Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski at the group’s Dec. 19, 2012 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council Action on Public Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council Action on Public Art: Outreach

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

The resolved clause states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding for Justice Center Artwork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support for Task Forces

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

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

From Kotarski’s email:

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

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

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

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

Connie Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goal D: Pursue private funding for public art.

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

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

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

Project Updates

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Working with UM Students

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Terms

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

Cathy Gendron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Online Map of Public Art

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

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

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

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

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Malverne Winborne.

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

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

Possible alternate security configuration for Ann Arbor Justice Center. (The orientation of the diagram is with east at the top. Fifth Avenue is at the bottom of the diagram.) Estimated cost of changing to this configuration is about $225,000.

At the meeting, held in the hour before the regular city council meeting at 7 p.m., committee members were briefed on different options for modifying security at the building to improve public access. Currently, visitors to the Justice Center go through a security checkpoint very near the entrance to the building, off the Huron Street plaza. The building houses the 15th District Court as well as the city’s police department.

Among the options committee members were presented is the possible relocation of the airport-style screening station to a position closer to the elevators, on the Fifth Avenue side of the building. Estimated cost for the different options ranges from $30,000 to $225,000.

The work of generating different options came in the wake of concern by some city councilmembers about adequate access to a piece of art they had approved for purchase and installation in the lobby. Councilmembers weren’t content that visitors who wished merely to view the art would have to undergo security screening, and were skeptical that the art would be adequately visible from outside the building through the horizontal bands of etched glass on the Justice Center windows.

That piece of art is a suspended sculpture called “Radius,” by Ed Carpenter. It’s funded through the city’s Percent for Art public art program. Part of the council’s discussion on the artwork back in early May had included a desire to look at options for relocating the security screening checkpoint – and there was an indication that the council’s building committee would convene a meeting to address that possibility. For some councilmembers, there’s a desire to see better public access to the Justice Center lobby independent of the installation of public art there.

At the council’s July 2, 2012 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had inquired about the status of the building committee’s meeting. She’d been told by city administrator Steve Powers that the security screening was on the committee’s July 16 agenda.

The committee did not deliberate in depth on the different options – partly because the final invoices and costs for the municipal center building project aren’t final, so it’s not clear if money might remain in the project budget to handle alterations of the security screening station. [The municipal center refers to the Justice Center and adjacent city hall.] Any change to the current security configuration would first be recommended to the full city council by its building committee, with necessary expenditures approved by the city council before implementation by the city administrator.

Councilmembers who attended the July 16 committee meeting included Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje. Staff included city administrator Steve Powers, facilities service unit manager Matt Kulhanek, chief of police John Seto, and CFO Tom Crawford.

After the jump, this article includes more detail on the different security configuration options and the cost breakdown.

Option 1: Establish a Flexible Configuration

Two options for reconfiguring the security at the Justice Center – 1a and 1b – are driven by the idea of making the lobby easily convertible for use as a public event space. Both options maintain the screening at essentially the same location as now, but would make necessary modifications so that the screening equipment could be more easily removed when desired. [In the diagrams below, the top is east, and Fifth Avenue is at the bottom. The Fifth Avenue doorway is currently used as an emergency exit, and to accept a limited number of deliveries. It's not currently configured for public entry. The public enters through doorways at the top of the diagram, off the Huron Street plaza.]

Option 1a security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. A cost of $30,625 would include conversion to removable glass partitions.

Option 1b for security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. A cost of $40,000 would include removal of permanent glass partitions and installation of a security desk.

Option 2: Move Location of Permanent Equipment

The other two options (2a and 2b) entail fundamentally changing the location of the security screening equipment. Both options would entail moving the equipment to the Fifth Avenue side of the lobby, near the elevators. The 2a option would entail moving the security screening so that it would be nestled right in the corner that visitors must turn, in order to get to the elevators. The 2b option does not take advantage of the corner configuration and requires additional glass partitions, which increases the cost.

Option 2a for security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. Cost is estimated at $91,250.

Option 2b for security at the Ann Arbor Justice Center. Cost is estimated at $225,000.

A factor that’a analyzed in the schematic detail and cost breakdown for the various options is the ability of security personnel to have a line of sight to the Fifth Avenue entrance doors. As they’re currently used – as an emergency exit and for occasional deliveries – the line of sight to the doors is not crucial. But in the course of the new discussion on making the building more accessible, the possibility of allowing a public entrance off Fifth Avenue has been considered. And it’s that scenario that drives the line-of-sight issue.

Next Steps

The building committee did not discuss the options in detail on July 16, and concluded their meeting by taking a firsthand look at the Justice Center lobby. City administrator Steve Powers confirmed for The Chronicle that for now, there’s no intention to do anything except maintain the current configuration.

Any change would first be considered and recommended by the building committee to the whole council. Upon approval by the council of any budget changes necessary for changing the security configuration, those changes could then be implemented. Part of the balance councilmembers will weigh in making any decision is between the public’s interest in access to public space and the public’s interest in maintaining adequate security.

The balance between public access and security is an issue that has surfaced in connection with the entire municipal center complex, not just the new Justice Center. The renovated city hall – known as the Larcom Building – is now typically locked overnight. Before the new construction, the police desk was located at the entrance to city hall, and police staff could buzz in visitors to the city hall building – say, for public meetings that took place after regular business hours.

With the police desk now located in the Justice Center, police staff can’t regulate entry to the city hall building. While the new city hall elevators can be programmed to grant access only to specific floors – like the second floor, where the council chambers are located – that’s still proven to be problematic. On at least one occasion, city staff have discovered on arrival at work a member of the public who apparently overnighted in a bathroom.

When the final tally on the municipal center construction project budget is complete, the council will be in a better position to weigh costs and benefits of a security reconfiguration. The preliminary figures presented to the committee at its July 16 meeting showed $46,955,203 in expenditures already made, with another $427,084 in projected expenditures. That’s against a budget of $47,400,000. So if the projected expenditures are on target, that would currently leave only $17,712 in the project budget to undertake the security reconfiguration.

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

The contract pays $25.25 per hour per officer, with the number of officers estimated to be roughly three each day. Currently, the weapons screening takes place at metal detectors at the entrance to the building.

