thing on Monday morning to sign up for public commentary. There are only a limited number of speaking slots, she said. [Ten spots are reserved for people to speak on agenda items. The clerk's number is 734-794-6140. Additional public commentary, with no sign-up required, is available at the end of the council meeting.]

John Kotarski asked whether there will be a public hearing on the millage. Taylor indicated that there won’t be a formal public hearing.

Meeting Coda: Post-Meeting Actions

The day after the AAPAC vote, the Arts Alliance sent out an email announcing a special meeting to talk about the millage. The meeting is set for Monday, Aug. 20 from 2-3:30 p.m. at the second floor south conference room of the NEW Center, 1100 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

From the email: “We know we want to make sure the messaging is clear. What else do we want? Please invite anyone who has a stake in this conversation! During this meeting we will also begin to look at how we position and leverage this millage to the advantage of the whole creative sector.” The alliance also has posted a position statement about the millage. [.pdf of Arts Alliance position statement]

Also on Thursday, Margaret Parker sent out an email to her distribution list of arts supporters, saying that she now supported putting a millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. [In an earlier email, sent before AAPAC's meeting, Parker had lobbied against the millage.] Part of her reasoning in support of the millage seems linked to Taylor’s intimation that the risk to the current program is growing, though he did not explicitly tie that risk to a turnover on council in November. New councilmembers will be replacing Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who did not seek re-election, as well as Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who was defeated in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary by Sally Petersen. It’s expected that Chuck Warpehoski and Sumi Kailasapathy, who won the Democratic primary in wards 5 and 1, respectively, will also prevail in the general election.

“The big picture is that the new council will not have the votes to continue support for the Percent for Art funding,” Parker contended. “Setting aside 1% of funds from capital improvement lines in the budget proved to be complex and difficult to implement. It also restricted the use of funds in many ways, excluding temporary projects and events. So a millage looks like the next step to continue and broaden public art funding in the city,” she wrote.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne (who arrived at the end of the meeting). Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Bob Miller.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 22, 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.

Susan Froelich, the new president of the Ann Arbor-based Arts Alliance, at the March 1, 2011 meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission. She was appointed in late February and replaces former president Tamara Real, who resigned last year. (Photo by the writer.)

Froelich – who was a member and former chair of AAPAC’s predecessor group, the commission for art in public places – told commissioners she was just there to say hello, and that the alliance looked forward to working with AAPAC. She passed out bookmarks promoting the A3Arts web portal, which launched last year and features profiles of artists and institutions in the area, along with an events calendar and other information. Finally, Froelich thanked commissioners for their work.

During the meeting, commissioners approved spending up to $2,000 to get an evaluation of the damaged Sun Dragon at Fuller Pool, and to secure a cost estimate for repair or replacement. Margaret Parker, an AAPAC member and the artist who originally designed the colored-plexiglas sculpture, recused herself from that discussion.

Commissioners also discussed a draft of an artist evaluation rubric and interview protocol, and debated whether local artists should be given extra points in the process. Also debated was the definition of local – they plan to continue the discussion at their next meeting.

Nomination forms for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards are now available from AAPAC’s website, with a May 2 deadline for submission. The awards are given to individuals and institutions for their contributions to public art in Ann Arbor.

Scheduling came up in several different ways. A special meeting has been called to vote on site recommendations from AAPAC’s mural task force. That meeting is set for Friday, March 11 at 11 a.m. on the seventh floor of the City Center building at Fifth and Huron. Commissioners also discussed possibly changing their monthly meeting day. It’s now set for the first Tuesday of each month at 4:30 p.m., but two commissioners have scheduling conflicts at that time. AAPAC’s newest member, Malverne Winborne, reported that he’d told mayor John Hieftje prior to his nomination that the meeting day would be difficult for him, but that had not been communicated to the rest of the commission.

Updates: Arts Administrator, Golden Paintbrush, CTN

The meeting included updates on a range of topics. Marsha Chamberlin reported that the city had received about 20 applications for the part-time public art administrator job. They’ll be setting up an interview panel, and meeting in mid-March to review applications and select candidates to interview.

Margaret Parker pointed out that nominations are being solicited for the city’s Golden Paintbrush awards, given annually to recognizing contributions to art in public places. Winners in 2010 were Abracadabra Jewelry on East Liberty, the University of Michigan Health System, and Tamara Real, former president of the Arts Alliance. Nomination forms are available on AAPAC’s website. [.pdf of the two-page nomination form] The deadline for applications is May 2, and winners are announced in June.

Commissioners also discussed an interview that was set to be taped the following day for “Other Perspectives,” a local talk show hosted by Nancy Kaplan and aired on Community Television Network’s Channel 17. [The show does not have a regular time slot – schedules are available on CTN's website.]

“This was dropped in our laps rather unexpectedly after the last commission meeting,” Chamberlin said. She indicated that Kaplan had asked for two commissioners, and the consensus was that Jeff Meyers and Cheryl Zuellig would be interviewed – Meyers because of the mural program he’s leading, and Zuellig because of her background in landscape architecture, allowing her to speak about the role of public art in different environments.

Zuellig said her only concern is that she and Meyers are relatively new commissioners – she joined in 2008, and Meyers was appointed last year. She wondered whether Chamberlin or Parker, who’ve both been involved with the commission since its early days, would be better suited to field questions about AAPAC’s history, given their institutional knowledge.

Parker replied that Zuellig and Meyers would be well-suited to discuss recent projects, indicating that the focus should be on that, including the tree sculptures at West Park and the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture being installed at the new municipal center building. Parker offered to be the backup, if either Zuellig or Meyers couldn’t make it.

[In response to a follow-up email from The Chronicle on March 7, Kaplan said the interview took place with Meyers and Zuellig, but that the air times haven't yet been scheduled.]

Projects: Fuller Road Station, Artist Selection, Sun Dragon

As chair of the projects committee, Connie Brown gave updates on three items: (1) a task force for public art at the proposed Fuller Road Station; (2) protocols for artist selection and interviews; and (3) repair of the Sun Dragon sculpture at Fuller Pool.

Projects: Fuller Road Station

Brown reported that the public art task force for Fuller Road Station held its first meeting on Feb. 17. The project is a large parking structure and bus depot jointly funded by the University of Michigan/city of Ann Arbor, and located on Fuller Road, near the UM medical complex. Eventually, it might include a rail station as well. Ann Arbor city council has not yet officially approved the project, though it has awarded funding for a preliminary design phase.

The task force got a project overview at their meeting, Brown said, and looked at architectural drawings to see how the public art component fits in with the project’s different phases. Brown said that at their next task force meeting they’ll discuss a process for how to proceed with the public art component, which has a budget of $250,000. The project’s architects have already identified locations for public art within the structure, as well as the kind of art they’d like. [Originally, they had indicated the art would be large fritted glass panels with images imprinted on them of bikes, buses and trains. That was later altered to have the images inserted between two panels of laminated glass.]

Brown said that part of the task force’s conversation was whether the artwork identified for the project met AAPAC’s criteria.

Projects: Protocols for Artist Selection, Interviews

Malverne Winborne, a member of the projects committee, told commissioners he had drafted an artist evaluation rubric and interview protocol with the intent to “objectify our subjectivity.” He asked for their feedback – in particular, he wanted to know whether any preference should be given to local artists.

The artist selection criteria consisted of 10 items, each evaluated on a scale of 0 (did not meet the requirement) to 2 (exceeded the requirement):

1. Quality of presentation and artistic merit.
2. Technical abilities.
3. Strength of past artworks.
4. Proven ability to work effectively with the community.
5. Proven ability to work effectively as a team member within an architectural context.
6. Experience working in public settings.
7. Experience fabricating and installing permanent artwork working in public settings.
8. Reflects the city’s commitment to diversity and cultural richness.
9. Suitable for the site policies.
10. Local artist.

The category of local artist would be scored with yes (2 points) or no (0 points) in the selection criteria.

Winborne proposed six categories for the artist interview protocol, each ranked from 1 (poor) to 4 (superior). In addition, each category was given a weighted percentage:

1. Statement of understanding of the site and its constraints (10%)
2. Ability to translate and create (50%)
3. Willingness/ability to work collaboratively (15%)
4. Effective work style/plan (15%)
5. Previous experience (10%)
6. Local artist (10% bonus points)

Winborne said it’s set up so that it wouldn’t exclude local artists, but that you’d get extra points if you are from this area. Margaret Parker pointed out that the preference for a local artist also could be incorporated into the call for art – either the request for qualifications (RFQ) or request for proposals (RFP).

