Connie Rizzolo Brown shows her colleagues on the Ann Arbor public art commission a printout of AAPAC’s redesigned website. (Photos by the writer.)

John Kotarski made the proposal, explaining that street art could include anything from pedestrian benches to artistic manhole covers – similar to those that have been created in Japanese cities. The effort could involve schools and service clubs, he said, and might evolve into something as popular as the fairy doors found throughout Ann Arbor. Commissioners seemed generally supportive of the idea. The task force will do more research and make a formal proposal to AAPAC at a later date.

Commissioners also moved ahead on a new approach to getting more people involved in the selection of public art. Task forces will be formed in four quadrants of the city, using quadrants that are designated in the city master plan’s “land use elements” section: west, central, south and northeast. [.pdf map of quadrants]

Kickoff meetings for each quadrant are scheduled for October. Connie Rizzolo Brown, who’s spearheading this effort, described the goal of the first meetings as ”very gentle fact-finding missions,” as well as recruitment for potential task force members.

Also in October – on Sunday, Oct. 28 – a dedication is planned for the new mural being completed at Allmendinger Park. The work is by Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels of TreeTown Murals, incorporating artwork and found objects from students and neighbors. Images from the work-in-progress are currently featured on AAPAC’s website.

Commissioners also discussed concerns about a descriptive sign planned for the Dreiseitl sculpture in front of city hall. Some commissioners feel that the proposed location for the sign detracts from the ability to enjoy the sculpture, while others expressed frustration that AAPAC had not been consulted about the sign’s location.

The meeting also included a variety of updates about projects that are underway. One major item that was not discussed was the public art millage that will be on the Nov. 6 ballot – Proposal B. Although it was alluded to on several occasions, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin cautioned commissioners that they could not discuss it at the meeting. However, several commissioners are involved individually in the campaign to support the millage – B for Art. Chamberlin, for example, is hosting a dinner for the campaign in October.

At an Aug. 15 special meeting, the commission had voted to recommend that the city council place a millage on the ballot, despite voicing a range of concerns. The millage had been proposed by councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who did not consult the arts community or AAPAC before bringing  the idea forward. The ballot proposal calls for a 0.1 mill tax for four years to support public art, temporarily replacing the current Percent for Art program. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Art Commission Strategizes as Millage Looms.”

Street Art Program

John Kotarski introduced the idea of exploring a street art program by saying he knew it was sudden and might seem ambitious, but it reflected the serendipitous convergence of several things.

For one, city environmental coordinator  Matt Naud had emailed AAPAC a link to an article in Grist that highlighted an artistic approach to manhole covers in Japan. Kotarski referred to the items as “access covers,” joking that because it was Ann Arbor, they needed to be politically correct. In Japan, the covers enhance the pedestrian and bicycling experience – people make tracings of the covers, which have risen to the level of art objects. That’s a type of street art that AAPAC could spearhead.

Public art commissioner John Kotarski.

Kotarski also described a recent discussion he’d had with state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-District 53), who represents Ann Arbor. Irwin would like to see more benches in downtown Ann Arbor, and thought it was an opportunity for students to get involved in the design process, Kotarski said. That’s another aspect of street art.

So Kotarski said he and Theresa Reid were proposing to form a task force that would explore the possibility of starting a street art program. They’d need to research how such a program could engage as many residents as possible, how the design process would work, and how it would coordinate with the city’s current purchase of access covers, which are pre-cast. He also mentioned the desire to have the covers fabricated locally or regionally. Schools and service clubs could be involved, he said, adding that it could become a fun thing that could possibly become as well-known as the city’s fairy doors.

He proposed forming a task force, which would bring back a formal proposal to AAPAC for a street art program.

Street Art Program: Commission Discussion

Marsha Chamberlin pointed out that AAPAC’s strategic plan called for launching one new program in the coming year. She felt that commissioners needed to put more than one idea on the table. For example, she said, street stamping – making artistic impressions on the pavement when roads are resurfaced – might be another possible program.

Her other concern related to Kotarski’s mention of local or regional fabrication. The issue comes up frequently, she said, but the city has made clear that in the context of public art, geographic restrictions can’t be imposed on the selection of artists or fabricators.

Kotarski replied that even though they’ve committed to starting one program during the year, he thinks they could do more. The only questions should be whether they have the resources to do it, and whether it fits within AAPAC’s mission. ”I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said. Kotarski also indicated that street stamping could be part of a street art program, along with access covers, benches and possibly other elements.

Chamberlin noted that this type of program could be implemented within different quadrants of the city – that was a positive. But she cautioned that the city has limited capacity, in terms of its staffing and other resources for public art.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to form a task force to explore the possible creation of a street art program.

Quadrant Meetings

Commissioners had previously decided to take a new approach to engaging the community, and they thrashed out more details at their Sept. 26 meeting. The idea is that two or more of the nine AAPAC members would be assigned to one of four quadrants in the city, using quadrants that are designated in the city master plan’s “land use elements” section: west, central, south and northeast. [.pdf map of quadrants]

The assignments are: (1) West – Connie Brown, John Kotarski; (2) Central – Marsha Chamberlin, Bob Miller; (3) South – Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne; and (4) Northeast – Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron.

A handout provided to commissioners listed the locations of current AAPAC projects that are underway. Most of the projects are in the central quadrant: artwork for East Stadium bridges, the Justice Center, the Kingsley & First rain garden, Forest Avenue plaza, and the Allmendinger Park mural. Artwork for Argo Cascades is in the northeast quadrant, and public art for the planned roundabout at State and Ellsworth is in the south quadrant.

Assuming that the public art budget for fiscal 2013 were to be divided evenly among the four quadrants – as has been proposed – each quadrant would get $73,590 for public art projects.

The geographic quadrant approach was initially brought forward by Malverne Winborne  at AAPAC’s planning retreat in February 2012, and has been discussed several times since then. Most recently, commissioners incorporated the approach into their four-year strategic plan, which was part of their August meeting agenda.

Connie Brown has been spearheading the development of the quadrant proposal, and she outlined the next steps for AAPAC. Initial public forums are planned in October for each quadrant. The tentative times/dates are:

• Central: Tuesday, Oct. 16 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. location TBD.
• South: Thursday, Oct. 18 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Bryant Community Center, 3 West Eden Court.
• Northeast: Tuesday, Oct. 23 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Clague Middle School media room, 2616 Nixon Road.
• West: Tuesday, Oct. 30 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Open School @Mack cafeteria, 920 Miller Ave.

Brown will facilitate each of the meetings, but other commissioners assigned to the quadrants will be responsible for forming task forces to carry the effort forward. She described the initial meetings as “very gentle fact-finding missions,” asking about what residents think is important, what they hate, where the “cool” places are in the neighborhoods. The meetings will also serve as an introduction to AAPAC and the Percent for Art program, and the concept of public art in general.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Malverne Winborne.

John Kotarski showed commissioners a couple of variations for a slide show that they could use during these quadrant meetings. The images let people know there’s already a considerable amount of public art in Ann Arbor, he said. Examples shown in the slideshow included FestiFools, mosaics at the Fourth & Washington parking structure, The Cube on the University of Michigan campus, fairy doors, and sidewalk chalk art drawings by David Zinn. [Only two pieces of public art have been funded by the city's Percent for Art program: The Dreiseitl sculpture in front of city hall, and metal tree sculptures in West Park. A third project – a mural at Allmendinger Park – is expected to be finished later this year.]

The slideshow also included examples of public art in other communities, as well as a list of definitions used in discussing art. The point of the slides is to serve as an icebreaker, Kotarski said, and to give people the vocabulary to feel confident in voicing their opinions.

Winborne cautioned that it’s important to identify who the audience will be – artists, or the general public? For the general public, the presentation needs to be simplified, he said, indicating that sometimes he gets lost at AAPAC meetings when the discussion becomes too technical.

Marsha Chamberlin, who also serves as president of the Ann Arbor Art Center, said she and her staff call it the “grandmother test.” If your grandmother can understand what you’re saying, it’s clear.

Chamberlin also noted that the slides would be shown at “another meeting that will remain anonymous.” [She was referring to a fundraiser on Friday, Sept. 28 in support of Proposal B, the city's public art millage. The event was held at Downtown Home & Garden, which is co-owned by Margaret Parker, former AAPAC chair.]

Later in the meeting, the group discussed how to publicize these initial quadrant meetings. In addition to issuing a press release and posting the meetings on the city’s online calendar, other suggestions included communicating via the Ann Arbor Public Schools, places of worship, and neighborhood/condo associations.

Kotarski suggested calling the events “Art Talks.” Chamberlin joked that she’d come up with “Public Art – Who Cares?” as a bait-and-switch, but that Kotarski’s idea sounded better.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. 

Sign for Dreiseitl Sculpture

As part of her report from the PR committee, Connie Rizzolo Brown noted that the commission’s meeting packet included a drawing that showed the location for a potential sign describing the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture. The need for a descriptive sign has been discussed at previous meetings, as a way to highlight the work’s meaning and how it fits into the context of the plaza’s rain garden and stormwater management system. In addition to a sign for the sculpture, the city intends to install another sign that describes the LEED elements of the rain garden and building.

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

Brown said the proposed location for the signs detracts from the ability to enjoy the sculpture – it feels disruptive. The proposal by Quinn Evans Architects is to put the signs on top of a mesh fence that will be installed at the end of the walkway overlooking the sculpture. Brown noted that the signs would block part of the view, as the water flows down from the sculpture and goes under the pedestrian bridge.

Brown also reported that AAPAC has been asked to do the design, but she felt it was important that they hire someone so that it could be done professionally. “It needs to be a paid piece,” she said. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said it would be possible for city staff to do the graphic design. He also planned to check with Quinn Evans to see if the sign’s graphic design was within the scope of their existing contract with the city. He noted that the city had requested that the LEED sign be placed at that location, but he would see if it’s possible to change that.

Marsha Chamberlin expressed frustration that these add-ons are only now being addressed. It would have been good to know earlier so that these elements could have been incorporated into the design of the sculpture and its site. Now, these additions are messing with an otherwise strong aesthetic, she said.

John Kotarski said it struck him that AAPAC should have been consulted about the sign’s placement. It doesn’t seem like the city is keeping AAPAC in the loop, he said, even though commissioners are taking heat for the sculpture.

In response to a query from Wiltrud Simbuerger, Seagraves reminded commissioners that he’d already provided them with a draft for the sign’s text. [.pdf of text for the sign] Dreiseitl still needs to sign off on it, he added, but there’s time to change the text and add images if that’s what AAPAC wants to do.

Brown wanted to see the entire context – what will the LEED sign look like? It’s important to see all of the elements, including the text and graphics. Theresa Reid also wondered what the budget was, and how the sign would be funded.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. Aaron Seagraves indicated he’d be following up on these issues.