The city council engaged in lengthy deliberations at its April 2, 2012 meeting about the placement of the security check. The context of those deliberations was a vote on the acquisition of Ed Carpenter’s proposed “Radius” sculpture, at a cost of $150,000, to be installed in the lobby of the justice center building. As proposed, and eventually approved by the council, viewing the sculpture from inside the building during normal business hours would require going through a security check.

On July 16, the city council will convene a meeting of its building committee, which will include a discussion of the location of the security checkpoint.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Left to right: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) are asking to be recognized to speak as Jane Lumm (Ward 2) gives her views on public art. (Photos by the writer.)

Public art was featured in two specific agenda items. One was a presentation of the annual public art plan given by Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the city’s public art commission. The council gave the presentation a basically positive reception.

But the second agenda item required a vote – on a $150,000 piece of art proposed by Ed Carpenter, to be hung in the lobby of the new Justice Center. The city’s public art commission had selected Carpenter from responses to a request for proposals. A vote on the artwork, a piece called “Radius,” had been postponed from the council’s April 2, 2012 meeting over concerns about public access to the Justice Center lobby, where the sculpture will be hung.

A nearly one-hour debate unfolded about the Carpenter piece, with the specific artwork serving as a kind of proxy for a rehash of previous council debates on the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The ordinance requires that all city capital improvement projects include 1% for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project. For capital projects that aren’t suitable to have public art incorporated into them, the 1% is “pooled” for use in some other public art – which must be related to the purpose of the funding source. For example, the fountain outside the new Justice Center, designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, is funded with money pooled from 1% of some sanitary sewer projects, drinking water projects, and stormwater management projects.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that would have canceled Carpenter’s project and appropriated the art project funds to invest instead in the city hall building. That amendment failed, but piqued mayor John Hieftje into announcing that he’d be sponsoring a future resolution to take $50,000 from public art funds, and deposit that amount into the general fund. That move is susceptible to the same critique made by several councilmembers as well as the assistant city attorney against Lumm’s amendment: The public art ordinance prohibits transfer from public art funds to other funds. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he would be content for the council simply to violate that ordinance. Carpenter’s sculpture eventually was approved over the dissent of Kunselman and Lumm.

Besides public art, the council approved the city’s portion of the State/Ellsworth traffic roundabout project, which includes an improvement for a water main connection – to pipe water from a well on the property of Ann Arbor’s municipal airport to the city’s water treatment plant. The airport also made it onto the agenda in the form of a resolution that settled outstanding legal issues surrounding the construction of hangars on the property.

Prompting extended discussion by the council was a resolution that invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits for vendors in a specific area around Main Street between Huron and William, whenever Main Street is closed down for special events.

The council delayed action on a tax abatement for the battery technology company Sakti3, pending review by the city council’s budget committee. And the council authorized another five-year extension of its contract with Waste Management to haul the city’s trash to a landfill.

The council also heard its usual range of public commentary. The public hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget enjoyed light participation. The council will vote on that budget, and any amendments, at its May 21 meeting.

Public Art

The council had two public art-related items on its agenda: a presentation of the art commission’s annual plan, and the approval of a $150,000 sculpture for the new Justice Center. Submission by the public art commission of an annual plan to the city council is a requirement of the city’s public art ordinance.

From the ordinance:

The oversight body shall … by April 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year; …

Public Art: Annual Plan

The council received a presentation on the public art commission’s annual plan from Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the commission.

The city’s public art commission had discussed the public art plan for FY 2013 at its March 28, 2012 meeting. The plan describes projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan].

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The first objective – developing a master plan – included details on its purpose. The intent of the master plan is to: (1) guide AAPAC’s efforts to include public art throughout the city, involve community groups and create substantial visibility for public art as an integral part of community life and a city asset; (2) train commissioners and task force members with the goal of increased community knowledge, engagement and advocacy for public art; and (3) better integrate the public art administrator with every city department with the goal of increasing public art in the city.

Simbuerger concluded her presentation by thanking Aaron Seagraves, who provides staff support to the city’s public art commission as the city’s public art administrator.

Public Art: Annual Plan – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about the public art budget and request for proposals that’s connected to the East Stadium bridges project – $400,000. Simbuerger clarified that the 2014 date in the annual plan was not the date that the RFP would be issued, but rather the date of anticipated completion for the public art associated with the bridge project. The RFP is currently under review by the city attorney’s office, Simbuerger explained.

Lumm said the reason she was asking about it is that a lot of people see architecture as art. The Broadway bridges are like that, she ventured. She said she’d been told that the East Stadium bridges can’t be that nice, because there’s not enough money. She wondered if art could be incorporated into the bridge design.

Simbuerger indicated that the bridge design is done, so there’s some room for flexibility on only a few things, like railings or sidewalks. The art commission can’t influence the basic design of the bridge anymore, she said. Art could be added to the bridge, she said, and there’s also a park next to the bridge as well as a fence that leads up to the bridge along Stadium Boulevard – which could potentially serve as locations for public art.

Lumm concluded her remarks by commending the planned mural project at Allmendinger Park, for involving the community. The project, by local artist Mary Thiefels, will incorporate found objects into a mosaic on the pillars of the park’s bathroom building.

Later in the meeting, Lumm cited those earlier remarks she’d made – to argue against mayor John Hieftje’s contention that she was attacking public art. That discussion centered around the second public art-related agenda item – approval of a $150,000 piece of art for the lobby of the new Justice Center. The Justice Center is also known as the police-courts building. The overall construction project for the new building, which connected city hall with the new Justice Center, is also known as the municipal center building project.

Justice Center Art: Background – Building

The proposed public art project would be located in the lobby of the new municipal building called the Justice Center – on the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The sculpture is called “Radius” by Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon. Previously council had postponed approval of public art funds for Carpenter’s project at its April 2, 2012 meeting.

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

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations that led to the postponement on April 2.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion at the April 2 as well as at the May 7 meeting.

At the May 7 meeting, before the council began its deliberations on the Justice Center lobby art, city administrator Steve Powers indicated to the council that the question of public access to the lobby and art had been reviewed by city staff. He suggested that he was prepared to go into detail on that issue, or that the information could be reviewed by the city council’s building committee. He noted there are some details on use of the building by the police department that have an impact on its 24/7 accessibility. Powers also said that staff had some answers about the visibility of the art itself from the exterior of the building. The visibility of the art and the accessibility to the building, he said, are two separate issues. He noted that moving the security checkpoint would have a budgetary impact.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Carpenter for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists.