Elaine Sims asked what “local” means – just Ann Arbor? Or would it indicate someone from the region or state? Winborne said that’s something for AAPAC to define. Given that AAPAC projects are funded through the city’s Percent for Art program, which is funded by Ann Arbor taxpayers, then defining “local” as “Ann Arbor” might make sense, he said.

Connie Brown was concerned that limiting it to Ann Arbor residents was too narrow. There’s a difference between appreciating local artists and being insular, she said. A lot of artists live only 15-20 minutes away, but are outside of Washtenaw County.

Cheryl Zuellig said that for her, considering the funding source was compelling. She suggested either going with Ann Arbor, or broadening the definition to include the entire state.

Winborne said another possibility would be to decrease the weighted percentage to 5% or 2% – or even “1% for public art!” he joked. That way, if a local artist isn’t superior, it won’t make much of a difference in the selection process. But if there are two artists of equal quality, he said, “I think we should give it to the local person.”

Commissioners also discussed the importance of assessing an artist’s technical abilities. Parker noted that in the past, they’ve selected artists who later changed their designs – in some cases, those design changes weren’t within the artist’s capability to execute, resulting in things like improper welds that later rusted. Zuellig suggested adding something specifically to the interview protocol that would allow an artist to talk about their technical skills – that could be illuminating, she said.

Winborne wondered how they’d handle the situation in which an artist doesn’t actually fabricate the work. [This is the case for the artwork designed by Herbert Dreiseitl for the municipal center – the city is hiring other contractors to build the sculpture.] Sims thought that even if the artist doesn’t build the artwork themselves, they’d have a relationship with a fabricator. “If someone’s pretty iffy on that kind of stuff, that’s a red flag,” she said.

Winborne said the topic seemed important, and offered to work with Parker to modify the interview protocol, incoporating an item on technical skills. He suggested that commissioners email him with other suggestions, and he’d deliver a new draft to them before their April meeting.

Projects: Sun Dragon

As she has in the past, Margaret Parker recused herself from deliberations regarding the Sun Dragon – a work of hers that was commissioned by the city and installed at Fuller Pool. She left the room for the duration of the discussion.

By way of background, the Sun Dragon – a sculpture made of colored plexiglas that’s attached to a beam holding Fuller Pool’s solar-heated shower – has been a topic of discussion for several months. It had been damaged last spring by workers during repair of a beam that supported the piece. In July 2010, AAPAC voted to allocate nearly $7,000 in funds to repair the piece, to be taken out of an endowed maintenance fund for public art. [Because the Sun Dragon was created prior to the 2007 city council resolution that established the Percent for Art program, the Percent for Art funds can't be used to repair it.]

Commissioners later learned that only about $2,000 from the endowed fund was available for use, and wouldn’t cover the cost of repair. Subsequently, at AAPAC’s November 2010 meeting, another option was offered by Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

McCormick had suggested that the Sun Dragon be considered as an “asset renewal” – that is, it could come to AAPAC as a new project. That way, AAPAC could fund it under the Percent for Art program, treating it just like any other proposal. McCormick had said it could be paid for out of the parks or water funds. According to a budget summary distributed to commissioners, there is $16,408 available for public art from the parks millage, and $115,164 from the water fund.

One commissioner jokingly referred to it as “creative financing,” and another quipped that they shouldn’t ask too many questions about it. Cheryl Zuellig clarified that as a new project, they would start by creating an intake form for it – it would then be handled by the projects committee. Jeff Meyers expressed concern about opening the door for other projects like this.

There was some discussion about what exactly the Percent for Art program could pay for – could it also cover the cost of the structural beam at Fuller Pool, even though that beam would need to be in place regardless of the public art installed on it? Parker said she would check with McCormick about that.

At AAPAC’s March 2011 meeting, Brown reported that Parker had filled out a project intake form, and they’d be treating it like a new project. She said it was worth noting that the Sun Dragon is an important piece of art and that people have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it.

Brown presented a proposal to allocate $1,500 to pay a structural engineer and fabricator, who would evaluate the piece and the structure that supports it, and make a recommendation to AAPAC about what should be done to repair it. After that, she said, they can get a quote from the fabricator, and figure out which city unit should pay for it – likely, it would be paid for out of the city’s parks and recreation budget.

Brown said she took a guess at the $1,500 cost – it might cost more for this initial step, she said.

Elaine Sims asked whether they’d already made the decision that the Sun Dragon is an asset worth repairing or replacing. [The other alternative would be to decommission the piece.] Brown said that the decision was make last year, when they voted to approve endowment funds for repair.

Sim said she had no problem approving funds for an evaluation, as long as they’d later have the chance to vote again, after a quote came back for the cost of repairs.

Venita Harrison, who works for McCormick, pointed out that the city employs structural engineers who might be available to evaluate the piece, rather than hiring an outside consultant. She offered to check on that possibility.

Brown again suggested that they might want to increase the amount earmarked for evaluating the project. It would make sense for a structural engineer, fabricator and the artist to work together to come up with a solution, she said. That way, they might also be able to come up with an estimated cost for repair or replacement.

Cheryl Zuellig noted that Parker’s intake form already included an estimate for replacing it: $9,306.80. [That amount includes a $500 artist fee, $4,000 for labor, $2,780 for materials and $2,360 for installation, plus a 6% tax of $166.80.] This project has already gone on too long, Zuellig said – they need some options so that they can make a final decision about it.

Sims expressed concern about moving ahead without a better idea of what the final cost would be. Brown pointed out that they couldn’t do that without an evaluation – and that wasn’t free.

Chamberlin proposed increasing the upper limit for the cost of getting an evaluation to $2,000, and requesting that the structural engineer, fabricator and artist deliver recommendations on how to repair or replace the Sun Dragon, along with a cost estimate for the work.

After further discussion and some collaborative wordsmithing, commissioners crafted a resolution to approve up to $2,000 to hire a city engineer to: (1) perform a structural evaluation of the Sun Dragon’s support system and the piece itself; (2) to determine if design alternations or changes in fabrication are needed for ease of maintenance; and (3) to provide design and fabrication cost estimates. A fabricator and the artist would be included in performing this evaluation.

Outcome: An initial vote resulted in approval from four commissioners – Sims did not vote, saying she still had reservations. When it was pointed out that four votes were insufficient to pass the resolution, Sims said she’d vote in favor of it.

Special Meeting, Monthly Meetings, Retreat

Three meeting-related items were on the March agenda: (1) Scheduling a special meeting to discuss AAPAC’s mural program; (2) scheduling a retreat, and (3) revisiting the monthly meeting schedule.

Jeff Meyers, who did not attend last week’s meeting, had been trying to schedule a special meeting for the mural program he’s leading, so that commissioners could vote to approve sites for the murals that have been recommended by a task force. But commissioners have been unable to reach a consensus about when to hold the special meeting. Elaine Sims expressed the sentiment that daytime meetings are difficult to attend, and requested that any meeting be held at the end of a business day.

[In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Meyers said the special meeting has been scheduled for Friday, March 11 at 11 a.m. on the seventh floor of the City Center building at Fifth and Huron.]

Also problematic for some commissioners is the regular monthly meeting time – the first Tuesday of the month, at 4:30 p.m. Meetings often begin late, as many commissioners have difficulty getting there by 4:30. And for two in particular – Meyers and Malverne Winborne, the newest commissioner who joined AAPAC late last year – the day of the week is an issue. Late last year, AAPAC moved its regular meetings from the second Tuesday to the first Tuesday of the month, hoping that it would be more convenient. But that day is actually more difficult for Meyers’ work schedule.

As for Winborne, he reported that before he accepted the appointment, he communicated to mayor John Hieftje that Tuesdays in general are difficult because he often has evening meetings scheduled with charter schools on that day. [Winborne is director of Eastern Michigan University’s Charter Schools Office. The mayor is responsible for nominating members to most city boards and commissions, with city council voting to approve those nominations.] Margaret Parker said no one communicated that information to AAPAC before Winborne was appointed.

When Winborne said that if it can’t be changed, one option would be for him to step down, other commissioners suggested it might be possible to find an alternative day. They decided to poll all members and try to find a better time for everyone.

