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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future of Art Commission

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Future of Art Commission: Discussion

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

AAPAC member Connie Brown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAPAC member Devon Akmon.

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

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

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

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

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

Future of Art Commission: Other Transitions

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

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

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

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

From the bylaws:

Section 8. Members are expected to attend regularly scheduled meetings and to notify the Chair and the Public Art Administrator or other person designated by the Public Services Area Administrator in advance if they expect to be tardy or absent. If a member misses more than three (3) regularly scheduled meetings in a twelve (12) month period, the Chair shall notify the Mayor and may recommend removal of the member.

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

PowerArt

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

Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PowerArt: Commission Discussion

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

AAPAC member Marsha Chamberlin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art Maps

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

AAPAC member KT Tomey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Project Updates

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

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

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

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

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

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

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

Logo for the Coleman Jewett memorial.

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

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

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

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

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

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

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

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

The project was not discussed by commissioners on June 18.

Project Updates: Arbor Oaks Park

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

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

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

Donation of Public Art

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

AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski.

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

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

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

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

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

Public Commentary

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

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

Absent: Jim Simpson, Nick Zagar.

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

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

A drawing of Joshua Wiener’s proposed rain garden sculptures at First & Kingsley. (Image provided in the AAPAC Aug. 28, 2013 meeting packet.)

His proposal entails creating white metal images of five small mouth bass, in varying sizes, that appear to be emerging from the landscape and pointed toward the Huron River. Two of the sculptures will be large enough to serve as benches.

Because the artist’s contract of $23,380 is less than $25,000, it does not require city council approval. The sculptures would likely be installed during the spring of 2014.

Commissioners also received several updates during the meeting, and reviewed a new spreadsheet designed to track more effectively current and potential projects. [.xls file project tracker] Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that a selection panel picked Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass., as the artist for a major public art project on the East Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor. However, the panel is asking Widgery to revise her proposal before presenting it to AAPAC and the city council for approval. The project has a $400,000 total budget.

Other updates covered projects at Argo Cascades, the city’s wastewater treatment plant, Arbor Oaks Park, a memorial for Coleman Jewett at the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, and the “Canoe Imagine Art” community project. Additional potential projects were mentioned, including possible artwork for the new bike share program and the public skatepark, which is now under construction at Veterans Memorial Park.

Commissioners also viewed a short video produced by Ashlee Arder, one of the newest members of AAPAC. The intent is to promote the commission and the city’s public art program. The video is already available on YouTube, and Arder plans to post it on the commission’s website, Facebook page and Twitter account, @AAPublicArt.

The meeting was attended by six of the seven commissioners, including Marsha Chamberlin, who participated via conference call. There are two vacancies on the nine-member commission. At the city council’s Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, Devon Akmon was nominated to fill one of the vacancies. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. At its Sept. 3 meeting, the city council is expected to vote on Akmon’s confirmation to AAPAC .

No name has been put forward publicly for the second vacancy. One of the two vacancies resulted when Tony Derezinski was not reappointed. The other stemmed from Wiltrud Simbuerger’s resignation earlier this year. Her term would have ended Dec. 31, 2013.

First & Kingsley Rain Garden

Commissioners were asked to vote on Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden, to be located at the southeast corner of First & Kingsley. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget]

At AAPAC’s March 27, 2013 meeting, commissioners had selected the Denver artist to work with landscapers and incorporate public art into a new rain garden at that location, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

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

From the artist’s statement:

The significance of water on this site is represented by having fish on the land. They are emerging to articulate how this rain garden is an extension of the river. The fish evoke water and the shape of their bodies creates waves that give an additional suggestion of water on the land. As the audience passes the piece, the fish will change positions in relation to one another. The sculpture will have a kinetic feel without any moving parts. The fish will appear to be swimming and the outline of their fins will create overlapping waves, adding to the feeling that water is moving on this site. The landscape and the art have been woven together. The plants will be placed in a way that conveys the surface of water with long flowing lines along the same orientation as the fish. There are also shapes in the landscape that suggest shadows of the fish.