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

Ann Arbor’s public art funds come from the application of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, which requires that 1% of all capital projects (up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project) be set aside for public art.

Justice Center Art: Background – Ordinance

There was confusion on the part of councilmembers about how the public art ordinance actually works and where the money for Carpenter’s sculpture had originated. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was convinced that the source of funds for the Dreiseitl fountain – located outside, on the side of the building facing Huron – was the same as the source of funds for the interior piece. Kunselman pointed to the metaphor of the “rippling” effect that Carpenter’s sculpture was supposed to mirror, which was similar to the “water theme” that is supposed to justify the expenditure of sewer, stormwater and drinking water funds on the project. He also pointed to the original interior art pieces commissioned from Dreiseitl, which were planned to tie thematically to the fountain with lit blue spheres. [Those pieces were proposed but not authorized to be created, because of budgetary concerns.]

By way of background, the ordinance describes two ways that pieces of public art can be funded. They can be funded as pieces of art that are integrated into or stand on the site of some capital improvement project. The budget of all such projects must include 1% for public art.

But not every capital improvement project lends itself easily to the integration of public art or even a piece of art that can stand on the site of the capital improvement project. It’s also possible that the size of a capital improvement project would not generate adequate funds to contemplate funding a piece of art. In those cases, the 1% of the project’s budget is “pooled” together, and can be spent on a piece of art that is “related to the purposes of that fund [which paid for the capital improvement project].”

From the ordinance:

1:834. Inclusion of public art as part of a capital improvement project …
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund shall be accounted for within that fund and may be used as part of that capital improvement project for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art incorporated as a part of the capital improvement project, including art located on the site where the project is located.

(4) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund may instead be pooled in a separate public art fund within that fund. Public art funds that are held within a city fund other than the general fund shall be expended only on projects that are related to the purposes of that fund.

(5) Funds in pooled public art funds may be used for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art for display in public spaces or facilities; for extraordinary maintenance, repair or refurbishment, including structural reconstruction, and for relocation, alteration and removal of public art.

The funding strategy for the Carpenter sculpture contrasts with that of the Dreiseitl fountain, which used “pooled” funds. The fountain had an initial budget created from pooled funds from other capital improvement projects – projects that were paid for out of drinking water ($210,000), sanitary sewer ($510,000) and stormwater ($30,000) funds.

In contrast, the Carpenter sculpture is funded from the Justice Center (aka police-courts or municipal center) building fund. The amount initially available for public art from that project was $250,000. One percent of the project budget would have been more than $250,000, but the ordinance caps the total public art allocation from any project at $250,000.

That building fund stemmed from various sources. At the council’s Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, then-public services area administrator Sue McCormick said that ordinarily, city staff would not go back and trace how much of that $250,000 could be attributed to various sources. However, because they’d been asked to do that by councilmembers, McCormick said that of the $250,000, around $50,000 could be “associated” with the general fund.

That $50,000 was a number batted back and forth by councilmembers at their May 7 meeting – it’s the amount that mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting that he wants to take out of public art and put back into the general fund. He said he wanted to settle that issue once and for all.

Hieftje’s proposal came in response to a gambit by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the resolution on the Carpenter sculpture – to cancel the project and to put the public art money into city hall building renovations. Either proposal would founder on the language of the public art ordinance, a portion of which assistant city attorney Mary Fales wound up reading aloud, in an apparent attempt to ground the council’s discussion in the options that are legally available. From the section that Fales read aloud:

1:835. Disbursement of public art funds.
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project or that are part of a pooled public art fund may be not be transferred to any other fund, encumbered or utilized for any purpose except the purposes specifically set forth in this chapter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he did not believe it is necessary for the council to follow its own ordinances. Ordinances are there for the staff to follow, he suggested, not for the council.

Justice Center Art: Initial Council Deliberations

Major John Hieftje opened the council deliberations by saying he’d be happy to vote for approval of the piece of art that evening, leaving the issue of access to the lobby for future resolution.

City administrator Steve Powers. Behind him is a poster for the getDowntown Commuter Challenge, which runs through the month of May.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that her concern, dating back to a few weeks ago, was not about the art, but rather the use of the lobby space in the Justice Center. She’d talked with city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. She said she was not opposed to voting for the artwork; however, she was concerned about the possibility that the council’s building committee came back with a recommendation to change significantly the use of the lobby space. Will that piece of art still be the right piece of art for that location? She said she had every intention of asking that a council building committee be re-appointed.

Higgins asked interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy about possible changes to the use of the lobby space – to use more of the floor area in a utilitarian way. Hupy indicated that the piece of art is suspended from the ceiling, so it’s well above the floor space. His concern would be with the lighting of the piece. Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves explained that there’s internal lighting as a part of the artwork itself.

Higgins asked if the building committee determines that the proposed location in the lobby would not be the best place for the sculpture, is there another spot in the building where it could be installed? Seagraves indicated that for a suspended piece, that corner of the lobby is the best, or the only location, because there’s a drywall recess there – the rest is a plaster ceiling. It’s also the most visible corner, he said. He suggested it would be an option for the public art commission to fund an additional piece of art for the Justice Center.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the piece of art has been designed to be viewed from outside the building. She noted that the location of the art is dependent on its size, so she asked if there’s a basic diameter for the sculpture. From the center to its farthest point, Seagraves said, the piece is 37 feet. Briere followed up by asking if the piece is “circular.” Yes, said Seagraves. Based on some ensuing confusion, it was clear that Briere intended the question to include the symmetric properties of “circular,” not just the rounded qualities.

Briere ventured that the piece was 74 feet across – no, said Seagraves, more like around 50 feet, because it’s not symmetric. [It's not clear if the participants in the exchange appreciated the irony of the name of the piece – "Radius."] Briere wanted to know if it would fit into the city hall building [which is adjacent to the Justice Center.] Hupy indicated that it wouldn’t be a matter of just moving the artwork over to another building – the suspension points would need to be adapted. Briere ventured that the piece of art had been designed specifically for the proposed location, a sentiment with which Hupy agreed.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said her initial concern had not been about the piece of art itself or where it is located. Rather, her concern was about the intended use of the Justice Center lobby and the ability of the public to see the art from inside the building. That had been the reason she’d asked for the postponement of the issue, she noted. Smith wondered if reappointment of the building committee would be needed or if city staff would be prepared to answer those questions about use and access.