Project Updates

Several projects were discussed briefly during the Sept. 26 meeting, by way of updates. Additional information was also included in a written report by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Project Updates: Website, Murals

Connie Rizzolo Brown reported that several changes have been made to AAPAC’s website. She brought a printout of the site, which includes several new photographs of the work on the Allmendinger Park mural. The mural is being created by Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels of TreeTown Murals, and incorporates work by students at Slauson Middle School as part of mosaics on pillars of the park’s building. A dedication is planned on Sunday, Oct. 28, with the time to-be-determined.

John Kotarski said Thiefels is well-known in the Detroit area, and is involved with the 555 Gallery there. It’s possible that the Detroit TV stations might be interested in doing a report on her mural project, he said.

Later in the meeting, Seagraves told commissioners that the city has released a statement of qualifications (SOQ) for creating a “pool” of artists for future murals. [.pdf of mural SOQ] As stated in the SOQ, the objective is to “find professional muralists and other artists whose work meets a set of standards and to pre-qualify them for City of Ann Arbor mural projects to be contracted in 2012 to 2014.” The deadline for submitting an SOQ is Friday, Nov. 9 at 10 a.m.

Commissioners discussed how to disseminate the SOQ, which is posted on the city’s website. Seagraves will contact other arts organizations and publications about it, and commissioners agreed to use their own networks to spread the word. The following day a notice about the SOQ was also posted on AAPAC’s Facebook page.

Project Updates: Capital Improvements Plan

Seagraves told commissioners that the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) process has started, and he’s participating as part of the street construction “asset group.” 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.

For background on the CIP process, see Chronicle coverage: “Planning Commission Approves Capital Plan.” More information is also on the city’s CIP website.

Project Updates: Legal Review

The city attorney’s staff is reviewing SOQs (statement of qualifications) for artwork in Argo Cascades, which was sent to them in June, and for art at the Kingsley & First rain garden, which was submitted for review earlier this month.

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

In addition, Seagraves reported that legal staff had asked that some changes be made to a draft request for proposals (RFP) for artwork at the East Stadium bridges. He characterized the changes as minor, and believed they could be made without additional review by the city attorney’s office. AAPAC had originally approved the draft RFP in April. Obliquely referring to the length of time it typically takes for legal review, Marsha Chamberlin quipped: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over!”

AAPAC has budgeted $400,000 for the project. [Chronicle coverage: "RFP for E. Stadium Bridges Art Approved"]

Project Updates: Justice Center

Plans for the hanging sculpture by Ed Carpenter for the lobby of the new Justice Center are finished, Seagraves reported, and the artist will begin site preparation in December. He said a fabricator will likely be selected soon, with installation of the final piece occurring in early 2013. [Chronicle coverage: "City Council OKs Justice Center Art"]

Bob Miller wondered whether anyone has discussed how the sculpture will be cleaned – it has many parts, he noted. [The $150,000 piece will be made of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting.]

Misc. Communications

At the beginning of the Sept. 26 meeting, John Kotarski reported on two separate conversations he’d recently had – with state Rep. Jeff Irwin and Sally Petersen, the Democratic candidate for Ward 2 city council. [She is unopposed in the Nov. 6 election.]

Irwin had expressed interest in seeing more benches for pedestrians, which might be a project that AAPAC could take on. [See previous section on the possible street art program.] Petersen wants to see more resident involvement in the selection of artwork, Kotarski reported, and would like AAPAC to work more closely with local schools.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested it would be helpful to have Petersen come to an AAPAC meeting so that they could have a conversation about these issues. Several commissioners felt that the quadrant approach, which is in the early stages of launching, would address Petersen’s concerns.

Chamberlin pointed out that AAPAC doesn’t have a consistent way of communicating with the city council. Tony Derezinski, an AAPAC member who also represents Ward 2 on city council, replied that he does make reports about AAPAC’s work. However, he noted that while he’ll continue to serve on AAPAC after the Nov. 6 election as a member of the general public, he will no longer be on council. [Derezinski was defeated by Petersen in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary.] He suggested that council should appoint an ex-officio non-voting council representative, who could serve as a liaison to AAPAC. That would be especially important if the public art millage passes, he said.

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

Absent: Cathy Gendron.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 24, 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.

In front of Ann Arbor city hall, from left: electrician Jim Fackert, and Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and John Kotarski. Fackert was again working on the system that operates the Dreiseitl water sculpture, which includes water pumps and flashing blue lights. Miller and Kotarski were headed into the Aug. 22 meeting of the public art commission. (Photos by the writer.)

Dealing with the millage wasn’t the commission’s main agenda item, but they did spend some time talking about the need for a separate campaign committee. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin stressed that the commission itself can’t advocate for the millage, ”but we can educate out the wazoo.”

As individuals, though, commissioners will likely be very active – Chamberlin will be among those organizing the campaign, along with Arts Alliance president Deb Polich, who attended AAPAC’s Aug. 22 session. Mark Tucker of FestiFools was there too, and told commissioners that he and others were brainstorming on free or inexpensive ways to support the millage – including a “surprise” that involves football Saturdays and is “FestiFoolian in nature” to attract media coverage.

Ken Clein also volunteered to help. He was on hand to update commissioners on the status of the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall, as a follow-up to concerns raised in June about the installation. Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, the Ann Arbor firm that handled the design of the new Justice Center and oversaw its construction. Though delayed, the Dreiseitl installation is nearly completed and will be handed off to the city soon, along with a two-year maintenance warranty.

The sculpture is the largest and most expensive project coordinated by the commission, and the first one approved under the Percent for Art program. The two newest public art projects were added to the pipeline at the Aug. 22 meeting, on unanimous votes. They’ll eventually be located at: (1) Forest Avenue Plaza, next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University; and (2) a future roundabout at Ellsworth and South State.

In a written report, commissioners were given an update on available funds in the Percent for Art budget. Of the $1.668 million balance, $856,997 is earmarked for projects already approved by AAPAC, including $400,000 for artwork at the East Stadium bridges and $150,000 for Argo Cascades – but aspects of those projects are still under review by the city’s legal staff. That leaves $810,276 in unallocated funds. The largest amounts are in revenues from sewer projects ($451,955) and street millage projects ($241,951).

The commission also finalized its four-year strategic plan, and moved ahead on a new effort to involve residents in planning for public art in each of four quadrants in Ann Arbor.

Public Art Millage

On Aug. 20, the Ann Arbor city council voted unanimously to put a millage on the Nov. 6 ballot that, if approved by voters, would fund art in public places. The 0.1 mill tax would generate about $450,000 per year and be in place for four years. Those dollars would temporarily replace the current funding mechanism for the city’s Percent for Art program, which would be suspended for the duration of the millage.

The current program, created by the city council in 2007, 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. To date, the program has generated just over $2 million. So far, two projects have been completed, or nearly so: the Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall, and metal tree sculptures in West Park. Several other projects are in the works.

The arts community is generally supportive of a millage for funding art in public places, as it would provide more flexibility than the current capital funding. Because of constraints related to the funding mechanism, projects paid for with Percent for Art funds must be permanent and located on public property. The artwork can’t be temporary – so performances or artist-in-residency programs can’t be supported under the current program. The projects must also have some link to the funding source. For example, 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 from dedicated millage or public utility funds in order to pay for public art.

Virtually no one in the arts community was consulted about the proposed millage, and many were shocked when it was unveiled by councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) on Aug. 9, by adding it to the council’s agenda that night from the council table. Taylor contended he simply wanted to start a conversation about it, for consideration at the Aug. 20 council meeting. He indicated that he would like input from the public art commission, whose members had not been informed about the proposal until a few days prior to the Aug. 9 announcement.

This forced AAPAC to call a special meeting on Aug. 15, which was attended by several members of the arts community who spoke during public commentary. The general sentiment was support for a millage, but a strong desire to postpone until a later election so that there would be time for a more thoughtful approach. The commission also heard from Taylor at that meeting, who raised the vague specter of risk to the current program’s funding. That perceived threat appeared to be compelling, and commissioners voted unanimously to recommend that the millage be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot.

However, during public commentary at the council’s Aug. 20 meeting, Deb Polich, president of the Arts Alliance, asked the council not to put the millage on the ballot. That reflected the clear consensus of sentiment at a cultural leaders meeting, hosted by the Arts Alliance and held earlier in the day on Aug. 20 – that it was not an urgent matter to place the question on the ballot.

Public Art Millage: Public Commentary

At the commission’s Aug. 22 meeting, four people spoke on the millage issue during public commentary.

Margaret Parker told commissioners that she was there to offer help to work on a millage campaign. For any millage, the ballot language is legalistic, convoluted and difficult to understand, she said. The trick is how to communicate to the public and let them know what they’re voting for. They need to know that if they vote yes, she said, then it will expand the types of projects that can be funded. But they also need to know that if they vote against the millage funding for public art will end, she claimed. If the public isn’t clued in, she said, that would be unfortunate.

[In fact, a defeat of the millage would not automatically end funding for public art. The current Percent for Art funding would remain in place, unless the city council voted to rescind it or possibly alter it. More likely is that it would be altered to adopt a definition of "capital project" that did not include, for example, street reconstruction projects. Some observers have expressed the view that the newly-constituted council in November would have enough votes to eliminate the Percent for Art program, and leave no alternative funding mechanism for public art – but it's not clear which six councilmembers would actually support that approach.]

Mark Tucker said he was there representing FestiFools, and possibly the University of Michigan. He also wanted to offer help on a millage campaign. There’s been a lot of talk about how much a campaign might cost, he noted. He and others have been brainstorming on some inexpensive or free ways to publicize the millage, but he didn’t want to reveal them publicly and give away the surprise. However, he indicated that it would revolve around UM football Saturdays and would be “FestiFoolian in nature” to attract the media.

Shary Brown, former director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, also attended the Aug. 22 meeting. Her public commentary was brief: “Go, team!”

Speaking at both opportunities for public commentary, Thomas Partridge said he had no doubt that the millage would pass, but it’s a question about how the money is used. He advocated for public access to art education, as well as for art that represents real people – like the Diego Rivera mural at the Detroit Institute of Arts.

Public Art Millage: Commission Discussion

Marsha Chamberlin began by circulating a communications plan that the city had developed for the 2011 street millage renewal – she suggested that this could be used as a model for the public art millage. [.pdf of street millage communications plan]

As a commission, they can’t advocate for the millage or solicit money for a campaign, Chamberlin said, ”but we can educate out the wazoo.” She reported that Jeremy Peters had volunteered to help with a campaign, and noted that he has experience running political campaigns. A public relations professional has also indicated interest in helping, she said.

An entity separate from the art commission needs to be organized quickly, Chamberlin said, with people like Peters, Margaret Parker, and Deb Polich of the Arts Alliance.

Deb Polich, shown here at an Aug. 20 meeting of arts and cultural leaders, is president of the Arts Alliance, which hosted the meeting. She attended the Aug. 22 meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission and is volunteering to help lead a campaign to pass the proposed millage for art in public places. Ann Arbor city council voted to put the millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that he was working on an ad to put in the fall issue of the city’s WasteWatcher newsletter, which is mailed to city residents by the city’s solid waste and recycling unit. It will be on the same page as the ad for the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage, he said. He’ll also be putting together a Q&A about the millage and creating a website with information, modeled after the park millage site.