Cheryl Zuellig pointed out that in general, it’s better to find a date that works for the regular monthly meetings than to schedule additional special meetings.

Commissioners also nailed down a date for a retreat: Thursday, March 31 at 5:30 p.m. Zuellig offered the conference room of her employer – JJR, at 110 Miller – as a location for the retreat. Until mid-2009, AAPAC held its regular monthly meetings at that spot, until concerns about public accessibility prompted them to move to the seventh floor of the City Center building at Fifth and Huron, where the city rents office space.

There was some discussion about whether Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit could facilitate the retreat, as she’s done in the past. Venita Harrison, a city management assistant who serves as a liaison for AAPAC to the city’s administration, said she would ask if Pulcipher is available.

Connie Brown asked if AAPAC would have access to the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which identifies major projects that the city intends to pursue. [At its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved the CIP for fiscal years 2012-2017.] Harrison pointed out that the council hasn’t approved the budget for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2011 – so it’s unclear which capital projects will be funded. [This is relevent to AAPAC because its projects are funded through the city's Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of the cost of any city-funded capital project to be used for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per project.]

Brown said that at some point, AAPAC needs to be able to identify upcoming projects so that they can get involved earlier in the process, rather than being on the tail end. Harrison replied that another difficulty is AAPAC’s timeline – the Percent for Art ordinance specifies that by April 1 the commission must submit to city council  ”a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year.” Harrison noted that this date doesn’t correspond to the city’s budget cycle. City council generally approves its budget in May.

Community Foundation Funds

Marsha Chamberlin reported that AAPAC had received a letter from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, notifying them about earnings that are available to spend from an endowment for public art maintenance that’s managed by the foundation. For the most recent year, earnings were $602. An additional $2,127 has previously accumulated and is also available for AAPAC’s use. The money is restricted to maintenance projects. Examples of past projects that have tapped those funds include repair of ceramic tile artwork at the Fourth & Washington parking structure.

When Chamberlin indicated that according to the letter they needed to respond by March 7, Margaret Parker said that in the past, the deadline has been flexible. She said that in past years, they simply haven’t responded to the letter.

Connie Brown, chair of the projects committee, reported that there are no maintenance projects in the pipeline so far this year. After some discussion, commissioners reached consensus for Chamberlin to contact the foundation and ask for some flexibility on the deadline.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Venita Harrison, city management assistant; Susan Froelich, Arts Alliance.

Absent: Cathy Gendron, Jeff Meyers.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 5 Wednesday, April 27 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date] Update: At a special meeting on Friday, March 11, AAPAC members decided to move their regular monthly meetings to the fourth Wednesday of each month, beginning April 27.

Before the meeting of the DDA board: Russ Collins and Keith Orr. Collins is not demonstrating to Orr how to snag a foul ball at a baseball game. (Photo by the writer.)

The program is currently in a transition year as the four-way partnership that supports it was reduced to three partners when the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce dropped out last year, citing financial pressures. That leaves the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor DDA as getDowntown funding partners.

In other business, the board approved the application of LEED certification for its underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue, currently under construction.

The board began a discussion on a payment-in-lieu program for required onsite parking (PILOP) for downtown developments.

The board also heard a pitch from Tamara Real for additional support for a web portal currently under development by the Arts Alliance.

getDowntown Funding

The main item reported out of the transportation committee from John Mouat was a resolution on the board’s agenda that called for three years of funding for getDowntown and the go!pass program – $445,672 for FY 2011; $488,054 for FY 2012; and $540,060 for FY 2013. The two-person getDowntown program staff consists of director Nancy Shore and employee services coordinator Moira Brannigan.

The go!pass is a bus pass, administered by the getDowntown program, that downtown employers can purchase for their employees for $5 a year. The go!pass allows the holder of the pass to ride all AATA buses without paying a fare upon boarding. The DDA pays the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority the cost of the rides. The bulk of the three-year funding request approved on Wednesday goes to the bus passes:

Request          2010-2011  2011-2012  2012-2013
DDA go!pass      $378,684   $438,566   $475,572
DDA getDowntown   $66,988    $49,488    $64,488
Total Request    $445,672   $488,054   $540,060

-
Mouat noted that the getDowntown program was now a decade old, and was thus well-established. There were plans to implement a swipeable go!pass, he said.

[Last year, the AATA installed fare boxes that are capable of processing swipeable cards. The University of Michigan MCards, which allow UM affiliates to ride AATA buses without paying a fare on boarding, already make use of the technology. Rides taken with go!pass cards are tracked as the MCards were previously – bus drivers manually record the ride in a particular category with a manual button press. Swiping cards allows the ride to be associated with a particular rider. It would eliminate the need to re-issue cards every year.]

Mouat drew the board’s attention to the graph showing go!pass usage over the years, which he quipped showed that their use had literally gone “off the charts”:

go!pass usage graph. (Image links to higher resolution graph)

The number of passes issued this year stands at 6,333, with 467 companies participating. Last year there were a total of 456,547 rides taken with the go!pass.

During deliberations, Jennifer S. Hall said she was glad to see the getDowntown program put on a three-year funding plan, because it added stability to the program.

Russ Collins noted that the 10 years of the program’s existence was actually something of concern to him. “We have a transportation authority [AATA],” he said, and he wondered why there was such reliance on the DDA. Leah Gunn’s explanation was that the program had started as a federal grant and that when it ran out, the DDA had taken up the slack. When Nancy Shore had come on board, Gunn said, the program had really taken off. Gunn stated that she did not think they were going to get money from the AATA for the program.

In terms of the overall budget, Mouat said, the dollar amounts were not all that large:

Allocation of the parking fund, which pays for the getDowntown program funding provided by the DDA – getDowntown and the go!pass come from the green slice.

Roger Hewitt called getDowntown a “great program” and said he supported it. But he wondered how many go!pass users would ride the bus anyway. He raised the question of whether the go!pass was shifting habits or if it amounted to a subsidy. He said he was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of a three-year commitment without some idea of the numbers.

Hewitt was making a familiar point. Back on Nov. 26, 2008 at the innaugural meeting of the DDA’s newly formed transportation committee, Hewitt had asked the same question. From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Those two programs (a bus pass program for downtown workers and downtown circulator buses) had been identified at the DDA annual retreat as part of an outcomes analysis of current transportation investments that needed to be undertaken. At the committee meeting, Hewitt said he wanted to know what the DDA’s funding of the go!pass program was actually accomplishing: subsidizing people who would ride the bus anyway (something he said he was not necessarily against), or causing people to ride the bus instead of driving their cars.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Nancy Shore told Hewitt that more than half of go!pass users had indicated in a survey that they thought they used the bus more as a result of the pass.

Hewitt came back around to the idea that he did not think it was necessarily bad if they were subsidizing bus use, but he thought the DDA needed to understand how much the subsidy was.

Hall observed that the amount of money for getDowntown is relatively small. The AATA, she said, is the transit authority and their job is to provide the buses and the drivers. The job of the DDA, she said, is to help market transportation – the DDA was not taking the place of the transportation authority, she said.

Keith Orr commented that it was not just a matter of how many people used the cards – there were some people who couldn’t get to work without the go!pass, he said.

Collins noted that the $5 charge to employers for each card had never been increased. He said it could be doubled and the cost would still be nominal. He’d like to see some strategies explored to start the program towards sustainability.

John Splitt suggested it would be possible to gather more data once the swipeable card was put in place.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that the AATA was investing in the downtown area by using federal funds to help rebuild the Blake Transit Center.

Outcome: The three-year funding plan for getDowntown and the go!pass was unanimously approved.

LEED Certification for Parking Structure

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program. Before the board at its June 2 meeting was a resolution authorizing the Christman Company, which is the construction manager for the underground Fifth Avenue parking garage, to apply to the U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) for LEED certification at the Silver level. Among the elements to be cited in the application:

• Reuse of mass excavation materials as part of the structural concrete mix
• Concrete and reinforcing steel will have substantial recycled material content
• Recharging stations for electric vehicles – as well as extensive conduit runs to accommodate future electric car demand increases
• LED lighting, including use of motion-detector technology for low demand time periods
• Natural ventilation (where possible)
• 100% of storm water from the site will have total dissolved solids removed, far exceeding requirements

John Mouat, an architect, said he thought it was great for the parking garage to be constructed as sustainably as possible, but that he did not feel the LEED program was designed to accommodate parking structures. His concern, he said, was from the technical perspective of the LEED program.