Powers noted that there is currently 24/7 access to the Justice Center lobby. After hours, people can be buzzed in by the police department. Staff has looked at options of downsizing the footprint of the security checkpoint and relocating it. However, there are budgetary and space challenges, he said. There are four or five different options than can be provided to the city council or to a building committee of the council, Powers said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves on the public art commission, indicated that the piece of art that’s been chosen, the work by Carpenter, is intended to hang in that specific spot. He felt it’s a beautiful use of the building.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she couldn’t imagine people needing to be buzzed in to see the art. She said she wanted to see renderings of the sculpture as viewed from outside the building. Based on what other councilmembers had said, she thought it didn’t sound like the council was heading toward postponing again. She said she’d be fine with appointing a building committee.

Lumm then introduced an amendment to the resolution by saying, “We’ll get this out of the way, I’m sure, but I’d like to make an option here for council to consider.”

Justice Center Art: Lumm’s Amendment

Lumm gave as background to her amendment her understanding of the city hall (Larcom building) renovation project. The bathrooms in the basement and the first floor had been upgraded as part of the municipal center project, she said. But there was no money in the building fund budget for bathroom renovations on other floors. So those renovations would be funded out of general fund money over two years, through the facilities budget in the public services unit.

Lumm noted that the council had approved the first phase of the upgrade to bathrooms on other floors at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting – at a cost of $93,438. Another $165,000 is needed for that project in 2013, she said. The community has been told that no general fund dollars were used on the municipal center, Lumm contended, so she proposed that the public art project be canceled. The $150,000 budget for that public art would, according to her amendment, go back into the municipal center building fund. The bathroom would then be funded out of the building fund.

Higgins said she did not consider those upgrades to be a continuation of the municipal center building project. The bathrooms that were renovated in conjunction with the municipal center renovation were done because of the installation of the new elevator, she said. The renovations now being done in addition are standard upgrades, she said, like those that would be done in any other facility. She appreciated the idea of canceling the art project, but would not support the amendment.

Briere asked under what circumstances the council can cancel a project and reallocate the dollars. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales clarified the funds from a canceled art project have to be reallocated to another art project.

Kunselman, Briere, Hupy and Lumm then engaged in a conversation about the original source of funds for the artwork. Seagraves told them that the Justice Center lobby sculpture by Ed Carpenter didn’t come from pooled funds, but rather from the municipal center building fund.

Hieftje stated that not all the funds generated for public art from the municipal center building fund [a total of $250,000] are general fund monies. He allowed that hypothetically, $50,000 of that $250,000 may have originated as general fund money. Hupy noted that the funds for the Justice Center came from a multitude of funding sources beyond just the general fund – that would have to be analyzed to identify the specific contributions.

The city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, essentially agreed with Higgins’ earlier description of the bathroom renovations as not part of the scope of the municipal center building project. There’s been a lot of deferred maintenance on the building, he said. One of the expectations is that there’d be a higher level of regular maintenance needed.

Kunselman wanted to revisit the issue of the theme of Carpenter’s sculpture – to which fund’s purpose was the art’s theme related? Seagraves reiterated that it wasn’t funded with “pooled funds,” so there’s no requirement that it be related in theme to some specific fund’s purpose. It was funded out of public art money generated by the center’s building fund.

Based on some remarks by Crawford, Hieftje said he’d be interested in a resolution to take $50,000 and put it into the general fund – to resolve the question of whether general fund money was used for public art.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to achieve some clarity on the question of what the legal, possible uses of the sculpture’s budget would be if the project were canceled. He ventured that even if the sculpture were voted down, the money would be required to be spent on public art. So he concluded that the whole notion of monies going back and being applied for a different purpose would be tantamount to overturning the Percent for Art ordinance.

Given that the money could not be spent on something other than art, Hohnke asked Lumm what the point would be of canceling the sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. Lumm indicated that the point was so that the money would not need to be spent on a piece of art. Hohnke responded by saying that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance is on the books, what Lumm is saying simply isn’t true.

Crawford confirmed that once money goes into a specific fund, it’s not just a normal budget action – once the money gets into that fund, it has to be used for that purpose.

Derezinski equated the conversation around the table to a debate on the approval of the allocation of funds under the Percent for Art ordinance. The council had already had this debate, he said, and the people who were opposed to cutting funds for the program lost. He characterized what was going on at the table that night as an attempt slowly to kill off the Percent for Art program. [The council last debated revisions to the public art ordinance at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, which resulted in some revisions, but not a reduction of the specific percentage from 1% to 0.5%.]

Briere responded to Lumm’s amendment by saying that it could be reduced to three questions: (1) Should the sculpture be canceled? (2) Can money allocated to the public art program be allocated to a different capital improvement project? (3) Does either of those reflect support for public art? With respect to the first question, Briere said that if the council voted the project down, that would cancel it. With respect to the second question, she felt that it wasn’t legal to reallocate the public art money in the way Lumm wanted to.

Smith added a fourth issue, which was an attempt to revisit the decision to build the Justice Center: “I gotta say, it’s there and it’s operating!” Reflecting on the Larcom building’s age, and the need to renovate bathrooms, she ventured that at 49 years of age things start to break that need to be fixed.

Higgins noted that the money that’s been budgeted has to be used on public art, even if the project is canceled. She thought the city has spent enough money on art at the Justice Center location – given the Dreiseitl sculpture. She suggested some other location in the city could be found.

Kunselman agreed that too much money had been spent on art at the Justice Center and repeated his belief that the Justice Center lobby sculpture budget had drawn on water funds, given the allusion to the “rippling effect” the sculpture was supposed to have. He observed that bathrooms also have a theme of water.

Kunselman then stated that although the public art ordinance is an ordinance, the council did not need to follow its own ordinance.

Hieftje picked up on Derezinski’s earlier point, by stating that it would be a more honest approach to attack public art directly instead of the way that Lumm was proceeding. The council had twice before had that direct debate, he said.