Kingsley & First Rain Garden: Commission Discussion

At the Aug. 28 meeting, Bob Miller expressed surprise at some of the items included in the staff memo, which indicated that the artist would need to provide a plan for removing graffiti and proof that the sculptures would remain secure and permanent. Where did those items come from?

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, indicated that those were the result of questions raised by the task force that had recommended Wiener for the work. [Task force members are Connie Brown, Jerry Hancock, Claudette Stern, John Walters and Jeff Kahan.]

John Kotarski asked about the color of the fish sculptures. The artist had proposed white, but some members of the public had indicated a preference for cor-ten steel, which is a rusty brown. Cor-ten is a more expensive material, Kotarski noted, so that would have meant fewer fish sculptures, but the rusty brown color would stand out more in the winter.

Connie Brown reported that the task force had discussed this issue at some length, but opted to go with the artist’s preference. Miller said his only concern was about the maintenance of powder coating, which is the process that will be used to paint these sculptures. Brown replied that the artist has been directed to provide something that’s as maintenance-free as possible, with the understanding that every kind of artwork needs some kind of maintenance. Wiener will be developing a maintenance program for this work, she said.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, pointed out that because the artist’s contract is less than $25,000, it does not require approval by the city council. However, he recommended that AAPAC provide a formal communication to the council about the project.

Outcome: Commissioner unanimously approved Joshua Wiener’s schematic design for the rain garden sculptures.

Life after Percent for Art

Bob Miller, chair of the public art commission, reported that he and John Kotarski had been meeting with Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, to talk about how to move forward following the elimination of the city’s Percent for Art program earlier this summer.

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

From 2007 until this June, the city had funded public art through a Percent for Art mechanism, which set aside 1% of the budget for each of the city’s capital projects for public art – up to a cap of $250,000. However, at its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council voted to eliminate the Percent for Art approach in favor of one that allows for discretionary incorporation of public art into a particular project.

Now, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

On Aug. 28, Miller described the conversations with city staff as positive, but noted that there’s no clear process in place. He hoped to invite Deb Gosselin, who handles the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), to AAPAC’s Sept. 25 meeting. Gosselin had attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27, 2013 session to explain how the CIP process works.

Life after Percent for Art: Project Spreadsheet

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, passed out a new spreadsheet to use for tracking public art projects. [.xls file project tracker] The spreadsheet is divided into three categories: (1) projects that have already been approved under the former Percent for Art program, with funding identified; (2) potential projects, either using remaining Percent for Art funds or private funding; and (3) potential capital projects that could be “enhanced” with public art under the new public art program. About $840,000 in Percent for Art funds are unspent.

In the third category, the potential “enhanced” capital projects are in the pipeline for the fiscal year 2016 and beyond. The idea is to identify those projects early on, so that AAPAC can work with staff to incorporate public art into the design process. Examples of those potential projects include:

• Decorative “stamping” for new sidewalks.
• Decorative “street access” (manhole) covers.
• Stadium Boulevard reconstruction, from Hutchins to Kipke.
• Improvements at the intersection of Dhu Varren & Nixon.
• Detroit Street improvements.
• East Ellsworth reconstruction, from South State to Platt.
• South State Street improvements.
• Improvements at Cobblestone Farm and Leslie Science & Nature Center.

Projects that have already received preliminary approval from AAPAC, which could be funded with remaining Percent for Art funds, include a mural program, as well as artwork at the city’s new wastewater treatment plant, Arbor Oaks Park, the new roundabout at South State and Ellsworth, and the Forest Avenue plaza. A memorial for Coleman Jewett and a community project called “Canoe Imagine Art” also might be eligible for remaining Percent for Art funds, although the primary source of funding would be from private donors.

Seagraves also listed a range of other potential projects that have not yet received approval from AAPAC. Those include artwork at the Ann Arbor skatepark, which recently began construction, as well as art for the new bike share program, street and sidewalk stamping, utility boxes (signal control cabinets), fences (including a section next to new sidewalks along a stretch of Scio Church Road), and “permission walls” for graffiti.

