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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign for Dreiseitl Water Sculpture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Update on City Council Public Art Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update on City Council Public Art Committee: Additional Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Engagement

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Wiltrud Simbuerger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Art for Farmers Market

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

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

Linda Tenza at AAPAC’s Jan. 23 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Project Updates

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

Project Updates: Justice Center Lobby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

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

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

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

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

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

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

Project Updates: Forest Avenue Plaza

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

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Bob Miller.

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

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

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

Project Updates: Senior Center

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

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

Project Updates: DIA

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

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

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

Report from AAPAC Chair: Canoes, CTN

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

Chair’s Report: Community Canoe Project

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

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

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

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

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

Chair’s Report: Community Television Network

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

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

Public Artist Registry

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art Annual Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Officer Elections, Vacancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Connie Brown, Cathy Gendron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Administrative Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Role of AAPAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Percent for Art Cuts: Coda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Votes: Kingsley Rain Garden, DIA

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

Project Votes: Kingsley Rain Garden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Votes: DIA Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

Project Updates

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

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

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

Project Updates: “Street Art Spots”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December Meeting: Working Session Follow-up

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

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

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Elaine Sims.

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

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