Hohnke added that if the council wanted to cancel the project, as Lumm’s amendment stated, then the council could just vote the project down.

Outcome on the amendment: Lumm’s amendment canceling the project and reallocating the money to renovate bathrooms failed, with support only from Lumm and Kunselman.

Justice Center Art: More Deliberations

Lumm responded to Hieftje’s characterization of her lack of support for the specific project as an attack on the public art program. She felt that was “an outlandish claim.” She pointed out that earlier in the meeting, she’d asked questions regarding the East Stadium bridges project about incorporating art into that project and had praised the Allmendinger mural project. She allowed that she’d voted in the past to reduce the percentage allocation in the public art ordinance. But her opposition to the project was not based on opposition to the public art program, she said, but rather based on how much the city is spending on the Justice Center building. She expressed her disappointment that the artist who was selected was from out-of-state.

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying it wasn’t a vote against the project that he was calling an attack on the public art program, but rather Lumm’s attempt to reallocate the public art money to a different purpose.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had opposed the construction of the Justice Center. But he noted that the proposed piece of art was different from the history of that building. He stated that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance exists, councilmembers should support public art. He described how someone could get access to the lobby after hours by getting buzzed in by police. He said the issue of better access could be pursued in the future and it’s important to do that. Given the amount of money that had been spent on art on the site, it’s important to figure out a way to draw the public in to view the art, he said.

Kunselman was not inclined to accept the idea that because the council had previously discussed the issue of the public art ordinance, the council could not or should not continue to discuss it. “We’re always going to be talking about this.” People could say it’s been discussed and voted on and that the majority rules and that councilmembers need to move on – but he cautioned against that. “Every council is different and there will be new councilmembers and this discussion will carry on for years until a methodology of funding public art is done that can be universally embraced.” He mentioned the possibility of a millage just for public art, or the removal of restricted funds from the public art program.

Kunselman indicated he would not support the project. Among the reasons he gave were horizontal bands of etched glass on the windows that won’t allow people to see it from outside, he contended.

Smith said she’d support the art project, but wanted to see the issue of the security checkpoint addressed as well.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) rearranges a chair before the May 7 meeting started.

Briere said that for her, the issue is whether the lobby can be casually available for a group of visitors who don’t want to go through the security checkpoint, emptying their pockets and taking off their shoes. Part of the reason that’s unclear is that there’s a cost factor involved, she said. She feared that the council would approve the art project, only to discover that the council is not also willing to fund the cost of making the art accessible.

Briere was not willing to let go of the concept that the lobby to the Justice Center should be available to the public. For that reason, she hoped to have the cost information available before the council votes on the fiscal year 2013 budget – a vote that will be taken on May 21. She said she is not against this piece of art, and she believes it can only be observed well from inside the building.

Hieftje indicated he’d support the piece of art, but also said work needed to be done on opening up the lobby of the Justice Center to make it more accessible. He mentioned three different receptions that have been held in the lobby without the security checkpoints.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the artwork. But he wanted to address the issue of the “ownership” of the building. He said it’s been suggested that it’s only a limited few who benefit from the building – that it’s city workers and councilmembers around the table who benefit from changes to city hall. He disputed that wholeheartedly. He said it’s obviously core public space that is important to the city – of government, courts and police. It’s also the place people come to do a wide variety of business for various purposes, he said.

Outcome: The sculpture “Radius” by Ed Carpenter was approved by the council over dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout

The council considered an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County road commission for a $2.52 million roundabout project at State and Ellsworth.

Roundabout design for State and Ellsworth. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf)

The current design calls for a roundabout that is 150 feet in diameter. All four approaches to the roundabout have two lanes entering and two lanes exiting, except for the northern approach from South State, which will include a third lane. The planned design features include non-motorized paths that connect with the existing sidewalk system and new on-road bike lanes. Underground electrical conduit will be installed for the possible future addition of advanced pedestrian-activated crossing signals (HAWK) or rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB). [.pdf of State/Ellsworth roundabout layout]

Of the total $2.52 million project cost, $2.17 million is for the intersection improvements per se, and the remaining $350,000 is for a city water main improvement. That will replace a 20-inch water main, which serves to pipe untreated water from the Steere Farms wells on the Ann Arbor municipal airport property to the city’s water treatment plant.

The city of Ann Arbor is paying for the water main portion of the project as well as contributing $135,000 to the intersection improvement. The remaining cost is paid by the road commission ($135,000), Costco ($500,000) and a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant ($1.4 million). Costco is building a store near the intersection that’s expected to open this summer.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked that the item be pulled out of the council’s consent agenda, saying it’s a big deal and a big change. [Consent agenda items are voted together all in one go. The consent agenda includes those items considered to be routine, with contracts under $100,000. It's not clear how the roundabout qualified for inclusion under the consent agenda. In any case, an item must be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration if any councilmember requests it.]

Lumm asked Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management at the city, to review the background, which he did. He noted that State and Ellsworth is a very busy intersection.

By way of background, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) website provides a database of traffic counts for various intersections. For example, data available from that database shows that the northern leg of the intersection of State and Ellsworth was studied in November 2009 and showed a total two-way, 24-hour count of 26,733 on the north segment of State out of the intersection. That compared with a two-way count of 17,566 on the south segment of State, measured about seven months later. To get an idea of whether those counts are a lot or a little, here’s how that stacks up with counts from another intersection that many drivers would likely consider “busy” – Main and Stadium. The most recent counts available from WATS date from over a decade ago, in 1999 – 23,957 for two-way traffic on the north segment of Stadium out of that intersection.

Pirooz described the Washtenaw County road commission as having taken the lead on the project. He highlighted the jurisdictional issue – the fact that two legs of the intersection are locate in the city and two of them in Pittsfield Township. The two legs in the city are the State Street section north from the intersection and the Ellsworth section east of the intersection.

The city’s share of the intersection work, Pirooz said, is estimated to be $135,000. The plans are completed, he said, and a public meeting was held a few months ago. As usual, Pirooz said, some forum attendees were excited and others had reservations. [For Chronicle coverage of that public forum, see the March 6, 2012 planning commission meeting report.]