For each project, the spreadsheet includes a traffic count at the closest intersection, to indicate how visible the location might be. Also indicated is the general geographical quadrant for each project’s location – for example, whether the project is in the southeast, central, north or west quadrant of the city.

Commissioners were supportive of the new approach. Connie Brown asked for information to be added about each project’s potential timeline.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Connie Brown.

Nick Zagar asked about the skatepark project. Brown reported that when initially approached, skatepark organizers were “not very receptive” to the idea of incorporating public art into the project’s design. “They might have a different mindset now,” she said. [The skatepark, to be located in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, broke ground earlier this month.]

Zagar thought it would be a great location for a “permission wall” – a place where graffiti is allowed. “It seems like it’ll be unpermissionedly tagged up anyway,” he said. Seagraves noted that if art is located in the skatepark, it would be the only public art so far that’s located west of Seventh Street.

Bob Miller suggested a “permission wall” out by Argo Cascades, pointing to the wall under the trestle there that currently is covered with graffiti.

Marsha Chamberlin said she was the impetus for this new spreadsheet, as a way to help push projects forward and allocate remaining Percent for Art funds. She noted that two projects she’s working on that are mostly funded with private donations – the Coleman Jewett memorial and the “Canoe Imagine Art” community project – would benefit from public art funding. If the city commits funds to such projects, she added, it’s easier to raise money from private donors. “Money upfront gets more money.”

She hoped that AAPAC could make some funding decisions soon. “Craig [Hupy] has been telling us since April that we need to pay attention to allocating those [Percent for Art] funds,” Chamberlin said.

John Kotarski reminded commissioners that there are constraints associated with Percent for Art funding. The Percent for Art mechanism set aside funds for public art that were originally designated for infrastructure like roads or utilities. Because the money was taken from restricted funds, a thematic or geographic link must exist between the funding source and the public art expenditure. “It’s just not money that we can allocate at will for something we’d like to see brought forward,” Kotarski said.

Chamberlin pointed out that the spreadsheet indicates what category of Percent for Art funding could be used for each project.

Miller said it might be possible to vote on funding allocations for some of these projects at AAPAC’s September meeting.

AAPAC Video

Ashlee Arder recently finished a short video to promote AAPAC and the city’s public art program. She had shot footage of commissioners at their June 26, 2013 meeting, as well as at their booth at the July Townie Party.

Screenshot from a video by Ann Arbor public art commissioner Ashlee Arder. The film is black and white, with spot color. This poster was part of AAPAC’s booth at the July 15 Townie Party. (Image links to the video on YouTube.)

Commissioners watched the roughly 2-minute video at the end of their Aug. 28 meeting. Arder plans to post it on the commission’s website, Facebook page and Twitter account, @AAPublicArt. It’s also posted on YouTube.

Commissioners also spent part of their Aug. 28 meeting watching a video presentation of national public art projects that have won awards from the Americans for the Arts. Marsha Chamberlin, who participated in the meeting via conference call, gave a brief introduction to describe the annual awards process. The presentation included the award-winning work Cloudbreak by Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass., who was recently selected by an AAPAC task force for a major public art project at the East Stadium bridges. [An update on that project is provided later in this article.]

Project Updates

Several projects were discussed briefly during the Aug. 28 meeting, by way of updates. Additional information was also included in a written report by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. [.pdf of Seagraves' report] These projects were either already in progress when the city council temporarily halted spending on public art late last year, or don’t use Percent for Art funds.

Here are some highlights.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

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

Seagraves reported that the selection panel is providing feedback to Widgery and is asking that she revise her proposal before it’s presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. A conference call with the artist has been scheduled for Sept. 6 with panel members to discuss the proposal. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Revisions to her proposal are due by Oct. 4. Bob Miller reported that the selection panel is trying to focus her work on the connections between East Stadium Boulevard and South State Street, which runs below the bridge.