Jennifer S. Hall indicated that if a parking structure was going to be built, then it might as well be built sustainably.

Outcome: The resolution to authorize application for LEED certification for the underground parking structure was approved, with dissent from Mouat and Collins.

Parking

Parking as a topic took up a fair chunk of the June 2 meeting. It followed board members out of the offices at the conclusion of the meeting as well, as this vignette illustrates.

After the regular meeting of the DDA board, Joan Lowenstein was standing on the sidewalk outside the Fifth Avenue office building where the DDA is housed, when a car traveling south braked to a halt, earning the driver an angry honk from the trailing traffic: “Excuse me, is there a car park around here?”came the question from the British-accented female passenger.

Lowenstein did not explain that here in America we don’t call them “car parks.” Instead, mindful of the waiting cars behind, Lowenstein gave super-efficient directions: At that intersection, turn right, you’ll see it.

Parking: Monthly Parking Report

In reviewing the monthly parking report from April 2010 compared to April 2009, Roger Hewitt noted that revenue was up 9.5%, which he attributed largely to the rate increases. Hourly patrons were down a “minuscule” amount, he said. Jennifer S. Hall was curious to know if future reports could include the revenue numbers with the average ticket price for hourly patrons separated out, to get some idea of what was going on with that.

Parking: ParkingCarma

At the board’s April 2010 meeting, representatives from a startup company, ParkingCarma, had pitched the idea of an online reservation system for the city’s parking system. They’d been invited back to a subsequent operations committee meeting. However, at Wednesday’s board meeting, Roger Hewitt indicated that the committee had opted not to go forward with that system at this time. He cited the company’s lack of experience in implementing their program in a municipal parking system for use with daily operations.

Hewitt said there was a potential public relations issue as well, with a system possibly indicated as full, but with visible empty spaces due to the fact that they were reserved.

Payment in Lieu of Parking (PILOP)

The draft resolution on payments in lieu of parking arose out of a request from Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, for the DDA to weigh in on the issue. Last year’s passage of the A2D2 rezoning of the downtown area included a provision that allowed for developers to make a payment instead of actually constructing required parking on site. The relevant part of the city code comes from Chapter 59 [emphasis added]:

5:169.  Special parking districts. Lots located in the D1 or D2 downtown zoning districts are considered a special parking district and are subject to the following standards:

(1) No off-street motor vehicle parking is required in the special parking district for structures which do not exceed the normal maximum permitted usable floor area or for structures zoned PUD with usable floor area which does not exceed 300 percent of the lot area. Structures which exceed the normal maximum usable floor area by providing floor area premiums, or PUD-zoned structures that exceed 300 percent of lot area, shall provide parking spaces for the usable floor area in excess of the normal maximum permitted. This parking shall be provided at a rate of 1 off-street parking space for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area. Each parking space reserved, signed and enforced for a car-sharing service may count as four (4) required motor vehicle parking spaces.

[...]

(3) The required bicycle or motor vehicle parking shall be provided on-site, off-site as described in this section, or by the payment of a contribution in lieu of required parking consistent with the formula adopted by City Council, or any combination thereof, consistent with the requirements of this section. The per-space payment shall be that required by Council resolution at the time of payment.

Rampson had asked the DDA to provide a recommendation on the formula for the payment in lieu.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Brad Mikus cautioned board members to look seriously at the payment in lieu of parking (PILOP) draft recommendation, which suggests that a $30 surcharge be placed on monthly permits that would be purchased by developers. Mikus suggested that the $30 surcharge would not be nearly adequate to cover the actual cost of constructing parking spaces elsewhere. If the payments in lieu of parking were not adequate to allow construction of spaces, he said, the system would wind up being a subsidy for developers.

During the board discussion on the draft resolution – no decision was made on it – Roger Hewitt described the surcharge as similar to the arrangement that is already in place with Corner House Lofts, at 205 S. State St. Leah Gunn described it as a very complex issue.

Jennifer S. Hall compared the PILOP to the city’s previous experience with similar programs for affordable housing. Allowing developers to pay into a fund out of which construction would be paid for allowed the benefit of aggregation – building all of the affordable housing in one place. However, she noted that the formula for the affordable housing payments in lieu were a “good deal” for developers who chose to pay rather than build on site, and the resulting funds were not adequate to actually construct affordable housing units. What do you do if you have to build the parking? she wondered.

Russ Collins noted that developers can build anywhere outside of downtown. He shared with the board how he’d recently been standing in the Kmart parking lot out by Maple road. “It was monstrously ugly,” he said. He continued:

But it’s exactly what people want. They want parking. And they don’t care about downtown. And it’s sad. And I’m not saying everybody, but a whole bunch of people. And part of me wanted to just take pictures or film this panning across this acres and acres of asphalt, sitting outside of a 1960s mall, and saying what we’re trying to do downtown is try to create something on a human scale. And we as a DDA, we know that, but we need to think three-dimensionally.

And there’s a whole bunch of people that really just want acres of parking with no vegetation … the only way it looks halfway decent is if you’re driving past it as 40 miles an hour. But that’s how so much of our built environment exists … I think we sometimes get obsessed about what we want to do here, but we’ve got to add that third dimension that there’s a whole bunch, a majority of the population, that really only cares about where they need to park their cars – not the human space, not the walkable environment, not a convenient place for people who are a little disadvantaged to be able to live and thrive. …

It’s so easy to get focused on the narrow dynamics of an exciting downtown, but that’s not what we live in – we live in a suburban environment where we have to remember that most people really don’t care about the downtown. They care about the convenience of their automobile. And that makes it a very complicated calculus. … We need to to preach the virtue of human scale downtowns and walkable environments, of preserving a built environment that’s designed for human beings, not for machines.

Joan Lowenstein brought the discussion back down to the PILOP issue by noting that in most cases the situations they were talking about would be residential or office uses, and “not where people go to get giant bags of kitty litter.” But she said she agreed that it was important to keep that context in mind.

Lowenstein also responded to Hall’s comments about the problems with the affordable housing payment-in-lieu formula, saying that after Hall’s service on the planning commission, the formula had changed. She described it as fairly elaborate. She felt like something could be worked out for parking as well. Lowenstein suggested it was important to make it “a tiny bit punitive” so that you get meaningful dollars out of it, but not so punitive that developers prefer instead to build in the townships.

Lowenstein said she was glad that Rampson had asked the DDA to weigh in on the issue.

Mayor John Hieftje confirmed that the affordable housing payment-in-lieu formula had been changed because it was felt that the amount was not enough. He also countered Collins’ contention that what people want is parking by suggesting that “it’s what’s there for them.” Addressing that issue was why DDAs were created, he said.

Arts Alliance Web Portal

During public commentary, Tamara Real, president of the Arts Alliance, addressed the board to give them an update on the development of a website, a3arts.org, that is meant to be a one-stop online venue for all things art and culture in Washtenaw County. Real had addressed the board at its  Oct. 7, 2009 meeting asking for funding. That request was remanded to the partnerships committee, which eventually suggested that a reduced amount of funding be allocated – up to $10,000 – instead of the $25,000 the alliance had requested.

From The Chronicle’s Dec. 2, 2009 DDA board meeting report:

As for the Arts Alliance request for $25,000 to build a web portal – as part of a $50,000 total budget – [Sandi] Smith said that the partnerships committee had recommended to the alliance that it provide a clearer idea of what the portal would do. If the alliance needed some start-up money to get started so that the idea could be clearer, the committee had suggested to the alliance that the executive director of the DDA had discretionary use of amounts up to $10,000, which they might pursue.

On Wednesday, Real showed the DDA board work that had been done on the website to date, stressing that a countywide survey had revealed 1,174 working artists in Washtenaw County. The website will include examples of artists’ work, a way to purchase their work, event listings, and a platform for artists to share resources like workspaces. The plan is to populate the website’s databases over the summer and to launch it sometime in the fall, she said. That was why they were asking the DDA for additional support, Real said.

Heritage Row, Zaragon Place 2

Ray Detter gave his report out from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, which typically meets on the Tuesday evening before the Wednesday DDA board meetings. Detter said that the council had talked about a broad range of issues, including their commitment to residential development inside the DDA tax capture district. An example of a project the DCAC supported, he said, was Zaragon Place 2.