Lumm ventured that the forum was well-attended. She wondered about the inclusion of provisions for non-motorized infrastructure, wiring for pedestrian activated crossing beacons. She allowed that Pirooz is the expert, but she had difficulty understanding how it’d be safer for pedestrians and drivers. The idea of a roundabout is that traffic is expected to flow continuously – but motorists might be expected to stop for pedestrians. She asked for an explanation if that’s typical.

Pirooz explained that the roundabout is designed so there’s adequate distance between cars. He said that statistics of roundabouts show an improvement, measured by accident rates. He cited the new roundabout at Nixon and Huron Parkway as an example, noting there’d been concerns similar to Lumm’s that had been discussed before that roundabout was constructed. Pirooz explained that vehicles entering a roundabout are simply forced to slow down – you can’t go through a roundabout at 45 mph. He concluded that roundabouts are safer than standard signalized intersections.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added his personal observations, saying that he’d worked with Pirooz when some roundabouts in Ward 2 were first proposed – Nixon and Huron Parkway, and Geddes and Earhart. Derezinski said a lot of people who opposed the roundabouts came to believe in them. The traffic through Geddes and Earhart now flows through beautifully, he said. It really is “a win,” he said, and there’d been a couple of requests for more roundabouts.

Pirooz commented that one of the new roundabouts is right at the entrance to Concordia University, and the school was concerned before construction about pedestrians on campus crossing the street to get to an athletic field. But the university is very happy with the roundabout, Pirooz reported, and feels that pedestrians are now safer.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated the use of roundabouts and noted that everyone had likely driven through them. But the Ward 2 roundabouts have a different environment than the State and Ellsworth location, she contended. There’s a lot of truck traffic that goes through the State and Ellsworth intersection, she said. The proposed roundabout design is 150 feet in diameter. She wanted to know if that design took into account the size of the trucks that go through the intersection, noting there are many major corporations located south of Ellsworth on State.

Pirooz responded to Higgins by starting to describe the alternative to a roundabout, which would be to add more lanes. Higgins interrupted Pirooz, telling him she was not asking for more lanes, but rather was just making sure that the entrances to the roundabout can accommodate trucks. Trucks add another dimension to the traffic challenge, she said, and there’s a tremendous amount of truck traffic that goes through the intersection. Higgins told Pirooz she just wanted him to tell her he’d look at that issue. Pirooz replied, “We have and we will,” and Higgins indicated that was all she needed.

Pirooz indicated that he would expect trucks to be in the right lane as they navigated the roundabout. The roundabout is designed with the understanding there’s a large amount of truck traffic on the roads, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution on the State and Ellsworth roundabout.

Ann Arbor Airport Hanger Project

The council considered two change orders totaling $46,238 to resolve all remaining issues related to a lawsuit that CMA Design/Build Inc. had filed against the city in connection with the construction of hangars at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The original contract was approved by the city council on May 5, 2008 for $2.39 million, of which $1.101 million was for the local share. Because CMA failed to complete the project, Ann Arbor terminated the contract and CMA’s bonding company, North American Specialty Insurance Co., finished up the work. CMA filed suit against the city; and one of CMA’s subcontractors filed suit against CMA. Claims by CMA involved costs it incurred due to stop work orders issued by Pittsfield Township (where the airport is located) over jurisdictional questions between the city and the township.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the airport hangar change orders.

Landfill Contract

The council considered approval of the third five-year agreement since 2002 with Waste Management of Michigan – to dispose of the city’s trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill in Wayne, Michigan. For years 11 through 15 of the contract (2013 through 2017) the rates are as follows: $12.99/ton; $13.28/ton; $13.57/ton; $13.87/ton; and $14.18/ton. The increases reflect a 2.3% escalator. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that those rates don’t include the additional transfer charge of $12.12 a ton, paid to ReCommunity, which operates the city’s materials recover facility (MRF) and transfer station.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city disposes of 62,000 tons of trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill per year. The city’s street sweepings and seasonal wastewater treatment sludge are also disposed there.

In 2002, the city council first approved the five-year contract, and then approved a five-year extension in 2007.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Waste Management.

Sidewalk Permits

The council considered a resolution that, beginning June 1, 2012, invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits and solicitor/licenses for a specific area of the downtown on occasions when Main Street is closed for special events between William and Huron streets. The special events include, but aren’t limited to, the Taste of Ann Arbor, Rolling Sculpture Car Show, the Children’s Holiday Parade, Green Fair, and FestiFools.

The area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated is the interior of the rectangle defined by Huron Street on the north, Fourth Street on the east, William Street on the south, and Ashley Street on the west. [.pdf of the area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated]

The resolution doesn’t apply to businesses that have been issued permits for permanent locations.

Council deliberations were driven by a request from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to amend the resolution. She did not want to allow the resolution to prevent the city from granting permits for use of the Palio parking lot at Main and William or the parking structure at Fourth and William. In the context of the Connecting William Street planning project, being managed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Smith did not want to tie the city’s hands on uses for the two lots.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered what kind of uses Smith had in mind. [Both Hieftje and Smith also serve on the DDA board.] Both areas Smith had identified are within the geographic scope of the Connecting William Street project. People had talked about ways to use the Palio lot as open space. Non-parking activity on the lots might “leak out” into the sidewalk, she said. She just wanted to leave options open for the city.

From left: Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, talks with councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, was asked to the podium to clarify. She described such a resolution as being on a “wish list” for the MSAA for a long time. She stressed that it would invalidate sidewalk permits only when the streets are closed – for specific events. Further, she said, it applies to sidewalk and peddler permits. For activity on the Palio lot or in the Fourth and William parking structure, she ventured that approval could be obtained from the DDA, but there’d be no sidewalk permit or peddler permit involved.

Asked by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) if Smith’s amendment impeded her, Thompson indicated she was mostly confused by it. When 7,000 people visit Main Street for Taste of Ann Arbor, she said, the more control over management she has in that area, the safer it is. The resolution is looking out for businesses that are open 365 days a year. She described how undesirable it would be for the owner of a bookstore, which contributes dues to the MSAA to help put on a special event, to have to watch a sidewalk peddler selling books in front of their bookstore.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if the DDA proposed some non-parking use of a public parking lot, whether the city council would have something to say about that. He was not sure that the DDA’s contract with the city, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, allows for that.