Connie Brown noted that a lot of concern has been expressed about communicating a clear message to the public. Saying they can’t take too long to develop a statement, she wondered what the plan would be to engage the broader community.

Chamberlin felt there should be a consistent message on the website, WasteWatcher ad and elsewhere, and commissioners should have a role in crafting that message. Cathy Gendron agreed. The commission takes an active role in communicating about public art in Ann Arbor, she said, and there’s no reason why they can’t be involved in developing the message for the millage.

Regarding the campaign itself, Chamberlin said that commissioners can work on it as individuals – they just can’t use city resources. She, Polich, Peters and a few others would form a small strategic committee to organize it, she said, then figure out a way to implement the campaign with volunteers.

John Kotarski said he assumed that someone would be leading the campaign – would the commission do that? Chamberlin explained that while the commission would help in developing a message and educating the public about the millage, there needs to be a separate entity that works on advocacy.

Polich said it’s clear to the Arts Alliance and others that passage of this millage is critical, so they want to be deeply engaged in the campaign. She’s heard from others who want to be involved, including Conan Smith. [Smith, an Ann Arbor resident, is chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. He has been active in many Democratic political campaigns and is married to Rebekah Warren, a state senator representing District 18.] Polich said that Smith and Peters have worked together on political campaigns in the past.

Outcome: There was no formal action on this item.

Later in the meeting, the commission discussed holding public forums as part of a new effort to conduct strategic planning based on four quadrants of the city. At the end of AAPAC’s Aug. 22 meeting, Polich told commissioners that they should expect to hear questions from the public about the proposed millage at these forums, so they should be prepared to respond. She recommended having an “open flow of information” between the commission and millage campaign committee. It’s important to make sure they’re all communicating the same message in terms of definitions and other information, she said.

Strategic Planning

The commission has been developing a strategic plan for several months. At AAPAC’s July 25 meeting, the group discussed a draft four-year strategic plan, which identified several major goals to pursue through 2016. They voted to approve the plan, with the understanding that AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin would make revisions based on the consensus they had reached during the discussion. None of the changes were substantive.

On Aug. 22, Chamberlin presented the revised version. [.pdf of strategic plan] These are the plan’s broad goals (each of them are fleshed out with more detailed objectives):

• Goal A: Ann Arbor will substantially increase the number of public works of art throughout the city through the annual assignment of funds and an expedited project development and artist selection process.
• Goal B: AAPAC will diversify public engagement and participation in the selection of Public Art by establishing a standing task force in each of the city quadrants to recommend public art projects therein. (Quadrants will be based on the “land use areas” from the City of Ann Arbor’s Master Plan, Land Use Element, 2009)
• Goal C: AAPAC will increase the public understanding, appreciation and support of public art through consistent public relations and education efforts.
• Goal D: Pursue private funding for public art.

There was some uncertainty about the timeframe that was outlined in some of the objectives, and several commissioners felt that the dates should be pushed back a few months. Specifically, the dates for these two objectives were pushed back to January 2013:

• Goal A, Objective 1: At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Percent for Public Art funds will be divided to fund public art within each of the four city areas, beginning with FY 2013.
• Goal B, Objective 1: Task Forces for each city area will be approved by the commission no later than October 15, 2012 and serve a term of one year and will be comprised of at least one resident of the quadrant, one business person whose business is in the area, a commission member, and an artist.

Chamberlin observed that the plan might need to be tweaked, depending on the outcome of the Nov. 6 millage vote. She said the plan sets direction and tone for AAPAC, but the commission is not bound to follow it strictly. It creates a structure for how AAPAC operates and engages the public, she said.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to approve the revised strategic plan.

Strategic Planning: Quadrants

Later in the meeting, Connie Rizzolo Brown presented a specific proposal to move forward with the strategic plan’s Goal B: Establishing a standing task force in each of the city quadrants to recommend public art projects. This idea had been floated by Malverne Winborne at AAPAC’s four-hour planning retreat in late February 2012, and discussed again at their June 27 meeting. The quadrants are designated in the city’s master plan “land use elements” section: west, central, south and northeast. [.pdf map of quadrants]

Two or more of the nine AAPAC members would be assigned to each quadrant, generally based on where they live. Tentatively, that assignment is: (1) West – Connie Brown, John Kotarski; (2) Central – Marsha Chamberlin, Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger; (3) South – Malverne Winborne; and (4) Northeast – Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron and Theresa Reid. One of the commissioners in the central or northeast quadrant will likely shift to join Winborne in the south.

Brown’s proposal included an outline of guidelines for the quadrant work:

A. Engage the public to create a plan for the quadrant.

Step 1: Set up three meetings in each quadrant at three different public locations.

Step 2: Hold the meetings. They should include a short presentation on public art in general, and on Ann Arbor’s specific Percent for Art program.

Step 3: Work with interested residents to discover and understand your quadrant. This process should include mapping the location of existing art, natural features, parks, well-traveled areas, and both great and “rotten” potential places for public art.

Step 4: Evaluate and make both qualitative and quantitative decisions about locations, type of projects – long-term, mid-term and short-term – and budget, among other things.

Step 5: Review the decisions and evaluate the challenges and proposed outcomes.

Step 6: Assign a percentage of the quadrant’s budget to the project(s) and bring a proposal to AAPAC. [No budgets have been proposed yet.]

Step 7: Keep the information flowing.

B. Form a task force for each specific project. Members would include AAPAC representatives, a city council liaison, artists, design professionals, the city administrator or his designee, one or more representatives from city units that have responsibility for the site, one or more representatives of organizations with a professional interest in the project.

C. Put the project into motion. It would ultimately come before AAPAC and then city council for approval before being implemented.

Commissioners thanked Brown and expressed enthusiasm for this effort. John Kotarski said he liked it because it allowed commissioners to educate neighborhoods – and neighborhoods to educate AAPAC. It puts an emphasis on listening, he said.

Theresa Reid suggested using a presentation that Kotarski had given on public art at AAPAC’s February 2012 retreat, modified for these quadrant meetings. He offered to shorten it and incorporate suggestions and images from other commissioners.

Marsha Chamberlin described the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street effort. She noted that the DDA began by talking with small groups to refine its message, and is now making presentations to larger groups. [See Chronicle coverage of the DDA's presentation to the planning commission: "Planning Group Briefed on William St. Project."]

Chamberlin suggested that AAPAC take a similar approach, so that they’d each be giving essentially the same presentation in their quadrants.

Brown said she’d like to start holding the meetings in October, even though she knew they’d also be busy with the millage campaign. She hoped to work with the schools to do outreach, saying that it’s easier to get the attention of parents at the beginning of the school year. Commissioners discussed other options for getting the word out, and for the logistics of the meetings.

Chamberlin concluded the discussion by calling it a huge step forward.

Outcome: There was no formal vote on this project.

Dreiseitl Sculpture Update

At their July 25 meeting, commissioners had been updated on several ongoing projects, including a follow-up on concerns raised in June about the Dreiseitl installation in front of city hall. The discussion in July resulted in a request by commissioners to invite someone from the project to talk to them about its status.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects and Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. Clein was on hand to give an update on the Dreiseitl sculpture in front of city hall. He was also recently appointed to the city’s planning commission.

That someone was Ken Clein, a principal and project manager with Quinn Evans Architects who oversaw the Dreiseitl installation. He had also submitted a memo that summarized its current status. [.pdf of Clein's memo] Also attending the Aug. 22 meeting was Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum, a firm that helped with the sculpture’s design.

Clein began by telling commissioners that he also wanted to volunteer for the public art millage campaign. After briefly describing the different companies involved in the project, as subcontractors hired by Quinn Evans, Clein apologized that the Dreiseitl piece hadn’t yet been completed. You can’t just go to the store and buy the pumps and other devices needed to operate it, he said – because it’s all custom work, made under the guidance of Dreiseitl. This was a different approach from the way Dreiseitl typically handles his projects, Clein said, so there was a learning curve.

Clein noted that Dreiseitl had intended the sculpture to reflect the seasons, but it has been unusually dry, he said. These drought conditions caused the two large tanks that hold water for the piece – a total of about 2,500 gallons – to run dry. Another factor is that the bronze front of the sculpture faces south and heats up, which causes water to evaporate. Calculations by the Conservation Design Forum estimated that 75-100 gallons would evaporate each day. But water was being lost in excess of that, Clein said, so they looked for – and found – leaks in the system, which were resealed. That helped, Clein said, as did the fact that there’s been more rain in July and August.

Dreiseitl intended the water in the sculpture to be rainwater, Clein said. Certainly it would be possible to hook it up to a different water supply, he added, but that’s not how it was envisioned.

Clein also talked about problems with the six small water pumps, which originally were mounted inside the sculpture. The filters in the pumps became clogged with cigarette butts and other debris, and prevented water from flowing up to the top of the sculpture. Jim Fackert, an electrician with CAE – the subcontractor for the sculpture’s lighting and water system – replaced the smaller pumps with one larger pump that’s located outside the sculpture and is easier to reach for cleaning and maintenance.

Work is continuing, Clein said. Additional LED lights, that Dreiseitl decided to add “fairly late in the game,” will be installed this month. Fackert is working on a punch list, and is tagging all the connections in the system so that when it’s turned over to the city, the maintenance staff will know how it works. They’ll also be given training and a maintenance manual, Clein said. There’s a two-year warranty on that aspect of the sculpture, and Fackert will be back to shut it down in the winter and start it up in the spring.

Dreiseitl Sculpture Update: Commission Discussion

John Kotarski joked that he’s the one who gets credit or blame in asking for more details about the Dreiseitl project. [Kotarski has pushed for status updates and a more formal evaluation of the project.] He told Clein that the building, designed by Quinn Evans, had an awesome design and that the Dreiseitl sculpture was a world-class piece of art. He appreciated the fact that materials and fabrication had been done locally. It’s an example of the kind of thing he’d like to promote, Kotarski said.

When he and other commissioners go out into the community, Kotarski said, there’s a big target on their backs – they have to answer questions, and they don’t have all the answers. He said he wanted to sound knowledgeable about the work. The review is not intended to lay blame, he said, but to identify how things worked and look for ways to improve the process.

Kotarski said he’d been told that holes were recently drilled to allow water to run down from the roof into the tanks that store water for the fountain. He wondered how much water came from the roofs of the Justice Center and city hall. Clein replied that the 8-inch-diameter pipe can handle a maximum of 800 gallons per minute.

Connie Brown reported that according to Fackert, the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum is planning to develop a display based on the rainwater system that the sculpture is part of. It’s a great way for kids to understand art and technology, she said. Bob Miller pointed out that it’s the kind of thing that the commission has discussed – creating a sign to show how the rain garden and sculpture are part of the site’s stormwater management system.