The previous evening, Detter reported, Alex de Parry had paid a visit to the DCAC to talk about the Heritage Row project, which is proposed for South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street. William is the boundary of the tax district. Detter said that the DCAC does not take positions on projects outside the downtown tax capture district. However, individuals had expressed opinions on the Heritage Row project. Many people were in favor of those aspects of the project that involved restoring the seven houses fronting Fifth Avenue. As for the three buildings proposed for construction behind the houses, Detter noted that the proposed setbacks would not meet the D1 zoning standard for the downtown area if the project were located there.

Retreat, Mutually Beneficial City-DDA Discussions

Roger Hewitt summarized the DDA retreat of eight board members the previous Friday as a “lively discussion.” He said there was unanimous support for the DDA taking responsibility for parking enforcement and virtually no support for the DDA taking responsibility for code enforcement. There was some support, he said, for the DDA providing services in the downtown area.

Hewitt also said there was broad support for the DDA taking responsibility for the development of city-owned surface parking lots, although there was a variation of opinion on what that meant.

Hewitt also reported Village Green’s City Apartments project as a retreat topic, with discussion centering on whether to go forward or to give up on the project – the city may grant an extension for the project’s site plan approval sometime in the next month. The DDA has a $9 million commitment to the project, which Newcombe Clark argued at the retreat should be given a sunset provision. Without an extension to the site plan approval by the city council, due to expire now on June 30, the project would effectively be dead.

The issue of downtown policing and “eyes on the street,” Hewitt said, would be discussed further by the partnerships committee. Over the last month, Newcombe Clark has brought back the issue of downtown beat cops as something the DDA might be interested in seeing restored as part of any agreement between the DDA and the city.

As part of the police department reorganization for the FY 2010 budget, bicycle-mounted dedicated beat patrols were phased out in favor of a strategy of having officers use their one-hour “out of car” time to park in the downtown and walk downtown. As the discussion has evolved over the last few weeks, Clark and Hewitt have expressed a consensus for the need for “eyes on the street,” with the idea that it’s now an open question whether those eyes are most cost effectively provided by sworn police officers.

Part of the partnerships committee discussion on downtown beat patrols will be informed by a collection of broader facts about the issue, including the perception of safety downtown. The DDA has created an online downtown safety survey to collect information about how safe people feel downtown.

Hewitt also announced that the city and the DDA’s respective “mutually beneficial” committees would meet, and that there would be proper notice given.

Jennifer S. Hall asked how it would be ensured that proper notice would be given. Russ Collins assured Hall that everyone was properly informed as to the meetings and that if the meetings were not properly noticed, “I will sit in the rain in West Park with a hairshirt on my back.”

Energy Grant Program

Russ Collins reported from the partnerships committee that all except for $18,000 had been spent on the DDA’s energy grant program, with that amount also expected to be paid out as well. The program helps pay for energy audits for downtown buildings and for a portion of the improvements undertaken as a result of the audits. Collins said the basic impact of the program was that it was successful in getting small businesses as well as large buildings to get audits and to follow through on improvements.

Bike Hoops

Russ Collins reported from the partnerships committee that Jeff Irwin – currently a Washtenaw County commissioner representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, and also a candidate for the District 53 state house seat in the Democratic primary – had paid a visit to the partnerships committee to pitch the idea of a bike hoop contest. The idea would be for the DDA to commission a funky bike hoop every year by issuing some kind of request for proposals asking an artist to design a functional and aesthetically pleasing bicycle hoop. The idea, Collins said, had been referred to the DDA’s transportation committee.

Present: Jennifer S. Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat

Absent: Sandi Smith, Newcombe Clark, Gary Boren

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, July 7, 2010, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

They also acted on several budget-related items, including 1) setting a public hearing for a proposed economic development tax, 2) passing the first phase of administrator Bob Guenzel’s recommendations to address a projected $26 million deficit, and 3) briefly discussing a proposal for changing the funding process for some nonprofits. Several leaders from the local arts community also turned out for a presentation on a countywide cultural plan.

But a large portion of the meeting was devoted to deliberations on the land bank, and that’s where we’ll begin our coverage.

Land Bank

County treasurer Catherine McClary had prepped commissioners who attended the July 1 administrative briefing about her request that they authorize the formation of a land bank. She gave essentially the same presentation at Wednesday’s meeting, outlining the rationale for a land bank and the specific instances in which it could be used.

The land bank is a mechanism to take temporary ownership of tax- or mortgage-foreclosed land while the county works to put it back into productive use. “Productive use” could mean several things, like selling it to a nonprofit like Habitat for Humanity to rehab, or demolishing a blighted structure and turning the land into a community garden. Right now, there aren’t many options to deal with blighted properties. In the case of a tax foreclosure, for example, the treasurer is required to auction off the parcel to the highest bidder – often, that’s an out-of-state buyer who’s looking for cheap rental property, sight unseen. There’s a high likelihood that the cycle of foreclosure will repeat itself, McClary said.

One concern McClary said she’d heard was that there isn’t a formal plan for how the land bank will work. That’s because the entity would be governed by a land bank authority, which would be responsible for putting in place policies, procedures and a strategic plan. That authority can’t be appointed until after the land bank is formed. McClary has applied for a grant from the Genesee Institute, which would help set up the land bank.

The institute’s founder, Dan Kildee, attended Wednesday night’s meeting and helped McClary field questions from commissioners. Kildee is a kind of “rock star” among land bank enthusiasts – a group which includes commissioner Conan Smith. In addition to serving as treasurer of Genesee County, where Flint is located, Kildee founded Michigan’s first land bank and helped write the enabling legislation for these land bank entities.

McClary said she wasn’t asking the county for staff or funding – the program would initially get $300,000 from the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program. But she was asking commissioners to fast track approval – normally, they would vote on the proposal at their Ways & Means Committee meeting, which immediately precedes the board meeting, then vote on it a final time at the next board meeting. But their next board meeting isn’t until August, and the state Land Bank Fast Track Authority, which must approve the local land bank, was meeting the next day, July 9. McClary hoped commissioners would approve the land bank authorization at both the Ways & Means and regular board meeting on Wednesday. If they wanted to have the land bank in place to deal with properties this year, they needed to act now: “We really are on a tight time schedule, but I don’t believe a precipitous one,” she said.

This fast track approach was a source of some contention. Commissioner Jessica Ping asked why they hadn’t heard about this before, and why it was suddenly so urgent. McClary said she’d heard concerns that a land bank would cause pressure to move private property into the foreclosure process, so she wanted to make sure the county had a strong foreclosure prevention program in place before she proposed the land bank.

Commissioner Wes Prater said he was bothered by the fact that tax dollars were being used to buy property, then sell it at a loss: “If you continue to do that very long, you won’t be in operation very long.” He was also concerned that it was letting lenders off the hook – the county would be paying the lender to take it off their hands. Kildee said if you hold onto a property waiting for the value to increase, you risk having an abandoned house sitting there for a long time. McClary pointed out that mortgage foreclosures hadn’t been the focus of their discussions. And commissioner Mark Ouimet, a former bank executive, said that lenders would already be off the hook – in most cases, lenders would write off these properties as dead assets.

McClary also pointed out that even if you sell a property at a loss – say, to a nonprofit that would rehab the house and resell it – the fact that you now have a decent, occupied house instead of a blighted, vacant property means that property values for all the surrounding homes would likely increase.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson didn’t like the fact that the county board would have no control over the land bank authority, other than appointing some of its members. Kildee pointed out that the bank would have to conform to local planning and zoning laws. Peterson said he could see the need for a land bank in the Flint area, where the market was seriously distressed, but that it was different in Washtenaw. He didn’t like the government getting into the real estate business, seizing property that the free market should handle. Peterson also felt the $300,000 designated for the land bank would be better used as an emergency mortgage payment fund, helping people stay out of foreclosure.

He was also worried about maintenance costs for these properties while they were held by the land bank – who would be responsible for cutting grass or shoveling snow? [Earlier this year, the Genesee Land Bank, which owns nearly 4,000 parcels, was criticized for just that reason.] Finally, Peterson was annoyed that more people hadn’t been consulted, like the Eastern Leaders Group, and that there hadn’t been a working session on the topic for commissioners.