Smith indicated that she wasn’t at all opposed to the resolution. She was just trying to protect the city’s right to do something that it hasn’t thought about yet. She ventured that the DDA has no evil plans to take over the downtown for special events.

Derezinski suggested that the DDA and MSAA get along pretty well and the two organizations could work out things informally if they needed to.

Outcome on amendment: Smith’s amendment got support only from Smith.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the concept behind the resolution is to encourage people to frequent the businesses that are there year round, not just for an event. So she said she supported the resolution – because it might make a difference in how people spend their time and money when they go downtown for an event.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution invalidating sidewalk permits when Main Street is closed.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

After a public hearing held at the May 7 meeting, the city council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

A conversation during a May 7 council meeting recess, from left to right: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), city administrator Steve Powers, Ann Marie Sastry of Sakti3, and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000. The council had voted to set the public hearing on the tax abatement at its previous meeting, on April 16, 2012.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge asked that mayor John Hieftje ensure that there’s an introduction to every public hearing by having a councilmember or the city administrator explain the substance of the resolution, before asking people to come forward to speak about it. Partridge asked Hieftje if he would do that with the Sakti3 resolution. When Hieftje did not respond, Partridge told him that Hieftje’s silence spoke for itself. Hieftje then told Partridge that the city attorney had informed Hieftje that Partridge needed to stay on the topic of the public hearing. At that Partridge said he was then ready to speak specifically to the requested tax abatement. Partridge said that Sakti3 and other companies need to justify their request, and he opposed the resolution – unless the company agrees to terminate the exemption when it can find finances on its own. He also warned that we should be cautious about battery manufacturing, due to the toxic chemicals that are used.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the council’s budget committee, asked that the tax abatement request be postponed, until it could be reviewed by the budget committee.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stressed that there would be an expedited meeting of the council’s budget committee [on Wednesday, May 16 at 5:30 p.m.]. Sakti3 had developed a whole new technology, he said, and was quite worthy as a candidate for a tax abatement. He noted that representatives of the company had been present earlier in the meeting. He said he’d like to show Sakti3 the council’s ability to act quickly.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ request to postpone. Lumm said an analysis had been provided to her on the impact of the abatement, and the city of Ann Arbor actually does very little of this. She felt postponing was fine.

Outcome: The council postponed the tax abatement for Sakti3 until its May 21 meeting.

Street Closing: Monroe

There were several separate resolutions to approve street closings for special events. Mayor John Hieftje said he would lump them all together for one vote, unless someone objected. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted separate consideration of a request from the University of Michigan law school to close Monroe Street for its dedication weekend, Sept. 7-8, 2012.

Smith indicated that she did not have an objection to the Monroe Street closing – that was not the reason she was requesting separate consideration. She wanted to highlight the fact that UM would like it closed on a permanent basis. Instead of a permanent closing, she said, she’d prefer to see requests for closing come before the council for specific occasions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – who’s a UM law school alum and has served as an adjunct professor at the school – responded to Smith by saying he loved part of her sentiment. [Derezinski has worked out of public view to facilitate a permanent granting of the public right-of-way on Monroe Street to the University of Michigan. See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine"] He highlighted the fact that the dedication would be attended by Elena Kagan, justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the meeting, Thomas Partridge suggested that when Kagan comes to Ann Arbor for the dedication ceremony, she should take cognizance of the willful disregard for justice here locally, and the total disregard – during an historic recession – of the needs for the most vulnerable, and for working residents who actually keep Ann Arbor operating on a day-to-day basis.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Monroe Street closing, along with all the other street closings on the agenda.

Street Repair: Willard, et al

The council had on its agenda an item to approve a $206,900 contract with the E.T. MacKenzie Company for a project to reconstruct Willard Street, using permeable pavement. It’s a 21-foot wide, 700-foot long street that runs between East University Avenue and South Forest Avenue. The project covers replacement of curb and gutter, sidewalk ramps and installation of a permeable asphalt pavement.

The general topic of street repair was discussed by the council early in the meeting, during communications time.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered about Madison Street from Seventh to South Main – when would it be resurfaced? He felt that there could be more deterioration on streets where public buses travel due to vehicle weight. He felt that the buses are an important service, but could also be an annoyance, because of the impact they have on roads.

Back and forth between mayor John Hieftje and Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management, indicated Madison is in very poor condition, so it needs to be rebuilt from scratch – which would take a whole summer. The city is also resurfacing Seventh Street, and Madison is serving as a detour, so it’s a coordination problem, Pirooz said. But Madison is definitely on the list for 2013, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he thought that Madison had been done within the last 10-15 years – why is the city doing it again? Pirooz was not sure when the last time Madison had been reconstructed. He told Kunselman it’s possible it was just resurfaced, not rebuilt. Kunselman wanted the documentation on that. He picked up on Anglin’s comment about buses, by saying it’s also the bigger city trucks that are causing more rapid deterioration. The road along Madison is sloughing downhill, he said. Pirooz pointed out that resurfacing alone doesn’t help the road base.

When the council came to the Willard Street reconstruction, Kunselman questioned city engineer Nick Hutchinson about the cost of permeable pavement compared to regular pavement. Hutchinson indicated that the cost of the asphalt itself is about 1.5 times regular pavement; however, given the complete reconstruction required, the cost of the permeable asphalt as a component made the project more expensive – but not 1.5 times as expensive.

Hutchinson reviewed the number of permeable pavement installations in the city: (1) Easy Street, which has permeable pavers lining the sides; (2) Sylvan Street; (3) an alley in Burns Park; and (4) Willard Street. Kunselman noted that University of Michigan buses run for one block on Willard – how does permeable pavement hold up under heavy weight? Hutchinson said he believes the pavement will hold up very well – it’s designed in a heavy duty way. Kunselman wondered if permeable pavement might last even longer than traditional pavement, because there’s less freeze-thaw. Water drains through the courser material instead of being trapped inside it.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Willard Street permeable pavement project.

FY 2013 Budget Hearing

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the hearing on the city of Ann Arbor’s FY 2013 budget by noting it will be on the council’s agenda at its next meeting, on May 21. According to the city charter, he observed, the budget needs to be approved by the city council by the end of its second meeting of May. [Last year, the second meeting in May was conducted in multiple sessions, stretching until the end of the month.]