Patrick Judd of the Conservation Design Forum said there’s also interest in using the site as a project for students in the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

Outcome: This was an informational report, and no formal action was required.

New Projects: Forest Plaza, Ellsworth Roundabout

The commission took action on two proposals for artwork that had been tabled from previous meetings. The projects would be located in: (1) a plaza next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University; and (2) a future roundabout at Ellsworth and South State.

New Projects: Forest Plaza

The Forest Avenue Plaza proposal had been submitted to AAPAC earlier this year by Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, and Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The city has held two public meetings to seek input on improving the small plaza, and has about $40,000 in funding for the project. The intake form stated that the city would like additional public art funding – suggested at between $10,000 to $20,000 – for artwork to be placed in the plaza.

Bob Miller began the discussion by saying he’d visited the site, and found it very challenging. There are a lot of other elements in the plaza – planters, trees, transformer boxes – in a very tight space. Putting a sculpture in the plaza would be difficult, and he suggested that a mural on the transformer boxes might be a better option.

Theresa Reid noted that feedback from the public meetings held by the city indicated that people didn’t want a mural there. Miller said he felt there should be another public meeting to talk about what would and wouldn’t work there. Connie Brown pointed out that it might be that the owners of those utility boxes wouldn’t want a mural.

John Kotarski said there were three things that excited him about the site. It’s visually boring now, which means there’s opportunity. It’s a public gathering place, and the project offers an opportunity to collaborate with other entities. Artists love challenges, he noted. It might be worth trying to flesh out the proposal – perhaps even more money would be available than what was suggested.

Marsha Chamberlin described it as a “plug ugly” site. It’s getting better, because there’ll be more foot traffic in the area now. [A new apartment building on South Forest, called The Landmark, is opening for move-in on Aug. 30.] It’s been discussed for years by AAPAC and its predecessor, the Commission for Art in Public Places, she said. It seems like there’s the opportunity to do something interesting there.

Margaret Parker, a former AAPAC chair who was attending the meeting as a member of the public, reminded the group that there was money left in an account administered by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which had been originally set aside for a project on South University. Chamberlin clarified that about $1,100 remained in that account.

Outcome: After further discussion, commissioners voted to accept the project into AAPAC’s request for proposals (RFP) process, and allocate matching funds in the range of $10,000 to $35,000.

New Projects: Ellsworth Roundabout

The roundabout at the intersection of South State and Ellsworth is a major capital project at one of the busiest intersections south of town, with construction planned for the summer of 2013.

Bob Miller described the location as barren. He didn’t think it was part of the city’s South State corridor study. [In fact, according to discussions held at the planning commission as well as information on the city's website, the corridor study extends along South State between Stimson and Ellsworth. For background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets Closer Look."]

From left: Art commissioners Wiltrud Simbuerger, John Kotarski and Cathy Gendron. To the right is Patrick Judd of the Conservation Design Forum.

Commissioners talked about the visibility of the site, in part because of the new Costco that opened earlier this summer, off of Ellsworth just west of South State. Other businesses in the area include several Zingerman’s retail stores, and a Tim Horton’s that’s in the planning stages near the northeast corner that intersection.

John Kotarski proposed allocating $50,000 in matching funds, provided another partner would also contribute. He proposed using money in the Percent for Art funds generated by the street millage, out of the $241,951 that’s available.

Connie Brown wasn’t comfortable allocating a specific amount at this point. She also wanted the commission to consider a more holistic approach, looking at the entire corridor rather than just the roundabout. Cathy Gendron supported that expanded approach, as well as emphasizing collaboration, with local businesses or other governmental units like Pittsfield Township.

Kotarski said he’d prefer that they table or amend the proposal to incorporate the things they’d discussed. Voting it down would send the wrong message, he said. Chamberlin was reluctant to table it, noting that the proposal has been on AAPAC’s agenda since April.

After further discussion, Tony Derezinski proposed a resolution to accept the State and Ellsworth roundabout as a project for fiscal 2013, and to seek collaboration on it with the city’s South State corridor project and other interested parties.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to accept the roundabout project.

Misc. Communications

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

Misc. Communications: Minutes

As part of their routine business, commissioners were asked to approve the minutes from AAPAC’s previous meeting. John Kotarski had a couple of corrections – instances where he didn’t think the minutes accurately reflected his remarks. He then questioned the need for the level of detail that’s provided in the minutes, and encouraged Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to condense them as much as possible.

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, said she had talked with Seagraves about simplifying the minutes, but noted that he’s using minutes from other commissions as a model. One possibility would be for him to tape the meetings, she said, to ensure accuracy.

Theresa Reid said she wasn’t sure that’s the best use of his time. Chamberlin replied that undoubtedly there’s some middle ground they can reach.

Misc. Communications: Percent for Art Funds

In a written report, commissioners were given an update on available funds in the Percent for Art budget. Of the $1.668 million balance, $856,997 is earmarked for projects already approved by AAPAC, including $400,000 for artwork at the East Stadium bridges and $150,000 for Argo Cascades.

That leaves $810,276 in unallocated funds. The largest amounts are in revenues from sewer projects ($451,955) and street millage projects ($241,951).

Misc. Communications: Countywide Art Plan

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that he’d been involved in meetings about a possible countywide master plan for public art. The meetings are facilitated by the Arts Alliance, which is leading that initiative. He noted that some the discussions have focused on doing a countywide inventory of public art, and that the Ann Arbor public art commission could be involved in that. There’s already an online inventory of the city’s public art.

Earlier this year, the Arts Alliance applied for a $100,000 grant through the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” program to help fund development of a county master plan for public art. That grant was not awarded. Arts Alliance president Deb Polich attended AAPAC’s Aug. 22 meeting and told commissioners she’d recently spoken with an NEA representative who’d told her that the grant had been “on the bubble.” The NEA representative encouraged the alliance to re-apply for the same grant in January.

Polich also noted that there’s still interest among other partners in moving forward with a master plan, and funds have been committed to that effort. Those partners are 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).

Misc. Communications: Project Updates

Three projects are still under review by the city attorney’s staff: (1) a statement of qualifications (SOQ) to develop a pool of muralists, (2) an RFP (request for proposals) for artwork at the East Stadium bridges, and (3) an SOQ for an art project at Argo Cascades.

The length of time that projects are reviewed by legal staff has been a point of concern raised at previous AAPAC meetings, most recently at their July 25 meeting. On Aug. 22, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that he’d received feedback on some of these projects from the city attorney’s staff, and that projects were moving along, though they were still being reviewed by legal staff. He didn’t know how much additional time would be needed for that review.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin said she recently had talked to city attorney Stephen Postema, who had expressed “frustration” that the commission’s concerns had been aired at a public meeting. Chamberlin felt that the process with the legal staff would be expedited now.

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

Absent: Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 26, 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.

An update on Herbert Dreiseitl’s work for the municipal building revealed that two interior pieces – originally part of three pieces proposed for the site, but set aside because they came in over budget – are being reconsidered. Dreiseitl plans to resubmit a design and pricing for the two interior pieces later this month, and is expected to return to Ann Arbor in mid-April to work on the already-approved outdoor sculpture in the building’s front plaza.

Also during Tuesday’s meeting, AAPAC members debated how best to get input from the public, with some members questioning the effectiveness of repeating an event that last year drew 30 people.

Herbert Dreiseitl Project Update

Margaret Parker, AAPAC chair, gave a report from the Jan. 15, 2010 meeting of the municipal center task force, a group formed to handle the public art components at the complex, which includes the new police/courts building.

Katherine Talcott, the city’s public arts administrator, reported that she’d recently talked with Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, the Ann Arbor firm that’s designing the municipal center and acting as project manager for Dreiseitl’s installations. Clein told her that Dreiseitl is “extremely excited” that his water sculpture was approved by city council. The city attorney’s office is now drafting a contract with Quinn Evans for the work, Talcott said. Dreiseitl will be coming to Ann Arbor in mid-April to flesh out design details, interview potential fabricators and confirm pricing.

AAPAC will likely need to hold a special meeting to deal with the revised designs, Talcott said.

Parker reported that Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, was supportive of funding the two additional interior pieces by Dreiseitl. Talcott added that council members were supportive of those pieces, too. From Parker’s written report on the municipal center task force:

Sue McCormick explained that most city projects begin with a concept and an estimated budget. As it becomes more concrete, the budget estimate goes up or down, usually up. So the fact that the two interior projects are going over the amount that was set aside for his project is not unexpected. We now need to decide what changes to the concept we are willing to accept. Sue felt that the three designs work together beautifully and it would be a shame to do anything less. Dreiseitl should not be faulted because his project came in just as construction was going to bid. He has worked in good faith.

Parker noted that the Dreiseitl project had originally been capped at $750,000, but that there was an additional $225,000 available for public art at the municipal center. This could be used for Dreiseitl’s interior pieces, or for additional work by other artists in the north courtyard of the complex. Dreiseitl’s last estimate for the interior work was $58,843 for a piece in the lobby and $47,491 for one in the atrium – that amount “is not insurmountable,” Parker said.

If needed, other money is available as well, she said, including Percent for Art money from the city’s street and water funds. However, those funds would come with certain restrictions, she said. For example, art that’s paid for out of the various water funds would require a water-related connection – this might work for the interior pieces, Parker said, since they are based on images of the Huron River watershed.

According to a budget summary passed out at Tuesday’s meeting, $276,208 is available for public art from the city’s street millage, with another $281,233 from the water fund. The highest available balance in the Percent for Art program – $537,362 – comes from the sewer fund.

Connie Brown said there were some larger questions to consider. For example, if money from the water fund was used for art in the municipal center, that funding wouldn’t be available for art projects elsewhere, she said. Cheryl Zuellig said that it was still a question whether AAPAC wanted to fund all of these projects at the municipal center: “That has not been a discussion or an agreement yet.” She said it was good to know that McCormick is supportive, but they needed to see Dreiseitl’s designs before moving forward.

Jeff Meyers, who was recently appointed to AAPAC, weighed in on the budget issue, saying that AAPAC needs to decide whether budgets are truly ceilings on a project’s cost, or if they’re willing to compromise other future projects by going over budget.

Parker reported that the municipal center task force is asking that a request for qualifications (RFQ) be written, though not yet issued, for artwork in the north courtyard. There was general discussion about the need to be proactive, in part by generating a database of artists and their qualifications. That way, when projects arise, there will be a pre-vetted pool of talent that AAPAC can tap quickly.

Art in West Park

Connie Brown reported that responses to a request for qualifications (RFQ) for a public art project in West Park were due this Friday, with an interview date for finalists set for March 4. AAPAC will be asked to vote on selecting an artist at their March 9 meeting. The project, tied to city renovations at West Park, would be for artwork incorporated into three curving, concrete seat walls that will be built into the hill opposite the park’s band shell. [See Chronicle coverage: "Artists Sought for West Park Project"]

Cheryl Zuellig said she hoped that AAPAC would approve a draft of planning and selection criteria that night, so that it can get into the hands of the selection committee for the West Park project. [It wasn't – see below.] Margaret Parker pointed out that a selection process was laid out in detail in AAPAC’s guidelines.