Ouimet suggested putting a limit on the number of properties the land bank could acquire, or the amount of money it could invest. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked if the board of commissioners could dissolve the land bank, if they felt it wasn’t working – they could.

Commissioner Jeff Irwin, saying he was enthusiastic about the land bank, offered to revise part of the resolution to address some of the control issues that had been raised, giving the board final approval over the land bank’s strategies and policies. Commissioner Leah Gunn asked whether these changes would affect state approval – McClary said they would not.

Irwin worked on the language and consulted with other commissioners during the break between the Ways & Means Committee meeting and the regular board meeting. At the board meeting, commissioners approved the resolution, with these revised clauses:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to negotiate a contract with the Washtenaw County Land Bank Authority Board to permit the Land Bank Authority to operate, in part, using County resources, provided such resources are fully reimbursed back to the County from Land Bank Authority funds, upon the review and approval of Corporation Counsel and approval of the Board of Commissioners.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the by-laws, articles of incorporation, and the strategies and policies for acquisition, maintenance and disposition of assets to be under the control of the Washtenaw County Land Bank Authority will be presented for approval to the Board of Commissioners by December 31, 2009.

Before the final vote, Peterson again stated that he didn’t like how this had been handled. He complained that discussing it at the administrative briefing wasn’t public – a complaint he’s voiced often in the past, specifically because administrative briefings aren’t held in the board room or broadcast on Community Television Network. He called the fast-track process for voting on the land bank “very unusual” and not how a program should be established. He warned county department heads that ”if this junk happens again, I’m going to rip somebody’s head off.”

Ping, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said she would have been happy to schedule a session on the land bank, but she hadn’t been asked. Smith said he apologized if his exuberance about the program had caused it to be brought forward too quickly.

The land bank resolution passed unanimously.

2010 Budget

The board passed, with little discussion, the first phase of the 2010 budget recommendations made by the administration to tackle a looming $26 million deficit in 2010 and 2011. [See previous Chronicle coverage of the budget at the June board meeting.]

The one change made at the table concerned funding for nonprofits in the areas of children’s well-being and human services. Commissioner Leah Gunn asked that the proposed funding cuts, which in aggregate reduced allocations by 20%, be removed from the rest of the budget recommendations. She has proposed an alternative resolution, to be taken up at the Aug. 5 meeting. The resolution states that some nonprofits, for which funding had previously been earmarked, must now participate in competitive grant funding through the Office of Community Development, which is jointly operated by the county and the city of Ann Arbor.

The proposal also restores the 20% cuts, and adds an additional $15,000 to the “pool” of funding that can be distributed by OCD – bringing the total funding for nonprofits to $1.015 million.

Having all nonprofits go through a competitive grant process levels the playing field, Gunn told her colleagues. It’s not fair that some groups get preferential treatment by being funded directly from the county, while others must go through the OCD grant application process. Only two nonprofits retain direct funding – the Domestic Violence Project/Safe House ($96,000) and the Shelter Association ($160,000). Gunn made these exceptions because the buildings are owned and maintained by the county. In a note attached to her proposal, she wrote that “it is in our own special interest to see that these programs continue, and that the buildings remain in good repair.”

Commissioner Barbara Bergman praised the criteria that the OCD has developed to evaluate grant applications, saying that the objective measures would make the process more fair – “it doesn’t matter how cute or pathetic or wonderful they (the nonprofits) are.” She said the decision affects some of her pet projects, but if her ox gets gored, so be it. “My ox is in the game,” Bergman said.

Saying he wasn’t against changing the allocation procedure, commissioner Ronnie Peterson asked the administration to check whether the county had any contractual obligations or commitments to the nonprofits that would be affected.

Public Hearings

Input on the Department of Justice Byrne Justice Assistance Grant

Only one person – Jim Mogensen – spoke at the public hearing for the Department of Justice Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, for which the sheriff’s department is applying. [Applications were due the following day, July 9.] The sheriff’s department is applying for $160,723 to fund the department’s community outreach program.

Here’s a description of the grant program from the DoJ website:

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)) is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. JAG funds support all components of the criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to crime prevention and domestic violence programs, courts, corrections, treatment, and justice information sharing initiatives. JAG funded projects may address crime through the provision of services directly to individuals and/or communities and by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes, and procedures.

Mogensen said he had contacted Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s department, to obtain a copy of the grant application, but that he hadn’t heard back from Jackson. Mogensen said that several years ago he began noticing homeland security and Department of Justice grants coming in locally, and he started asking what strings were attached to this federal money. No one will confirm or deny whether there are strings attached, he said, and even if there were, no one would say what those strings are.

It’s important to know what might be required in exchange for accepting these grants, he said, so that local governments can have the option of saying “no.” For example, if the federal government decided it wanted help enforcing immigration regulations, one way to do that might be to force local governments that have accepted homeland security grants to help with enforcement.

Mogensen said he realized this was a pro-forma hearing, but that he would like some follow up so that he could get a copy of the grant application for his files. The board unanimously passed the resolution authorizing the grant application.

Setting a Public Hearing for a Proposed Tax

The board approved a resolution setting a public hearing at the Aug. 5, 2009 board meeting to get input on a proposed economic development tax. The administration has proposed levying 0.017 mills – or about $1.70 per year for every $100,000 in a property’s taxable value – to raise $200,000 for the local economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK and $50,000 for SPARK East, the group’s Ypsilanti-based office. The proposed budget has funding for those entities coming from the general fund. If the millage is passed, these new tax dollars would replace the $250,000 in general fund dollars currently earmarked for SPARK. This millage can be approved by commissioners, rather than getting voter approval, because the enabling legislation – Act 88 – predates the state’s Headley Amendment. If approved, the tax would be levied in December 2009.

Appointments

The board unanimously approved appointments to five county boards and commissions, with Kristin Judge dissenting on Paul Seelbach’s appointment to the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee. Judge objected to appointing someone who had missed the application deadline – an issue she had raised at the July 1 administrative briefing. Seelbach was endorsed by the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission, but his application had been turned in to the clerk’s office on June 1 – after a May 29 deadline. Bob Tetens, the county’s parks and recreation director, said that Seelbach had sent his application to the Parks & Rec Commission before the deadline. Judge wasn’t persuaded, saying that it was important to be professional and transparent in the process, and that the other candidate had managed to follow the rules.

In addition to Seelbach, the board approved these appointments:

• Daniel Brady, Danielle Choi and Mary Smith to the community action board.
• Danielle Choi, Shoshana DeMaria and Geoffrey Fowler to the emergency medical services commission.
• Debra Adams, Daniel Brady, Shoshana DeMaria and Paul Ganz to the workforce development board.
• Pat Ivey, David McMahon and Jolea Mull to the local emergency planning committee.

Washtenaw Cultural Plan

A resolution on Wednesday’s agenda gave the Arts Alliance the ability to apply for National Endowment for the Arts grants on behalf of the county. Tamara Real, the nonprofit’s executive director,  gave a presentation to the board about a countywide cultural plan that’s been developed over the past two years. [Details about the plan are on the alliance's website.]

Real summed up the role of the alliance this way: “We do what they hate, so they can create.”  The “they” in this case are artists and others in the creative economy, who rely on the Arts Alliance for the “non-sexy” side of art, Real said – research, advocacy, being a liaison between the arts, business and government.

The alliance’s first step was to do an economic impact study, trying to gauge contributions that the arts make in Washtenaw County. The study, based on data from 2002, found that nonprofit cultural organizations contributed $165 million to the local economy, and were responsible for 2,600 jobs and nearly $57 million in household income, Real said.

Working with groups and individuals countywide, the alliance then developed a cultural master plan to create a strategic vision for the next five years. The plan dovetails with the Ann Arbor Region Success effort, Real said – the 34 recommendations of the cultural plan feed into the goals for the Region Success initiative. The final steps have been to customize the plan for each of the county’s seven population centers, she said – that work is almost complete. With a plan in place, they can work toward specific goals that will bolster the arts community. It’s not a plan that will sit on the shelf and gather dust, Real said.

Several people involved in developing the cultural plan – and representing various geographic regions of the county – attended Wednesday’s meeting. Two of them spoke to commissioners following Real’s presentation. Artist David Austin, who owns the What Is That Gallery in Ypsilanti, said there’s a renaissance happening in Ypsilanti, but that they’re poised at the precipice and need the county’s help to do their small part reviving Michigan’s economy. Paul Cousins of Dexter also spoke to commissioners, saying he wasn’t an artist – the only thing he plays is the radio, he joked – but that he recognized the economic benefits of the arts. In Dexter, one recent example was the opening of The Encore, a new musical theater downtown which has drawn people to local restaurants, too. The fact is, it does work, he said.