Thomas Partridge said that despite Hieftje’s pronouncement that the budget is available on the Internet, he did not see a rush of residents to speak at the public hearing. He called for the budget resolution to be reviewed again by the individual city departments, before it’s put forward for passage at the council’s next meeting. Partridge stated that he is convinced the budget is based on the undemocratic principle of one tax rate for all, that it victimizes senior citizens and lower-income people, and people who need vital public services, which will not be provided by this budget. He called the proposed millage rates “conservative right-wing millage rates.”

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident. He thanked the council for placing all the documents online.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor, who wanted to address the declining quality of fire safety in Ann Arbor in the context of the budget. He began by telling the council a story about his nine-month-old daughter, who was baptized on Sunday, April 29 at St. Mary’s downtown. During the baptism, across the street in a residential high-rise building, there was a fire in the upper story of the building, he said. [According to an AnnArbor.com news report, a publication for which Ranzini writes op-ed pieces, an April 29 fire in the Maynard House – located at 400 Maynard St. – originated in a garbage chute located in the basement. It spread up to the first and second floor sections of the chute, according to the AnnArbor.com report, where firefighters were able to contain the fire. According to the report, firefighters also discovered a small fire on the 11th story, that had resulted from a resident leaving the stove on after hearing the building's fire alarm and evacuating the building.]

Ranzini said that while the firefighters responded in a timely way, they were not able to bring the tower truck or ladder truck to reach upper stories, because the trucks are currently out of repair. As a result, he contended, firefighters and residents were placed in harm’s way.

Ranzini called for the budgeting and hiring of 88 firefighters, not just the 82 in the currently proposed budget – of which only 76 positions are now actually staffed. Commenting on a proposed new station model for the department [which would use three stations instead of the current five], Ranzini cited a poll by AnnArbor.com that indicated overwhelming opposition to the three-station model. Rather than continuing to study that station model, he called on the city council to hire the full complement of firefighters who are budgeted, add six additional firefighters to this year’s budget, and replace or repair the tower truck and the ladder truck.

He described the current staffing levels as an “experiment with public safety” by the mayor.

Ranzini said he knew about the fire on April 29, not because of the fact that he was nearby, but rather because he’d received an anonymous communication from a firefighter. That communication was anonymous, he contended, because the fire chief has ordered firefighters not to talk to the press. Ranzini indicated that the executive director of the ACLU of Michigan has told him that if the city administrator does not correct that situation, a lawsuit might ensue.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler and Darren Schmidt had also addressed councilmembers on the topic of “smart meters” at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting.

Gerler told the council that five other communities in Michigan have passed resolutions and bans on smart meters and she called on the Ann Arbor city council to do the same. The current installation by DTE Energy is going rapidly, she said, with 30 trucks working six days a week. She contended that DTE is not maintaining a list of opt-out requests. She went on to describe that many residents haven’t received notification or a knock on the door to alert them of the installation of the meters. Installation has occurred over people’s protests, she said. The utility company has accepted no responsibility for people’s health, she said.

Schmidt said he supports a halt to installation of smart meters. He described several patients with a history of symptoms that are hard to get rid of. After stumbling around looking for solutions, he said they found that many of their symptoms could be attributed to electromagnetic fields. While it’s possible get rid of other consumer wireless devices, people can’t get rid of smart meters, he said.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

David Foster told the council he lives in the Lansdowne neighborhood a few houses down from the Fisher family, who’d addressed councilmembers at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting. He described how his own house had received severe water damage during the March 15 storm. He described how there’d been a “river effect” on the streets, rendering them impassable. On the west side of his house, he reported, the water had flowed up over some block and into the basement egress window – a window that is required by the city. His basement had water seven feet deep, he reported. He noted that he’s 5-10 and his son is 4-2 – so the water would have been well over their heads, if they’d been home at the time. And they would have been in the basement, he said, because they’d have been seeking shelter from the tornado. He asked that the council acknowledge that a problem exists. It’s not a question of whether similar events will occur in the future – it’s a question of when, he concluded.

Responding to Foster’s comments, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know if there could be an update on the meetings that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated had taken place between residents and city staff. Higgins, who represents the ward where this localized flooding is located, told Lumm that staff are still analyzing the situation and that there’s nothing ready to report yet.

Comm/Comm: Advocacy for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat and grandfather and a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County – an advocate for those who can’t attend the meeting, the vulnerable people who are disconnected from the multimillion-dollar projects on the agenda. He called on the council to advance human rights, and public transportation, to give priority to the need to end homelessness and poverty and to provide access to expanded shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing. That should take precedence over talk about art commission projects, he said, which are unnecessary to the cause of human rights.

Comm/Comm: Energy Production

Kermit Schlansker opened by telling the council that every furnace now being sold is obsolete. He observed that heat is a byproduct of making energy, so furnaces could manufacture energy while generating heat. He described the process of “co-manufacturing” heat and energy.

Comm/Comm: Warpehoski’s Ward 5 Candidacy

Henry Herskovitz said that the report that the director of the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice had entered the race for the Ward 5 seat on city council had come as a shock to members of the former ICPJ Middle East task force. [Herskovitz didn't name the director, but he was referring to Chuck Warpehoski.] Under the leadership of Warpehoski, Herskovitz said, the task force was summarily disbanded by the ICPJ’s board of directors. The task force had voted unanimously in 2006 to support the Palestinian call for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel. Herskovitz attributed the disbanding of the task force to a few powerful supporters of Israel on the ICPJ board of directors. The task force, Herskovitz continued, had sought to resolve the dispute with outside professional mediation. Herskovitz characterized the board’s action, supported by Warpehoski, as overrunning democratic procedures. Voters in Ward 5 deserve representation by someone who embraces democratic ideals, Herskovitz concluded.

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

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Monday, May 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The Justice Center, a new building next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. Previously council had postponed the approval of public art funds at its April 2, 2012 meeting.

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations that led to the postponement on April 2.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion at the April 2 as well as at the May 7 meeting.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Carpenter for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists.

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

Ann Arbor’s public art funds come from the application of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, which requires that 1% of all capital projects (up to a limit of $250,000) be set aside for public art.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building.

The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for the $150,000 project in the lobby of the city’s Justice Center. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists. It’s a sculpture called “Radius.”

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

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]