Zuellig also requested that information about the artists be made available to AAPAC for review before the March 9 meeting. Jeff Meyers asked what would happen if the commission didn’t like any of the choices. Katherine Talcott clarified that there was no commitment to selecting anyone.

Responding to a question about whether the artist would be providing a design for the work, Brown said that they were asking artists for a concept and general approach, not a specific design. Once selected, the artist would have until May 3 to complete the design and budget, which would be subject to AAPAC approval.

Meyers asked what would happen if AAPAC doesn’t like the final design. Brown said it would be similar to what happened with Dreiseitl’s project – they could ask for revisions, or turn it down. One possibility is to write a contract dividing the work into phases, she said, so that an artist would be paid for design work, even if the project wasn’t ultimately approved.

Elaine Sims wondered if they could select two artists to move ahead with design work, based on the early concepts. Brown said they could, but she wondered if it would be worth it for a project this size. The budget for the artist on the West Park project is set for between $8,000 to $10,000.

At one point, Parker asked how much of Talcott’s time is being spent on this project, and whether she’s being paid out of the parks budget for her work on the West Park project, rather than being paid out of Percent for Art funds. Talcott noted that her contract renewal with the city, for a period through June 30, will be coming up for a city council vote at their Feb. 16 meeting.

Zuellig observed that the issue of administrative staff time came up a lot. She was concerned that several city-initiated projects had come up in the last few months – none of them anticipated in AAPAC’s annual plan – and that there’d been no discussion about how that affected administrative resources. Talcott suggested that AAPAC’s planning committee, which Zuellig leads, should have a meeting with Sue McCormick on the issue.

Meyers said there seemed to be a lot of ambiguity about the city’s expectations for AAPAC. This is a commission with little institutional history, he noted. If the process creates surprises, as it seems to now, they’ll forever be in a reactive mode, he said.

Talcott said she kept track of her hours, and how much time she spent on various projects. That’s important, Parker said, so that if an entity like the Downtown Development Authority asked Talcott to supervise a review panel, for example, she’d be able to tell them how much time it would take and how much she would charge them for that work.

Fuller Road Station: An Art Consultant?

Connie Brown reported that the city of Ann Arbor has asked to develop a request for qualifications (RFQ) for someone to represent the arts as a consultant for the Fuller Road Station, a project being undertaken jointly by the University of Michigan and the city. The first phase will be a large parking structure, built on city-owned property, with the plan of eventually building a transit station there for commuter rail.

The arts consultant would work with the project’s architect, landscape architect and others to incorporate art during the design process, both on the site and in the structure. There are several outstanding questions, Brown said, including how much money is available – it would not come from Percent for Art funds.

Katherine Talcott said the project’s budget would have a set-aside for this position. She didn’t yet know what that amount would be.

Commissioners discussed the role of this person. Cheryl Zuellig said the RFQ needed to be clear that they were looking for a consultant, not an artist. Talcott said the terminology was important, and suggested the term “envisioner” as a possibility, to indicate that they would be coming up with an overall plan for public art at the site. The approach could set a precedent for future projects, she said.

Jeff Meyers asked what role AAPAC was being asked to play. In addition to the RFQ, Talcott said, she would be serving on a Fuller Station public art committee, and two commissioners would be asked to serve as well.

There was some discussion about the role of the consultant – would the RFQ make clear that the consultant couldn’t be picked to also provide art for the site? Margaret Parker, AAPAC’s chair, said that in some cities, like Seattle, art consultants were actually guaranteed that their artwork would be included in the project. It would be important to clarify that one way or another, Zuellig said, because it would affect the decision about who was hired.

Zuellig noted that the firm she works for, JJR, is involved in the city’s design team for the project. However, there’s also a UM design team, she said, which is handling the construction of the large parking structure – is the RFQ for both design teams? That’s unclear, Talcott said.

Elaine Sims pointed out that the university has its own public art committee, and that it would be important to coordinate with them.

Connie Brown described the project as “question-laden, but also opportunity-laden.” Jim Curtis suggested raising these questions with the city staff, and asking them to communicate with the UM project team.

Working with the DDA: Hanover Park

As part of the projects committee, Marsha Chamberlin reported on a meeting that several AAPAC commissioners had with Susan Pollay and Mike Bergren of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, to discuss collaborating on public art projects related to work by the DDA.

Currently, the DDA has $60,000 in its funds for public art, an amount that includes about $10,000 for administrative expenses. The funding is earmarked for artwork on South Division, between Packard and Liberty, as part of the Fifth and Division street improvement project. Additional funds will likely be available, Chamberlin said, related to the Library Lot underground parking project on Fifth Avenue.

Because the street improvement project is well underway, it’s unlikely that AAPAC can be included in current plans for incorporating art into the sidewalks and curbs, as had been previously discussed. Instead, the projects committee recommended a project in Hanover Park, located at the northwest corner of Packard and Division. [The possibility of this project has been discussed at several previous AAPAC meetings, dating back to a presentation that Pollay gave at AAPAC's July 2009 meeting.] The DDA has built a large, circular dais in the park, a suitable spot  to place a sculpture, Chamberlin said.

Jim Curtis noted that this would be a gateway project – a characterization that AAPAC chair Margaret Parker disputed. She said that AAPAC had already identified gateways for the city, and this spot wasn’t on that list. However, she conceded that it was a high-visibility location.

Elaine Sims asked what would happen to the existing sculpture there. [The piece is titled "Arbor Sapientiae," by Ronald Bauer.] Curtis said it would likely be relocated – Abby Elias of the city attorney’s office had indicated there was storage space available at the Wheeler service center on Stone School Road, he said. Sims pointed out that in fact, AAPAC was getting two projects – putting in place a new sculpture, and taking care of the old one. Cheryl Zuellig pointed out that the artist who created the existing sculpture would need to be notified.

Commissioners then engaged in a discussion about process. Zuellig said that at this point, the proposal needs to be vetted by the planning committee, which she chairs. Asked by Chamberlin to clarify, Zuellig said that the role of the planning committee is to vet all proposals, making sure they are consistent with AAPAC’s mission and annual plan. “It’s just a check, to make sure we’re not chasing our tails,” she said.

Chamberlin expressed concern that AAPAC has been doing a “mating dance” with the DDA for several months. She felt that the projects committee had been charged to move forward with this partnership, and now they were backing off again by sending it to another committee. Parker said that AAPAC was just following its process, and that one of the challenges in dealing with the DDA was a matter of timing. “The DDA doesn’t realize how much time it takes for public art to evolve,” she said.

Chamberlin said that the DDA respects AAPAC’s work, but that it has its own timelines. Zuellig said the timeline for the Hanover project seemed reasonable – Parker described it as “very short.” [The timeline presented by Chamberlin calls for an RFP to be issued in mid-April, with proposals due by July 1 and artists selected by Sept. 1.] Curtis said he wanted to underscore the fact that the DDA very much wanted to work with AAPAC.

Zuelling then questioned whether $50,000 would be enough for a project at that location. She said she didn’t want to end up putting a cheesy piece there, just because they couldn’t fund something appropriate. Curtis stressed that there would likely be more funds available from the DDA, if that were necessary.

Getting Public Input: A Debate

During her report on work by the public relations committee, Marsha Chamberlin said that she and fellow commissioner Cathy Gendron were still struggling with how to make a community event interesting enough to attract more people than the one held last year, which drew about 30 people. It wasn’t clear how to make it of value, she said. [See Chronicle coverage of the May 21, 2009 event: "The Where and Why of Ann Arbor's Art"]

AAPAC chair Margaret Parker said the event was part of AAPAC’s annual plan. “It’s something we have to do – we can’t not do it,” she said. Parker suggested doing something similar to last year’s event, holding it at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library. They could talk about the public art projects that are in the works, she said, and ask people for feedback.

There was some discussion about having an arts-related lecture as part of the event, given that part of AAPAC’s mission is to educate. But Parker disagreed with that approach, saying it should be a time to communicate with the public and get input on the group’s annual plan. She said that a turnout of 30 people last year was “great,” adding that they weren’t going for numbers – it was more important to be able to say that they’d provided the opportunity for input. She reminded commissioners that they’d been castigated over the past year for not getting enough input about AAPAC’s work.

Parker also said that an annual public meeting was part of the Percent for Arts ordinance, a point that Chamberlin disputed. [The ordinance, passed by Ann Arbor city council in November of 2007, calls for AAPAC to "promote awareness of public art" and as part of AAPAC's annual report to city council, to report on its "efforts to promote awareness of public art."]

Chamberlin said she and Gendron didn’t object to holding an event, but they hadn’t been able to come up with a way to make it relevent and therefore likely to draw interest from the community. She said she wanted to energize people, not have an event with just 30 people sitting around with wine and cheese. At last year’s meeting, they were preaching to the choir, she said: “We didn’t have many John Q. Publics there.” Chamberlin also expressed frustration, saying that this was the third AAPAC meeting at which she’d raised the issue, and there still hadn’t been any ideas floated that “will light people on fire.”

When Parker asked whether Chamberlin was saying that it hadn’t been worth holding something for those 30 people who showed up last year, Chamberlin said it wasn’t appropriate even to suggest that. Her point, Chamberlin added, was that it was important to draw a larger group.

Katherine Talcott suggested throwing a public art party, and Cheryl Zuellig said if people weren’t coming to the event it might be because they weren’t interested or, she joked, that “you haven’t fed them enough.”

Jim Curtis said it was important to stop and reflect on the fact that all commissioners are working very hard, and are doing a great job. As a business owner, he said he constantly juggles needs and wants. He’s all in favor of having an event, but “perhaps the biggest thing we can do to promote art is to produce art.” The best way to demonstrate what they’re doing is to have projects that are publicly visible, he said.

Zuellig said it wasn’t just about communicating what AAPAC was doing – the public also wants to be heard. An event is just one of many ways to get feedback, she said.

Chamberlin contended that a meeting might fulfill the requirement – but not the spirit – of seeking public input. She proposed using SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool, as another way to get feedback. Zuellig agreed, saying a five-question survey could be useful. Chamberlin suggested sending it out via the email lists for local groups like the Arts Alliance, the Ann Arbor Art Center – where she serves as president – as well as posting it on the website for the city of Ann Arbor and finding other ways of distribution.

Then, she said, they could hold an event and deliver the survey results at that venue.

Guidelines, Selection Criteria Tabled

Some commissioners had difficulty accessing updated copies of AAPAC’s guidelines prior to Tuesday’s meeting, so discussion and a vote on approval was tabled until next month. Elaine Sims asked how they should handle any changes, which prompted AAPAC chair Margaret Parker to say, “If you feel you need to perfect this, it could take another two years.” She was alluding to the length of time that the guidelines have been awaiting approval by the city attorney’s office, which has finally signed off on this version. If changes are made now, it goes back to the attorney’s office, she said, then returns to AAPAC for approval before being sent for a vote at city council.