Seagraves indicated that Widgery’s revised proposal would likely be presented to some of the city’s boards and commissioners for feedback, before presentation to AAPAC. Connie Brown praised the outreach efforts that Bob Miller and John Kotarski have already undertaken for this project. They’ve made presentations to various groups, including the Ann Arbor District Library board and the park advisory commission, among others. The intent is to create community buy-in before a project is finalized.

Project Updates: Bike Share Program

Seagraves reported that he met with staff from the Clean Energy Coalition about a new bike share program that CEC is managing, with a targeted launch of April 2014. They talked about the possibility of including public art at the bike share station locations, he said, or possibly on the bikes as well. The CEC team is interested in drafting a proposal to present to AAPAC in the future, he said.

A detailed presentation about the program was made to the Ann Arbor District Library board on Aug. 19. See Chronicle coverage: “Library Board Briefed on Bike Share Program.”

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

Three finalists had been selected for artwork at the Argo Cascades, but one of them – Andy Dufford of Denver, Colo. – subsequently dropped out, Seagraves said. The remaining two finalists are Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland and Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass. [.pdf of staff memo on Argo Cascades public art]

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor’s public art commissioner.

The artists came to town in early August to meet with the public – including a presentation at the Workantile on Main Street, and a reception at Argo Cascades. John Kotarski reported that the artists had the chance to kayak through the cascades while they were here, as did he.

Proposals will be due in early October, with presentations by the artists during the week of Oct. 14, with a specific date to be determined.

AAPAC had approved a $150,000 total budget for the Argo Cascades project on April 25, 2012.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to accept a memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project. The original proposal was for a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs.

A memorandum of understanding has been negotiated between the Jewett family, the city, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as a fiduciary for fundraising. The plan now calls for two full-sized replicas in bronze, at an estimated cost of $15,000 each. Materials for fundraising are being developed. Marsha Chamberlin, who is taking the lead on this project, said about 300 personalized letters to potential donors will be sent out within the next week or so.

The next step will be to write a formal request for proposals (RFP) for doing the work.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin has been working on a canoe art project with other local organizations, called Canoe Imagine Art. The project will use old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which artists and community groups will turn into artwork that will be displayed throughout the downtown in 2014. Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC). Task force members are Chamberlin; Cheryl Saam, the city’s canoe livery supervisor; Shoshana Hurand of the Arts Alliance; Mary Kerr of the CVB; Maura Thomson of the MSAA; and Laura Rubin of HRWC.

Seagraves reported that a formal agreement has been reached between the city and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as fiduciary for the funds raised on this project. Fundraising materials are being developed.

Project Updates: Arbor Oaks Park

The first task force meeting for possible artwork in the Arbor Oaks Park is set for Sept. 5. At AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting, commissioners approved setting up an exploratory task force for this project, located in the Bryant neighborhood on the city’s southeast side. Members include public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Nick Zagar; Derek Miller, deputy director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN); and CAN board member David Jones.

It’s being conceived of as a community art project, Seagraves reported.

Project Updates: Wastewater Treatment Plant

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had approached AAPAC earlier this year about the possibility of incorporating public art into the wastewater treatment project. The city is building a new wastewater treatment facility and renovating its existing facility in Ann Arbor Township, at 49 S. Dixboro Road. [.pdf of memo describing the wastewater treatment plant renovations]

Hupy had noted that of the remaining amount in the Percent for Art funds, much of it – about $448,000 – came from wastewater-related projects, and must be spent on public art with a “nexus” to wastewater.

John Kotarski is taking the lead on this project. He reported that he met recently with Hupy and Earl Kenzie, manager of the treatment plant. He’s also been in touch with the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum and University of Michigan, about possible participation in this project. The intent of any artwork would be to “train, teach, entertain and inspire,” he said.

Commissioners talked about the possibility of taking a field trip to the plant site, which is still under construction.

Project Updates: Fencing on Scio Church

At AAPAC’s June 26 meeting, Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, suggested a possible public art project related to fencing. The city is putting in sidewalks along a stretch of Scio Church Road, and will also be installing a fence there. The city staff was planning to install the kind of chain link fence that they usually use, but Hupy thought there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wanted to explore that possibility. The construction work would likely occur next summer.