Several commissioners voiced support for the arts. Jeff Irwin encouraged Real to return at some point and talk about additional resources the alliance might need to pursue its goals.

Other Presentations and Recognitions

Area Agency on Aging 1-B

Tina Abbate Marzolf, CEO for the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, made a presentation to the board about her organization, which receives funding from the county. The roughly $24,000 that the county spends each year on the agency is used to leverage $5 million in state and federal dollars, Marzolf said. Their mission is to support older adults in southeast Michigan, as well as people with disabilities. And like most social service agencies, they face funding cuts. About 30% of their funding comes from the state, which is cutting its support by 15% in 2010, Marzolf said. The main services that might be affected by those cuts include meal delivery, in-home services, daycare programs and volunteer respite programs. Federal stimulus funding will help offset the state losses, but that funding is temporary, she noted.

Marzolf said they are exploring partnerships and other strategies to deal with dwindling resources. Pilot food delivery programs, for example, include working with UPS drivers, or delivering more meals at a time on fewer days, rather than delivering meals each day. One of the challenges for meal delivery is that the service entails more than just food – it’s also a time for socialization that’s important for people who can’t leave their homes. She said they are always looking for ways to find efficiencies – locally, for example, they partner with the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living.

Commissioner Barbara Bergman noted that she’d served on the Area Agency on Aging 1-B board of directors for 12 years: “I’ve been aging with the agency.”

National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee

Commissioner Mark Ouimet, vice chair of the board, presented a proclamation to Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, declaring Aug. 1-7 as National Training Institute Week. During that week, the National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee is, for the first time, bringing its annual training institute to Ann Arbor. Kerr was instrumental in helping bring that group of about 2,000 electrical workers to town, with an estimated economic impact of $5 million. The institute is a joint program of the National Electrical Contractors Association and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Washtenaw County MSU Extension

The board also honored the Washtenaw County Michigan State University Extension, which recently received the state Housing Development Authority’s Homeownership Division Housing Agency of the Year award. Nancy Thelen, director of the local MSU extension, was on hand to accept the commendation, recognizing specifically the program’s work in mortgage foreclosure prevention and home ownership counseling.

Public Commentary

Several people spoke during the time set aside for public comment at the beginning of the meeting, with three minutes allotted for each speaker.

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen expressed concern about funding for human services. Governments are outsourcing the social safety net to various nonprofits, then cutting funding. At some point, nonprofits won’t be able to provide the services the community needs. There’s also the issue of mandatory versus non-mandatory services. The board might decide to cut funding for non-mandatory social services, but that could convert into an increased cost for mandatory services, like the jail system – if people don’t have the safety net of social service agencies, they could wind up in the criminal justice system. The board needs to think very carefully about the implications for their funding decisions, Mogensen said.

John Weiss: The director of the Neutral Zone, a nonprofit that provides activities and programs for local teens, briefed commissioners on the Washtenaw Youth Development Initiative. The effort is focused on building the capacity of youth-serving agencies around the county and on developing the leadership skills of local youth. One recent example of their work is the Youth Peace Town Hall – held in April at Eastern Michigan University, more than 100 people attended, Weiss said. The event was sponsored by the Washtenaw Youth Development Initiative and the Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth. Weiss urged the county to continue its support for youth-focused programs.

Jackie Martin: Martin is extension educator for the county’s 4-H Youth Development program. She spoke about the upcoming Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show, which runs from July 26-31, saying that more than 700 people are expected to participate. Two teens from the extension’s advisory council also spoke their positive experiences with 4-H.

Tom Partridge: Partridge spoke on all four occasions available for public comment – at the beginning and end of the Ways & Means Committee meeting, and at the beginning and end of the regular board meeting. He berated the board for its summer schedule, saying there was important work to be done and that they should meet more frequently than once a month. He said their agenda was inadequate, and didn’t include issues like expanding public transportation and dealing with deputy patrol contracts with the townships.

Executive Session

The board ended its meeting with a closed-door executive session related to pending litigation. At the July 1 briefing, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger told commissioners that the session would provide an update on the lawsuit brought against the county by Bruce Lee. Lee and his brother, Clifton Lee, were involved in a 2006 encounter with sheriff’s deputies in the West Willow neighborhood, which led to Clifton Lee’s death. Last year, the county settled a previous lawsuit – brought by Clifton Lee’s heirs – for $4 million.

Next board meeting: The board is working on a summer schedule, with regular meetings held only once a month. The next meeting is Wednesday, Aug. 5 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

Baron Glassworks owner Annette Baron, left foreground, guides Pam Roselle in making a glass "garden ball," while Baron Glassworks employee Jim Fry describes the technique to another visitor preparing to try glassblowing. (Photo by the writer.)

On November 24, 1998, Annette Baron fired up the furnace at her glassblowing studio, Baron Glassworks, on Railroad Street in Ypsilanti – that fire has been burning ever since, and Baron has practiced the art of glassblowing there for over a decade.

That’s what Baron told a crowd of about 25 fellow artists gathered at her studio on June 22. They came for a Creative Connections networking event held by the Arts Alliance, an Ann Arbor area cultural organization. The evening included food and live jazz music – and, of course, glassblowing.

Jim Fry, who described himself as a Baron Glassworks student and employee, took some time to explain the art of glassblowing to The Chronicle before the event began.

First, he pointed out the heating equipment near the back of the studio. Even from 10 feet away, the heat prickles your skin with a discomforting intensity – it feels like it could burn you without your even touching it. (That’s because, as Baron would later explain, glass needs to be heated to about 2,000 degrees before it can be shaped.)

The furnace – a large, square brick structure glowing orange at the cracks – stores molten, clear glass. Next to the furnace, there are “glory holes”: smaller box-like structures with a large, open hole in the front (also glowing a molten orange). Fry explained that glassblowers use the glory holes to reheat the glass they’re working on when it starts to harden.

“Most materials you work with, they’re pretty stable for a long period of time,” Fry said. “Glass is constantly changing.”

Baron Glassworks owner Annette Baron, right, guides Pam Roselle in shaping the molten glass using jacks. (Photo by the writer.)

As they’re sculpting it, glass artists will use gravity’s force on the molten glass to help shape it, Fry said. They also use a variety of specialized tools. Fry picked up and explained each tool from an array of equipment lined up on a wooden workbench. He held what looked like a huge pair of metallic tweezers in the air, opening and closing them. The tweezers are called jacks, and they’re used for shaping the molten glass.

“They basically replace your fingers,” said Fry, who compared molding the glass to sculpting clay.

There are also tweezers (which look much like the jacks) used for twisting the glass, shears for cutting the molten material and a wooden paddle used to flatten and sculpt.

Since they only have one furnace that holds clear glass, Fry said the Baron glassblowers add color to their pieces in a couple different ways. Off to the right of the furnace, a wheeled rack holds rows and rows of coffee cans. Fry takes the cap off one to reveal that it’s filled with lime green flakes of glass. To make their pieces green or blue or any other color, the glassblowers roll the molten glass in the flakes, which are called “frit.”

They also use solid rods of colored glass. The rod, when heated, expands and spreads out to create a layer of color inside a clear piece.

After they’re finished with a piece, they place them in large boxes – called annealers – on the floor in the studio. The annealing process cools the glass down slowly over a period of 24 hours so it won’t stress or crack, Fry said.

After gathering the Creative Connections attendees inside the small studio space, Baron dons safety equipment before giving a demonstration. She straps on a tan vest, which has compartments in the front for ice packs to keep her cool as she works near the furnace. She also mentions that those who want to try out glassblowing later will need to wear safety glasses, and there are sleeves (tubes of cloth that look like long, toeless athletic socks) to protect their arms.

Baron sticks a long, hollow metal blowpipe into the furnace and draws it back out with a gob of molten glass on the end. She blows into the other end of the pipe, and a bubble forms in the gob of glass. She rolls it along a steel table to shape it, blows on it more to make the bubble bigger, and puts the end of the blowpipe in one of the glory holes to heat the glass again.