Katherine Talcott, the city’s public arts administrator, clarified that AAPAC’s bylaws had been vetted by the city attorney’s office and passed by AAPAC, but that the city council hadn’t yet voted on those.

Also tabled later in the meeting were two drafts proposed by the planning committee: 1) planning and selection criteria, to use in prioritizing projects, and 2) an annual plan process, outlining general dates throughout the year for AAPAC activities, such as submission of its annual plan. Cheryl Zuellig, chair of the planning committee, urged commissioners to review the documents and be prepared for discussion and a vote next month. She noted that action had been tabled the previous month as well.

Strategic Planning, Organizational Planning – or Both?

The commission had a lengthy discussion about a proposed retreat, and whether they needed to do strategic planning or get help with their organizational processes, specifically as it relates to AAPAC’s interface with city staff. Several commissioners suggested that both types of planning are needed. Parker, who has already contacted three local consultants about the issue, said there were two additional people she would talk with as well. The group also agreed that AAPAC’s planning committee would discuss further the idea of a retreat .

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Jeff Meyers, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger

Absent: Cathy Gendron

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 9 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

This winter seating will be gone by April, when renovations – including new seating built into the hill in front of the band shell – will begin in West Park. (Photos by the writer. The builder of the snow structures is unknown.)

But while reporting on city council’s vote against cutting public art funding to a half-percent, AAPAC chair Margaret Parker wasn’t feeling complacent: “I think we can expect a similar [challenge] to happen in the future.”

The commission discussed several other projects, including the status of the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture recently approved by city council. He has not yet responded to queries asking him to modify two additional pieces of art – it’s unclear if those pieces, originally planned for the interior of the new municipal center, will move forward.

Percent for Art, Dreiseitl Project

AAPAC chair Margaret Parker began the meeting by reviewing the outcome of the Dec. 21, 2009 Ann Arbor city council meeting.  At that meeting, councilmembers voted on a resolution that would have cut the Percent for Art program to a half-percent for three years, then reverted back to a full percent. Parker said she and eight others spoke in favor of keeping the full percent, and one person from the public spoke against it. The resolution failed on a 7 to 2 vote, with only councilmembers Stephen Kunselman and Sandi Smith supporting it. Commissioner Elaine Sims, who also spoke at the council meeting, said councilmembers indicated that the public commentary made a difference in their votes.

Also considered at the Dec. 21 city council meeting was a resolution approving a $111,400 contract with Quinn Evans, the municipal center’s architect, for design documentation and procurement of bids to fabricate and install an outdoor sculpture proposed by Herbert Dreiseitl. Only Kunselman voted against this, Parker reported. [See Chronicle coverage: "Council: Art Key to Ann Arbor’s Identity"]

The total project budget is $737,820 for this outdoor sculpture, which will be designed to incorporate stormwater runoff. Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator, said she’s working with Bill Wheeler, project manager for the municipal center, and Abigail Elias from the city attorney’s office to hammer out the Quinn Evans contract.

Originally, AAPAC had commissioned and paid for Dreiseitl to design three pieces, though only the one main outdoor work has been approved. There’s still some question about the status of the two Dreiseitl wall installations inside the new building. Talcott reported that the German artist has been in Singapore for several months, and hasn’t responded to queries from the city asking for revised designs and cost estimates.

The AAPAC task force on public art at the municipal center site will meet on Friday, Jan. 15 to discuss other art installations at the site, Parker said. There are spots for possible public art pieces in the north courtyard area off of Ann Street, as well as on a large outside wall on the building, facing east. And if Dreiseitl’s pieces aren’t used for the two inside locations, the task force will need to figure out what will go there. “We do have to get going on it,” Parker said.

West Park, Fuller Road Station, Bronze Horse Statue

Commissioners discussed several projects in various stages of development: public art for West Park and the Fuller Road Station, and a bronze horse sculpture that an artist wants to donate to the city.

In reporting on work by AAPAC’s projects committee, Connie Brown said she had talked with Amy Kuras, a city park planner, who is working on renovations to West Park. The project’s timeline had been accelerated and would likely begin in April 2010, to be completed throughout the summer. Kuras wanted to know whether AAPAC could work within that timeline to include a public art component, which would be funded through the Percent for Art program. [At city council's Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, an agenda item to authorize those West Park capital improvements prompted a lengthy discussion among councilmembers about how the Percent for Art program works.]

Brown recommended that AAPAC issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) for artwork that would be part of poured concrete seat walls, to be dug into the hillside across from the West Park bandshell. If they decide to do this project, they’d have to move quickly, she said, with the artist, design, contract and budget in place by May. City staff need to determine how much money would be available – funds would come either from the parks or stormwater budgets, said Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator.

Some commissioners expressed concerns about the process, the short timeline and the type of materials that might be used. “To me it seems like another thing thrown to us with a tight timeline,” Elaine Sims said, asking how it fit into AAPAC’s budget and annual plan.

Margaret Parker pointed out that it had taken a year to do the request for proposals (RFP) for the artwork in the Fourth & Washington parking structure. City departments need to give AAPAC more advance notice for this kind of project, she said.

Noting that there were maintenance issues associated with outdoor concrete work, Sims suggested the project could be more of an aesthetic, with the funds spent on beautiful materials for the seating, rather than on an art installation. Several other commissioners agreed with the decorative approach.

Talcott said she was meeting with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator (to whom Talcott reports), and would clarify the process for moving forward, including whether the RFQ needs to get council approval.

Talcott then reported on another city project in which AAPAC might play a role: the Fuller Road Station. The project manager, David Dykman, had contacted her and they planned to meet formally soon. It was good that someone from another city project is reaching out, she said. The station is being developed by the city and the University of Michigan, and is envisioned in two phases. Initially, it will entail a large parking structure, with the hopes of eventually building a new Amtrak station on the site, which is located near the UM medical complex. [See Chronicle coverage: "Council OKs Recycling, Transit, Shelter"]

Talcott also reported that she was setting up a review panel to evaluate the proposed donation of a large bronze horse sculpture by local artist Garo Kazan. She hasn’t yet received confirmations from people who’ve been invited to be on the panel.

Funding Rules: What AAPAC Can and Can’t Do

The commission discussed several topics that related to constraints on how Percent for Art funds can be spent.

The city attorney’s office had clarified, Margaret Parker said, that AAPAC could not use funding for temporary art projects, such as FestiFools, an annual parade of towering puppets that takes place every April on Main Street. FestiFools’ organizers had originally asked AAPAC for a five-year commitment of $25,000 each year. At AAPAC’s Oct. 13, 2009 meeting, commissioners rejected that proposal but voted to approve one-time funding of $5,000.

Parker asked that Jean Borger draft a letter to notify FestiFools of the decision. Several commissioners wanted to make sure to communicate that they supported the project in spirit, despite the funding constraints.

Katherine Talcott suggested that if AAPAC wanted to fund temporary projects like FestiFools, they should consider raising money from private donors. Later in the meeting, Parker asked whether the commission wanted to form a fundraising committee for that purpose. They ultimately decided to table the idea until their strategic planning retreat.

Parker also reported that AAPAC can’t award grants using Percent for Art funds – the commission had previously discussed this as a possibility.

Prior to Tuesday's meeting of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, comissioner Cathy Gendron worked on a presentation of public art websites from other cities.

The issue of city rules came up again during a report from the public relations committee, which had been working on AAPAC’s website. The committee – Cathy Gendron and Marsha Chamberlin – had been hoping to redesign the AAPAC website, which is separate from its page on the city’s website. However, city officials have told them that no Percent for Art funds can be used on website design, so they’re focusing their energy on how to revamp the city web page. “It won’t be elegant – or anything like we envisioned,” Gendron said.

However, there are some elements that they can incorporate into the site, Gendron said. She showed commissioners examples of public art websites in other cities that they might emulate. Cleveland’s public art website has an artist registry, for example. Gendron said the Ann Arbor area Arts Alliance is developing something similar, and AAPAC might be able to combine efforts with them. Another example is a Google map with markers showing the locations of public art – this might be possible on the city site, Gendron said.

AAPAC could also consider starting a blog or a Facebook page, she said, showing a Chicago public art blog as an example. This would be a way for people who aren’t city employees (including commissioners) to post things online, she said, because only city employees can load items onto the city’s website.

Strategic Planning

The commission discussed the need for a strategic planning retreat, which would focus on a one- to three-year timeframe. Margaret Parker wanted to bring in someone from the city’s planning staff to talk about how AAPAC can be better integrated into the city’s planning process. They need to know about projects years in advance, she said, citing the rebuilding of the East Stadium bridges as an example of something they should be included in. Parker mentioned Connie Pulcipher as a city planner who might be available for the retreat.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether they needed a professional facilitator instead. The issue of how soon AAPAC hears about projects isn’t strategic, she said – it’s a matter of communication. Other commissioners weighed in, saying that perhaps a city planner could participate in a retreat that would be facilitated by a professional. Fran Alexander of Alexander Resources Consulting and Dannemiller Tyson Associates were both mentioned as options.

Parker said they’d need to do an RFP for the facilitator, and Katherine Talcott cautioned that they couldn’t spend more than $1,000. No date was set for the retreat, but the goal is to shoot for a full day in mid-February, depending on schedules and the availability of a facilitator.

Public Forum?

In reporting on the work of the public relations committee, Marsha Chamberlin and Cathy Gendron said they hadn’t moved forward on planning a public forum, as called for in AAPAC’s annual plan. Gendron noted that the last forum, held in May 2009, had been sparsely attended. About 30 people showed up for the event at the Ann Arbor Art Center. It wasn’t clear what the point would be, Chamberlin said – would it be to educate people about public art in general, or about the role of AAPAC, or to seek feedback? She also wondered how they could make it engaging so that people would want to attend.

Jeff Meyers, who attended Tuesday’s meeting though he hasn’t yet been officially appointed to AAPAC, suggested that the event could connect with the whole arts and creative community, letting them know how the funding process works and how they can get involved. Ultimately, he said, people want to know what the Percent for Art program means for their bottom line, both creatively and financially.

Margaret Parker said she felt like last year’s attendance of 30 people was a lot. She identified several things they could do at a public forum: review current AAPAC projects, educate people about public art, explain AAPAC’s process, and solicit feedback and suggestions.

Chamberlin proposed that she and Gendron meet again to put together a detailed plan and come up with a proposed date. Others suggested holding it in conjunction with other upcoming arts-related events, such as the Ann Arbor Film Festival in March or FestiFools in April.

Election of Officers

The final item of business was the election of officers. Margaret Parker, has served as chair since the commission was formed, and before that for several years led the group’s previous incarnation, the Commission for Art in Public Places.  She announced that 2010 would be her last year as AAPAC chair.