On Aug. 28, Marsha Chamberlin reported that she has collected about 30 examples of different fencing designs used in other municipalities. Bob Miller suggested that Chamberlin could present that information at AAPAC’s next meeting.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin (via conference call), John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, and Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

Absent: Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Public art commissioners Bob Miller and Marsha Chamberlin. (Photos by the writer.)

Turnout was lower than hoped – as only one resident attended the meeting held on Oct. 22 at Clague Middle School, though about 10 people came to a forum at Bryant Community Center the previous week. A fourth event will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 30 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Open @Mack cafeteria, 920 Miller Ave.

John Kotarski, who had attended all the forums, felt the events had achieved their purpose of achieving a presence in the community, and introducing residents to different kinds of public art. Bob Miller advocated adding an online element for soliciting more input. Commissioners discussed the possibility of using the city’s new A2 Open City Hall, a blog-type feature that allows people to get information and give feedback on specific projects.

Commissioners took action on other projects, voting to approve a $910 budget for the dedication of a new mural at Allmendinger Park – an event to take place on Sunday, Oct. 28 from 2-4 p.m. The mural was designed by Mary Thiefels of TreeTown Murals, incorporating artwork and found objects from the community.

Also approved was the location of a sign for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall, though there was concern about the placement of a fence there. The city has decided to put the mesh metal fence on a section of the pedestrian bridge overlooking the sculpture. Some commissioners are frustrated that this safety issue wasn’t raised earlier, when it might have been addressed by the sculptor as part of the site design. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, noted that Dreiseitl intended people to interact with the water that runs down from the fountain. “What’s driving this process – the aesthetics of the piece or risk management?” she asked. She ultimately abstained from the vote, stating ”I want to go on the record of being ornery about this.” It was approved by all other commissioners present at the meeting.

Commissioners were also updated on a range of other projects that are in various stages of development. The process has begun for soliciting artists for work at the East Stadium bridge and for an ongoing mural program. The deadlines for submitting statements of qualifications (SOQs) are in November. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, expects to post another SOQ – for artwork at Argo Cascades – next month. And legal staff is reviewing a request for proposals (RFP) for art at a rain garden being built at Kingsley and First.

Seagraves also reported that installation of a $150,000 hanging glass sculpture at the Justice Center lobby will be delayed a few months, until March or April of 2013. Fabricators selected by the artist Ed Carpenter aren’t available to do the work as soon as expected.

Another potential project emerged during the meeting. Chamberlin noted that the city has about 100 old aluminum canoes that it’s planning to get rid of. She said that Cheryl Saam, facilities supervisor for the city’s canoe liveries, had raised the possibility of using the canoes for some kind of community art project. After getting feedback from other commissioners that this is an idea worth pursuing, Chamberlin said she’d work up a more formal proposal for consideration at a future meeting.

As part of the Oct. 24 meeting packet, AAPAC got a budget update of Percent for Art funds, showing a balance of $1.533 million. Of that, $847,104 has been earmarked for previously approved projects, leaving about $686,000 unallocated. [.pdf of budget summary]

One notable topic was not discussed at the meeting – a public art millage that’s on the Nov. 6 ballot. Several commissioners are involved in advocating for the millage, but have taken a conservative approach to dealing with it during their regular business, and AAPAC meetings have not included discussion on the topic since the August 28, 2012  meeting. That approach stands in contrast to a recent park advisory commission meeting, when one of the park commissioners spoke during public commentary to urge support for the parks millage renewal.

Public Outreach

John Kotarski gave a report on AAPAC’s series of outreach meetings, as part of an effort to engage the community better about public art. He delivered the report on behalf of Connie Rizzolo Brown, who’s spearheading this effort but who was running late for the Oct. 24 meeting.

This new approach uses four quadrants of Ann Arbor that are designated in the city master plan’s “land use elements” section: west, central, south and northeast. [.pdf map of quadrants] Two or more of the nine AAPAC members are responsible for each quadrant, charged with soliciting input from residents in selecting public art.