Annette Baron, owner and founder of Baron Glassworks, explains glassblowing safety guidelines to a group of visitors in her studio. Two pieces of heating equipment stand behind her: a furnace for storing molten glass and a glory hole for reheating glass during the shaping process.

At one point, she rolls the glass-covered end of the blowpipe in one of the cans of frit and melts the color into it using the glory hole, creating swirls and streaks of pigment as she shapes the malleable, glowing glass. There are also benches flanked by what look like metal arm rests, but which are actually more aids for shaping the glass. Baron rolls the pipe swiftly along them, using the jacks to sculpt. She explains that she can tell the temperature of the glass through the jacks – not through hotness, but through texture and resistance.

As Baron alternates between the sculpting table and bench and the glory hole, Phil Yamron – a Baron Glassworks employee – tells the observers (or rather yells to, over the sound of the fans in the work area) that the glassblower must constantly turn the pipe while she’s working. Otherwise, the glass will drip right off of it.

Baron tells the group watching her that she’s making a “garden ball,” which people who try glassblowing after the demo will also be creating.

After many trips from the work bench to the glory hole and back, Baron forms a large, hollow, green sphere at the end of her pipe. She takes it over to a tin on one of the tables and places the sphere in it. With a tap of the pipe, the newly formed garden ball comes loose. Then, using a solid rod, she uses more molten glass from the furnace to seal the hole at the top of the ball.

Pam Roselle, a painter, was the first visitor to have Baron guide her through the process to make her own garden ball. Roselle said she loved her first experience with glassblowing.

“It was fabulous,” Roselle said. “It took a lot of wind. I love the fact that they have a mechanism to cool themselves off while they’re doing it.”

Arts Alliance president Tamara Real called Baron’s studio a gem in the community that not many people know about. “Something like glass seems like such an unapproachable art form,” Real said. However, she added, events like this help show people that it’s “not out of your grasp.” 

Baron Glassworks employee Cal Fette praised the alliance for “getting people to recognize the jewels in their own backyards.” Fette noted how Baron rents her space out to young artists and also gives glassblowing classes. And, as far as she knows, it’s the only studio of its kind in the county, Fette said.

Baron said she was really excited to have the Arts Alliance and Creative Connections visit her studio. “I hope they do well because their mission is so unique,” she said. “This organization actually reaches down and has services for artists and promotes art.”

The alliance’s website describes Creative Connections as “a monthly gathering for creative and cultural folks in our region.” The events are held at different venues across Washtenaw County. The evening at Baron Glassworks was the last in the 2008-09 season – next season’s line-up will be posted online in the fall.

About the author: Helen Nevius, a student at Eastern Michigan University, is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle.  

Scott Rosencrans, a member of the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission, and Elaine Selo of Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street, at a meeting to discuss the city’s arts and culture community.

Collaboration – and the need for more of it – was a common theme Tuesday night at a meeting to discuss Ann Arbor’s arts and cultural future. Hosted by the Arts Alliance, it’s part of a series of forums aimed at developing cultural plans for seven communities in Washtenaw County, under a broader plan for the entire county.

Several people spoke about the urgency of supporting local groups, as the economy continues to batter both businesses and nonprofits. Elaine Selo, co-owner of Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street, said she’s seen ups and downs for 27 years, and now “all of us are just trying to survive.”

More of that kind of candor is needed – people in Ann Arbor too often hold themselves in such high regard that they’re blind to what’s happening in the local economy, said Newcombe Clark, a local real estate broker who sits on the boards for several local nonprofit groups, including the Michigan Theater. “We lost Peter Sparling last year,” he noted, referring to the closing of the Dance Gallery Studio. He said that the past two fiscal quarters for the Michigan Theater and the Ann Arbor Art Center have been difficult, “and they’re not out of the woods yet.”

Shary Brown, executive director for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, said that many times groups will put up a shield until the very day that their operation collapses. Elaine Selo observed that that’s apparently what happened at the Ann Arbor News – it would have been nice for the community to have known things were so dire, she said, so they could have perhaps come up with a response before a decision was made to close the company.

Because the economy has created a “shared misery,” Selo said, it’s actually easier to admit that your own group is struggling. Even so, some businesses and nonprofits are afraid that if they say they’re troubled, people won’t shop there or donate. They really need to share what’s going on, she said, “and find some solutions for getting over it.”

Chris Lord advocated for a space for local writers to meet.

Tuesday night’s discussion focused on some practical issues, too. Chris Lord, who helps coordinate the Writers Reading at Sweetwaters group, said that while there’s lots of support for school-age writers – such as the Neutral Zone and 826 Michigan – other local writers don’t have venues to come together. She wanted to bring the perspective of writers to the cultural plan, and specifically, the issue of finding a space to hold workshops or informal gatherings.

Omari Rush, education manager for the University Musical Society, suggested contacting the Ann Arbor District Library. The library is positioning itself as more of a community meeting place, he said, and again, it’s an example of the importance of collaboration among different groups. Lord said they’d talked to the library – in fact, they were holding a special poetry reading by Robert Fanning there on Thursday, April 9, as part of National Poetry Month. She said the library charges for room rental – and for groups that don’t have money, that’s an issue.

Brown stressed the importance of communication – connecting underutilized resources in the community with the people and groups who need those resources, like available space to hold meetings and workshops. Selo suggested a blog might be one way to do that. Angela Martin-Barcelona of the Arts Alliance told the group that they were working on creating an online hub for the county’s arts and cultural community, and that they hoped it would be a place to make those connections.

Tuesday night’s meeting about the Ann Arbor arts and cultural community was held in the conference room of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau on West Huron Street.

The group also talked about funding. Tamara Real, president of the Arts Alliance, noted that the Ann Arbor area doesn’t have a “granddaddy of funders” like the Mott Foundation in Flint or the Gilmore Foundation in Kalamazoo. And state funding consists of a weird boom and bust cycle, she said – Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed state budget for fiscal year 2010 includes dramatic cuts to arts funding. Long-term, “there must be another way to handle funding,” Real said.

Another issue with state grants is that it’s difficult for smaller, newer ventures – like the Shadow Art Fair – to get funded, Real said. Brown added that the art fair, when it got started 50 years ago, wouldn’t have been funded, either.

Amy Harris, director of UM’s Exhibit Museum of Natural History, said that city officials like to point to Ann Arbor’s arts and cultural sector as an attraction, as does the business community. Yet other than the recent Percent for Art program and funding for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, she wasn’t away of serious financial support from the city. [The Percent for Art is funded by 1% of the cost of public projects, like the municipal center currently under construction. Those funds, up to $250,000 per project, are administered by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.] Brown noted that the Street Art Fair actually pays the city more than $50,000 each year for support like fire and police services.

Harris proposed a series of educational forums for the community, with possible topics including 1) how the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation can be used to create endowments for arts & cultural purposes, 2) a health report on the arts & cultural sector, 3) a look at how university arts & cultural organizations are funded. She noted that at the Exhibit Museum, for example, only half of its budget comes from UM.

Tamara Real of the Arts Alliance at Tuesday’s meeting in Ann Arbor.

Scott Rosencrans, a member of the city’s Park Advisory Commission who described himself as an “art hobbyist,” suggested they look at other communities who have successfully supported the arts & culture sector, such as Madison, Wisc. or Key West, Fla. (Earlier in the meeting, Brown had described a recent trip she’d taken to Key West, where she said the arts community was highly visible and reflected a key value of that city.)

Els Nieuwenhuijsen Eldersveld raised the issue of accessibility to arts and culture in Ann Arbor. Some cities are promoting themselves as being accessible to people with disabilities, she said. How accessible is Ann Arbor, and what can be done to bring that message to the forefront?

The group also discussed the need for a comprehensive arts directory, something to allow people to search and find artists in various categories or styles – like a Time Out for Ann Arbor, Selo suggested. Lord said that perhaps information gathered for a previous Arts Alliance survey could provide a foundation for this. Rosencrans suggested Community Television Network as a possible venue for informing the public about local artists.

The Arts Alliance will be holding an additional public meeting in Ann Arbor on a date to be determined. Tamara Real indicated that at their next meeting, they’ll identify concrete steps they should take to address some of these issues.

Next week, the Arts Alliance is hosting a similar forum focused on Saline. That event will take place April 14 from 7:30-9 p.m. at Saline City Hall, 100 N. Harris St.