She asked for volunteers to be vice chair, with the assumption that the vice chair this year would assume the chair’s position in 2011. Jim Curtis said he couldn’t do it, because he’ll be involved in launching the Main Street Business Improvement Zone, a new downtown tax assessment district. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle."] Several people suggested Connie Brown, who demurred, citing her workload as head of AAPAC’s projects committee. All other commissioners declined as well.

“That will not do,” Parker said. “I’m not going to do it all by myself anymore.” The issue was unresolved, with Parker joking that she’d bring it up at each meeting until someone stepped up.

Elaine Sims said part of the problem is that AAPAC needs more than nine commissioners. Brown noted that at this point, they don’t even have nine – Jeff Meyers has not yet been appointed, and another seat remains unfilled. Meyers is expected to be nominated and appointed at the city council’s next meeting, on Jan. 18.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims. Others: Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger, Jeff Meyers

Absent: Cheryl Zuellig

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 9 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The city has already paid Dreiseitl for the design of three pieces for the city’s new municipal center, also known as the police-courts facility, being built next to city hall. But it will only be the outdoor piece – a storm water fountain and sculpture – that city council is expected to vote on at its Dec. 7 meeting.

City council was originally expected to vote on the Dreiseitl project at its Nov. 16 meeting. According to AAPAC chair Margaret Parker, the delay in voting on the outdoor piece, which currently has a budget of $728,458, was due to McCormick’s concern over unanswered questions that require additional input from the municipal center’s architect as well as Dreiseitl. McCormick had pointed to unresolved issues with the two indoor pieces in deciding to leave them out of the vote completely, Parker said.

Parker handled the status report on Dreiseitl’s project in the absence of Katherine Talcott, the city’s part-time administrator for public art, who has been managing the project. Talcott had been impeded by traffic on her way back to Ann Arbor from Pittsburgh, and did not attend Tuesday’s meeting.

Background on Percent for Art and Dreiseitl’s Project

Two years ago, at its Nov. 5, 2007 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council adopted an ordinance that established the Percent for Art program. It specifies in part:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, all capital improvement projects funded wholly or partly by the city shall include funds for public art equal to one percent (1%) of the construction costs identified in the initial project estimate, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. Where a capital improvement project is only partly funded by the city, the amount of funds allocated for public art shall be one percent of that portion of the project that is city-funded, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. All appropriations for capital improvements falling within the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to include funding to implement the requirements of this section 1.

The following is a timeline, in broad strokes, with key dates in the evolution of the Dreiseitl art project:

• September 2008: Dreiseitl visits Ann Arbor, as keynote speaker for the Huron River Watershed Council’s State of the Huron conference. He meets with AAPAC’s muncipal center task force, which then recommends to AAPAC that Dreiseitl be commissioned to design three pieces of art at the municipal center, also known as the police-courts facility.
• October 2008: Art commission recommends commissioning design for three pieces of art at the municipal center – one outdoor sculpture, and two indoor wall pieces.
• March 2, 2009: City council approves Dreiseitl’s design fees at $77,000.
• July 20, 2009: Dreiseitl visits Ann Arbor to unveil his design concepts at a public forum and at city council.
• September 2009: Dreiseitl returns to Ann Arbor to meet with municipal center architects and others.
• Oct. 19, 2009: At a special meeting, the municipal center task force recommends accepting designs for all three pieces.
• Oct. 19, 2009. At a special meeting, AAPAC recommends accepting design for the outdoor sculpture – tabling and placing contingencies on the other two indoor pieces.
• Dec. 7, 2009: Possible vote by the city council on the outdoor sculpture.

Dreiseitl: Why Delay the  Vote?

In explaining why the expected vote at the city council’s Nov. 16 meeting would not happen until Dec. 7, Parker said that more information was needed from Quinn Evans, the architect on the municipal center project, as well as from Herbert Dreiseitl himself. Dreiseitl is currently working on a project in Singapore, was very busy, and it has been difficult for the art commission to reach him, Parker said.

She reported that Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, had put the resolution together that was to come before the city council, and that McCormick’s conclusion was that only the outdoor sculpture could be voted on. “That’s how it’s come down,” Parker said. [For background on the other two indoor art pieces Dreiseitl was commissioned to design, see previous Chronicle coverage: "Dreiseitl Project Moves to City Council"]

The budget breakdown that Parker had from Quinn Evans showed a cost for the outdoor sculpture of $728,458. That was less, Parker said, than the roughly $841,000 price tag on all three pieces.

Commissioner Jim Curtis had a question about the outdoor seating adjacent to the sculpture – is that included in the project? Parker said that everyone has said the seating component will come later, not as a part of the project.

Commissioner Connie Brown asked if the lower budget [$728,458 versus $841,000] reflected any of the suggestions for changes to the outdoor sculpture from the municipal center task force that were intended to reduce costs. Parker said that while there’d been suggestions made, none had been implemented in the design.

Those suggestions had included, Parker said, making the sculpture shorter, eliminating the lighting function, reducing the water flow elements, and eliminating the steel at the base of the sculpture. Curtis elicited the clarification from Parker that the lack of interest in implementing those design changes had not resulted from an inability to contact Dreiseitl, but rather that “nobody wanted to do them.”

Parker reiterated that the task force had vote unanimously for all three municipal center art projects that had been designed by Dreiseitl. Because of questions about the lighting in the lobby piece and the supporting wall in the atrium piece, the art commission had tabled action on one piece and set conditions on the other during a special meeting called on Oct. 19 to vote on the project.

Brown asked what would happen with the indoor pieces. Subsequent discussion by Parker and Curtis suggests that it’s not clear if or how the other indoor pieces could eventually be completed. Curtis expressed hope that the places for their installation could be reserved in the building as available space, even though a blank wall might not look great in the interim.

Parker explained to commissioner Cathy Gendron that the glass walls for the indoor pieces had not, in fact, been ordered, and that Sue McCormick had said there were too many open questions about the indoor pieces to vote on them.

Dreiseitl: Arguments for Voting Yes

Parker distributed to art commission members some talking points in support of the project that could be conveyed to “anyone who’s willing to listen,” which had been sent to city council members:

1. The design integrates a 12′ high steel sculpture, storm water circulation, electrical and computer systems into an interactive water piece that children can play in – $750,000 is a very reasonable price for such a design.

2. 80% of funds will go to Michigan fabricators, contractors, architects and designers – this means art is generating jobs for Michigan workers.

3. Both the Municipal Center Task Force and AAPAC voted unanimously for the aesthetic and civic value of this project.

4. City staff, engineers, architects and designers of the building are all whole-heartedly behind this public art installation.

5. Ann Arbor would become known as the site of a world renowned artist who specializes in environmental art.

6. If the money were not used for this piece, it would go back to the Public Art Fund and could not be used for any other reason. Even if the Percent for Art ordinance were eliminated, the money would go back to the designated funds for the capital projects that generated them – sewer, water, transportation, etc.

7. Because the building is coming along quickly, this project is our only chance to make something that is embedded in the building’s infrastructure. It would take at least another year to come up with another proposal for this primary site, and then it would simply sit in the space, not demonstrate the environmental goals of the building.

8. Art is good business. Grand Rapids proved with ArtPrize that art in public spaces can generate business, public awareness for our city, and community empowerment. This is what this project will do in Ann Arbor, but on a permanent basis. All we need to do is follow through with the two-year project we’ve been working on together.

Dreiseitl: Would/Could the City Council Vote No?

Later in the meeting, commissioner Cathy Gendron commented that it would be shocking at this point if the city council voted down the Dreiseitl project. Parker responded by saying that this highlighted the importance of having a municipal center task force with city council and city staff membership.

That task force consists of: Ray Detter of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council; Bob Grese, director of Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum; Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city; AAPAC chair Margaret Parker; Jan Onder of AAPAC; Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council; Ann Arbor city councilmember Margie Teall; Spring Tremaine, a lieutenant with the Ann Arbor Police Department; Julie Creal, a judge with the 15th District Court; and Elona Van Gent of the University of Michigan.

Commissioner Connie Brown noted that the council had already voted on the first piece of the proposal – the concept design. Discussion among Brown, Parker and commissioner Marsha Chamberlin drew out the fact that the council had voted not for a particular design, but rather to commission Dreiseitl to create a design. That had been based, said Parker, on Dreiseitl’s background and expertise.

Brown cautioned that artists who brought projects before AAPAC understand clearly that a “No” was still possible, even if their project survived the selection process and won recommendation to city council for funding. Chamberlin suggested that it was a matter of the culture among artists – architects and real estate developers were used to a tradition of undergoing a long and arduous process, only to have a proposal rejected at the final step. But did artists have the same culture? Brown echoed Chamberlin’s sentiment that developers were used to that kind of rejection late in a process, saying that artists needed to understand that as well.

Parker expressed her feeling that artists were used to the idea that their proposal could be rejected even after having successfully navigated through many steps of a process.

In their deliberations, art commissioners did not mention an email that had been circulated the previous day, Nov. 9, by councilmember Christopher Taylor to his Ward 3 constituents, in which he framed the issue of the Dreiseitl vote as a possible choice between funding public art and funding human services:

I write today to seek your thoughts on a difficult issue that will likely come before Council on [November 16]. [Editor's note: It's now clear that it will likely be voted on at council's Dec. 7 meeting.] The issue is this: should Ann Arbor spend money that it has been saving in its Public Art Fund on public art, or should it spend that money instead on human services.

Without advocating for either position, Taylor discusses in his email the merits and de-merits of arguments both ways, including the possibility that the Percent for Art ordinance be amended so that monies previously earmarked for public art be spent this winter “to provide comfort and security to scores, if not hundreds, of persons during the dead of winter in bleak economic times.”

This isn’t the first time that a councilmember has raised the issue of funding for public art. In February 2009, at a Sunday night caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had mooted the idea of modifying the Percent for Art ordinance – not to reallocate the money to human services, but rather to reduce the amount earmarked for public art. From Chronicle coverage of that caucus ["Discontent Emerges at Caucus"]:

One Percent for Art? Really??

Higgins also called into question the need for construction projects to allocate a full 1% for public art, noting that around $1 million had already accumulated in the fund in the year since the program was adopted. She wondered if perhaps a half percent would be a more appropriate level.

Councilmember Christopher Taylor noted light-heartedly that “A Half-Percent For Art!” just doesn’t have quite the same ring. But on a more serious note he suggested that monies are being accumulated faster than they’re being allocated because a mechanism for distribution is still getting up and running.

Chair’s Report

In addition to discussing the Dreiseitl project, which threaded through much of the other discussion during AAPAC’s Nov. 10 meeting, the commission heard reports from each of its committees and from its chair.

Parker reported that she’d attended a cultural planning session by the Arts Alliance. They’re focused on (i) communications, (ii) capacity building, and (iii) funding. She said she saw an overlap in the missions of the Arts Alliance and AAPAC in that first area: communications. She cited the planned Arts Alliance web portal as an example where public art could have a presence. [At the DDA's October board meeting, Arts Alliance president Tamara Real asked the DDA board to help with the funding of the web portal. At the DDA's November board meeting, the report from its partnerships committee was that the request had been put off for now.]

