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

The legislative activity came after voters failed to approve a public art millage on Nov. 6.

The city’s Percent for Art ordinance currently requires that 1% of the budget for all capital projects undertaken in the city be set aside for public art – up to a limit of $250,000 per project. The revisions would have focused on the definition of projects to which the ordinance applies and would have added requirements for public participation. The practical effect of the narrowing of project eligibility is estimated to reduce the amount of public art funding by about 90%. For the last two fiscal years, the Percent for Art program has generated roughly $300,000. If the ordinance revisions had been in place, only about $25,000 would have been generated. [.jpg of chart showing public art allocations]

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

The proposal to modify the ordinance – also tabled by the council – was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). In the past, Briere has proposed revisions based on restricting the funds from which public art projects could draw. But her current approach has been to narrow the definition of projects to which the existing ordinance would apply. Currently, the Percent for Art ordinance applies to essentially any capital improvement project undertaken by the city. Briere’s proposal would narrow the definition by restricting eligible capital improvement projects to those that are “intended to be open or visible to the public.” Projects to construct roads, highways, paths, and sidewalks would be eliminated from eligibility. Bridges would still qualify.

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

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

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

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

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]

The millage was approved by a majority of voters in every precinct in the city, with the strongest support coming from Ward 1, Precinct 3, where 82.3% of voters supported the parks tax.  Weakest support for the parks tax citywide came in Ward 2, Precinct 2 where 53.6% of voters said yes.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. The renewal runs from 2013-2018 and will raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo distributed to PAC in June. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities. [More projects are listed on the city's website.]

There had been no formal opposition to this millage renewal. Ingrid Ault, a member of the city’s park advisory commission, formed a campaign committee (Friends of the Parks) in October  to promote the renewal.

Is this art? Or is it a question about art? Or is it two questions about art? Or is it a lazy way to add a picture to a boring op-ed piece? One thing’s for sure: It cost $7.05 and was not paid for by a millage.

The ballot question rejected by councilmembers last week would have asked voters if they wanted certain kinds of long-term leases on city parkland to require the same voter approval. Much of the debate this time around centered on what voters meant when they approved the charter amendment in 2008.

Next week, at its Aug. 20 meeting, the council will weigh whether to place a different question on the Nov. 6 ballot – asking voters if they’d like to tax themselves an average of around $10 a year to pay for public art. [For details, including the ballot language and charter amendment, see: "Ballot Questions: Parks, Public Art Funding"]

If the council pursues this specific proposal for a public art millage, then we will face another challenge in discerning voter intent – a challenge even greater than the one posed by the parks charter amendment. But it’s a challenge that can be easily met – by asking voters to vote on two separate questions, instead of just one. 

The city already has a Percent for Art program, established by a 2007 ordinance, that requires 1% of all capital project budgets be set aside for public art – up to a limit of $250,00o per project. The program has generated a fair amount of controversy, partly because it’s not clear that it has a solid legal foundation. The city council also has considered but ultimately rejected a reduction in the percentage on three separate occasions since 2007.

The extraordinarily short time frame for consideration of the current public art millage proposal has led to considerable confusion about the legal effects of different millage vote outcomes. The short time frame is due to the fact that councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) unveiled the proposal for the first time at the council’s Aug. 9 meeting. It was not a proposal that had come through the city’s public art commission, though commissioners subsequently called a special meeting for Aug. 15 to consider it.

Here’s the ballot question that Taylor proposed:

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

The corresponding charter language would be [emphasis added]:

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

If approved by voters, the proposal would, for a four-year period, suspend the Percent for Art ordinance requirement of the current set-aside for public art. If the millage were to fail, the ballot language would not eliminate or reduce the Percent for Art program. Indeed, if the millage were to fail, the ballot language would have no legal impact on the existing Percent for Art program.

The amounts of money per year that the two approaches would generate are roughly comparable – but at around $450,000 a year, the millage would generate somewhat more than the Percent for Art program has historically yielded, on average.

A key difference between the two approaches – Percent for Art versus a millage – is the way the funds can be used. Casually speaking, the Percent for Art funds – which are tied to capital projects – can be spent only on permanent, “monumental” types of art. Funds generated from a millage could be spent on nearly anything that someone could plausibly claim is art – including temporary works, or performance pieces.

So what would it mean if someone votes no on the proposed single ballot question?

A no vote could mean: “I do not support public spending on art.” That’s too bad, because a no vote implicitly supports leaving the Percent for Art program in place.

A no vote could also mean: “I support public spending on art – but only through the Percent for Art program.” That’s too bad, because some elected officials are prepared to analyze a failure of the millage as a lack of support for public spending on art and are willing, on that basis, to eliminate the Percent for Art program.

What would it mean if someone votes yes on the single ballot question for the public art millage?

A yes vote could mean: “I support public spending on art – even though I don’t think a millage is the best way to fund it. I’m voting yes because I don’t want my no vote to be misconstrued as a lack of support for public spending on art.” That’s too bad, because there’s no guarantee that a no vote would be interpreted by the city council as a lack of support for public art.

A yes vote could mean: “I do not support public spending on art – but if we’re going to spend public money on art, then it should be in a way that offers reasonable flexibility.” That’s too bad, because you’re agreeing to let the hand of local government reach into your pocket and take $10 a year out of it to pay for art.

What I think we might have learned from the park sale/lease charter amendment debate is this: What voters mean is something we’re going to argue about – no matter how simple and straightforward it might seem at first glance.

But even at first glance the public art millage ballot question does not seem simple and straightforward. We’ve been told that the state attorney general has approved the language as to its form. But it’s not clear (to me, anyway) that it meets the statutory standard requiring that the question is confined to a single proposition. Two propositions appear to be included in the single question: (a) Shall we enact a public art millage? and (b) Shall this millage be the only source of public art funding for the duration of the millage?

Even if the single question meets the attorney general’s review standard, I think it’s still a bad idea to place that in front of voters. Instead, it would be possible to ask voters clearly, in two separate questions, what they’d like to do. This approach would not require exploring the contents of the electorate’s collective mind to discern what voters meant. The two questions could be these: (1) Shall we enact a public art millage? and (2) Shall we continue to set aside funds for public art under the city’s Percent for Art ordinance?

If you don’t like the idea of public money being spent on art, then vote no on both questions. If you’d like both forms of funding (i.e., to increase current levels of funding), then vote yes on both questions. If you like one but not the other form of using public money to pay for art, then vote for one but not the other.

That’s the kind of choice it makes sense for the city council to give us on the ballot. If it takes a bit longer to work out the details of giving voters that kind of choice, then it will be worth the extra time. If the question doesn’t go on the Nov. 6 ballot then it can just as easily be placed on the ballot at a future election.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public 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!