Parker said she also saw the opportunity to partner on temporary art projects – FestiFools, the Ann Arbor Film Festival, University Musical Society, and artists residencies.

Parker reported that she’d given a talk as part of a brown bag series at the Institute for the Humanities with Larry Cressman, associate professor of art at the University of Michigan (and former AAPAC member) and Elaine Sims, director of UM’s Gifts of Art program and current AAPAC commissioner. The segment will be broadcast on Michigan Television – Comcast Cable channel 24. Parker said that it was striking how the purely civic orientation of art through the public art commission contrasted with the constraints of art that’s installed in, say, a hospital setting. She cited two different UM websites documenting public art. One includes public art in different areas of the UM campus and the other is the UM Museum of Art website.

Present: Connie Brown, Jim Curtis, Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker.

Absent: Jim Kern, Jan Onder, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. on the 7th floor of the City Center. [confirm date]

Elaine Sims and Jim Curtis of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission at a special meeting on Monday. Sims and Curtis expressed concern about some aspects of Herbert Dreiseitl's revised designs for art in the new municipal center, also know as the police/courts facility. (Photo by the writer.)

The $841,541 budget submitted just last week by Dreiseitl for the three pieces of art – including design fees already paid to him – exceeds AAPAC’s original cap of $750,000 for the project. AAPAC had set aside another $250,000 for other public art projects on the municipal center site, and plans to use part of that amount to pay for Dreiseitl’s project.

Even at the higher cost, Dreiseitl has warned that creating all three pieces for that price will be “challenging” – and some commissioners said they should consider providing more funding, if it’s necessary to achieve his vision. The complete vision was unclear on Monday, however, since AAPAC did not have final drawings for his proposed two interior wall pieces.

Background: The Special Meeting

Only five of the nine commissioners were able to attend the special meeting on Monday evening, which had been called for Friday, Oct. 16. Monday’s meeting, along with one held earlier in the day by a task force on public art for the municipal center, had been organized so that both groups could make recommendations to city council on the Dreiseitl project. Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, has asked that recommendations be made by Monday – city council is expected to vote on the project at their Nov. 16 meeting. McCormick told AAPAC that city staff needs a month to prepare for the meeting.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects, project manager for the Dreiseitl art installations. (Photo by the writer.)

There’s also a sense of urgency as construction of the municipal center moves forward. At Monday’s meeting, Ken Clein – a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, the Ann Arbor firm that’s designing the center and acting as project manager for Dreiseitl’s installations – told commissioners that decisions need to be made about Dreiseitl’s project so that work at the municipal center won’t be delayed.

Parker reported that the task force passed motions recommending all three Dreiseitl pieces, at the budgeted price he submitted: $841,541. They also recommended that AAPAC explore fundraising possibilities to supplement funds for public art at the municipal center, if necessary.

Members of the task force who voted on Monday are Ray Detter of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council; Bob Grese, director of Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum; AAPAC chair Margaret Parker; Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council; Ann Arbor city councilmember Margie Teall; and Spring Tremaine, a lieutenant with the Ann Arbor Police Department.

The Outdoor Sculpture

The main work proposed by Dreiseitl is an outdoor water sculpture to be located in the municipal center’s main plaza. Here’s a description of the work from a Chronicle report of Dreiseitl’s presentation to city council in July:

The sculpture would consist of a large, upright piece made of two rectangular metal plates standing close together, facing Huron Street. Water would flow down the front piece, which would be concave at the top and transition to a convex shape at the bottom. The water would flow from the top and drain out the back, continuing on toward the building like a river. Tanks connected to the center’s rain garden would store and filter water so it could be circulated through the sculpture repeatedly.

Dreiseitl’s models showed a bridge over the river-like part of the sculpture, as well as a couple of benches alongside it. He explained that he wanted to integrate his work with the surrounding architecture and landscape.

A drawing of what Herbert Dreiseitl's water sculpture would look like upon completion. It would be located in a plaza on the Huron Street side of the new municipal center, next to a planned rain garden.

This piece has a budget of $728,458. The largest line item is $155,000 for lighting and controls, including multiple ground-mounted spotlights and possibly a spotlight attached to the building as well. The sculpture would also incorporate multiple hand-blown blue glass “pearls,” individually lit and programmed to flick off and on in a specific sequence.

Another major line item is for “water technology,” at $125,000. Clein told commissioners that this would include water filters, pipes leading back to the building’s mechanical room, two to three pumps, and possibly a system for treatment of the water, if necessary.

Other line items for the outdoor sculpture include $45,000 for a pre-cast concrete water basin; $15,000 for small stainless steel forms affixed to the sculpture and rotating with the water flow; $85,000 for the sculpture itself, made of “weathering” steel; a base for the sculpture, also made of weathering steel, for $30,000; and $3,000 for the hand-blown glass bulbs.

Commissioner Elaine Sims asked Clein about ways to reduce the cost of certain line items, particularly the cost of lighting. She also wanted to see a more detailed breakdown of costs within that line item. Clein said he’d had several long conversations with Dreiseitl about ways to reduce the cost, particularly for lighting and water technology. Ultimately, Clein said, “We felt it would be better to get this one right, rather than do three that weren’t quite there.”

In addition to the elements of the sculpture itself, the budget includes $23,500 in costs associated with re-doing work in the plaza that’s already been finished. For example, foundations that have been poured will have to be modified to support the sculpture and pre-cast concrete water basin, Clein said. Two tall light poles will be taken out and replaced with multiple light fixtures that are lower to the ground. The budget also includes $24,075 for contingencies.

Dreiseitl’s fees for the outdoor sculpture are $140,670, an amount that includes previously paid design work. The fees will also cover the cost of a three-week trip to Ann Arbor for Dreiseitl and an assistant during the sculpture’s assembly next year. Additional budget items include $26,650 to Quinn Evans Architects for project management and technical support, and $37,800 to Conservation Design Forum for consulting on the project.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved a motion to recommend that the council accept Dreiseitl’s design and budget for the outdoor water sculpture, with the suggestion that further cost savings be explored.

Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, looks over drawings by Herbert Dreiseitl before the start of a special meeting on Monday night at the City Center Building's 7th floor conference room. (Photo by the writer.)

Indoor Wall Art: Police/Courts Lobby

Because Dreiseitl has revised his design for two interior pieces but hasn’t provided drawings of the newest versions, Margaret Parker – AAPAC’s chair – described to commissioners what those changes would be.

An installation on the lobby wall of the police/courts building – part of the municipal center, located west of the current city hall – was originally designed as a panel of steel, but will now be made of dark blue glass. The piece will be smaller than originally conceived, Parker said. A drawing of the Huron River watershed will be etched into the front of the glass – paint might be added to highlight the watershed etching.

The original design included hand-blown blue glass “pearls” – each one lit – that were to be embedded in the steel, highlighting the watershed etching. But because it’s more difficult (and therefore more expensive) to embed the lights into glass, a material that could easily crack, that approach was abandoned, Parker said. Instead, the blue bulbs would hang from the ceiling at varying levels and be lit from above by lights in the ceiling.

Elaine Sims said she wasn’t happy with the design changes. “It sounds real boring to me,” she said. “The ‘wow’ factor is pssh – the air’s gone out of it.”

Moving from a steel to a glass foundation for the piece was the idea of the building’s architectural team, Clein said. They believed that steel conflicted with the other materials used in the building, which were intended to be lighter and transparent. The sense was that steel conveyed the feeling of a fortress, he said, noting that Dreiseitl immediately agreed.

Sims and other commissioners questioned whether the glass “pearls” could be lit internally. Adding a power cord to each light, as well as programming for their operation, would increase costs significantly, Clein said. But without light, commissioner Cheryl Zuellig said, it would be difficult to tell that the opaque bulbs were blue.

Commissioner Jim Curtis suggested trying to find a way to work the lights into the wall panel, possibly by embedding them into a wood backing, to which the glass panel would be affixed. Clein said one problem would be how to replace the lights when they burned out – there’s no way to access the lights in that configuration. Sims asked if fiber optics might work. Clein said he discussed that with Dreiseitl, but that the artist wasn’t keen on the idea, because of the lower light output. That’s true, Sims said, but it’s would be more interesting than just an etching.

Sims also expressed concern that the hanging bulbs would gather dust.

The total budget for this work is $53,843. That includes $10,000 to make 100 blue glass bulbs, $16,000 for the etching on a blue glass panel, and $7,000 for lighting and controls. Dreiseitl’s fee for this piece is $7,815. Quinn Evans Architects would be paid $7,175.

Outcome: The commission passed a motion, with Elaine Sims dissenting, that recommended city council approve the design and budget for this wall installation, with the condition that Dreiseitl develop a satisfactory lighting solution.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects holds up some blue glass balls to show how they'd look when hit by light. The balls are part of a proposed art installation at the new municipal center. (Photo by the writer.)

Indoor Wall Art: Larcom Building Atrium

In reporting on design changes to Dreiseitl’s second indoor piece, which would be located on the west wall of the atrium in the Larcom Building, Parker said the wall would be made of white plaster, not the steel originally envisioned. The drawing of plant life, showing root structures as well as above-ground flora, would be done in silver paint.

Clein clarified that the actual wall would be gypsum (drywall), and that a thin layer of plaster would be spread over the wall, except on the parts of the wall with the plant life design. The shallow trough created by the design would be filled in with silver paint. As with the other indoor piece, 100 blue glass bulbs would be suspended from the ceiling.

Elaine Sims and Jim Curtis both expressed concerns over the durability of the material. Clein acknowledged that the drywall and plaster would be susceptible to humidity and temperature changes, due to frequent opening and closing of doors to the building, which will be open 24/7.

Cheryl Zuellig objected to the silver-on-white design, saying that it seemed frivolous and “snowflakey” compared to the earth tones of the originally proposed steel material.

Cathy Gendron wondered whether Dreiseitl could do the drawings on panels that could be suspended from the ceiling or affixed to the wall, rather than make the drawings directly on the wall. But Parker said the beauty of these delicate drawings of plant life was that they would seem to emerge from the building itself, incorporated into the materials of the structure.

The budget for this piece is $47,491, which includes $7,815 in fees for Dreiseitl and $7,175 for Quinn Evans.

Outcome: The commission decided to table this item. They plan to hold an additional meeting, at a date to be determined, to discuss alternatives to this proposal – including the possibility of allocating more funding so that Dreiseitl could modify his design and materials. The meeting would also allow more commissioners to be involved – Cathy Gendron said that some of the commissioners who were absent on Monday were unhappy that they couldn’t be part of the discussion. When they meet again, Cheryl Zuellig asked that Parker review how much funding is still available for public art at the municipal center, and what other projects are being considered there, aside from Dreiseitl.

Present: Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Ken Clein, Katherine Talcott, Jean Borger.

Absent: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Kern, Jan Onder.