Three meetings have been held in October to kick off this effort. About 10 or so people attended each of the first two meetings, held at the Ann Arbor Art Center and the Bryant Community Center. The third meeting at Clague Middle School, which The Chronicle attended, had less of a turnout. Councilmember Sabra Briere showed up, but no one else came until about 20 minutes after the meeting’s start, when the two commissioners there – Kotarski and Brown, along with public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – had already packed up and were ready to leave. They stayed and talked to the resident for about 15 minutes.

At AAPAC’s Oct. 24 meeting, Kotarski told commissioners that the meetings so far had achieved their purpose: To make a presence in the community, and to introduce the many faces of public art. It lets residents know that AAPAC is making an effort, he said. At the final meeting held at Clague, Kotarski said the one resident who attended didn’t want to spend tax dollars on public art. The man had presented his view, and Kotarski felt the resident had left the meeting feeling that his view had been heard.

The final meeting – for the west quadrant – will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 30 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Open @Mack cafeteria, 920 Miller Ave.

Later in the meeting, Bob Miller suggested exploring how to incorporate an online component into the process, to increase participation. He noted that in the past, AAPAC had received hundreds of responses to its online surveys. Marsha Chamberlin pointed out that the high number of responses were because a previous commissioner had alerted a large network of artists in the community via email, asking them to do the survey. “So it was a little bit of a biased sample,” she said, and distorted the response. [Chamberlin was referring to former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker.]

The group discussed using A2 Open City Hall, a new feature on the city’s website that’s used to share information about projects and solicit feedback. Seagraves was tasked with looking at that possibility and reporting back at AAPAC’s next meeting.

Allmendinger Mural

A public dedication of the new mural at Allmendinger Park is planned for Sunday, Oct. 28 from 2-4 p.m. at the park. The city commissioned Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels of TreeTown Murals to do the work, which incorporates found objects and artwork by students at Slauson Middle School as part of mosaics on pillars of the park’s building.

In addition to the previously approved $12,000 budget for the project, at their Oct. 24 meeting AAPAC was asked to approve an additional $810 to cover the costs of the dedication ceremony. The total budget for the event is $910, with $100 coming from funds remaining in the original project budget. The event budget will pay for food, music, printing & postage, decorations, podium rental, and a plaque.

Responding to a Chronicle query after the meeting, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, explained that the source of that additional $810 hasn’t yet been determined. It will come from either the Percent for Art pooled funds for parks projects, or from funds allocated for administration, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve funding for the Allmendinger Park mural dedication ceremony.

Dreiseitl Sign & Fencing

The topic of a sign for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall has been discussed at multiple AAPAC meetings. It came up again on Oct. 24.

Proposed sign for Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture on pedestrian bridge in front of city hall.

The city has decided to install a metal mesh fence along the pedestrian bridge overlooking the sculpture, for safety reasons. Separately, AAPAC has been working on a descriptive sign for the piece. At their Sept. 26, 2012 meeting, commissioners were presented with a schematic showing the sign positioned on top of the fence. [See image to the right.] Some commissioners had objected, saying that the sign and fence detracted from the artwork. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, promised to see if any alternative locations could be offered.

On Oct. 24, commissioners were presented with a second possibility – keeping the mesh fence in place, but positioning the sign atop an adjacent concrete wall. [.jpg of drawing that shows alternative location]

Commissioners had previously approved text for the sign. [.pdf of text for the sign] The sign’s graphic design has not been completed.

Bob Miller and Marsha Chamberlin both expressed frustration that the city now wanted to put up a fence. They felt that if safety was a concern, that issue should have been raised earlier in the process so that it could have been addressed as part of the project’s overall design. ”What’s driving this process – the aesthetics of the piece or risk management?” Chamberlin asked.

Malverne Winborne was surprised that the issue hadn’t been brought up before –  as it seemed to him an obvious concern that the city would have. Tony Derezinski, who also serves on city council, said no one had mentioned it, as far as he knew. He noted that he is a member of the city’s insurance board, indicating that it would have been a logical topic for that group.

Miller wondered where the safety concern would end. People could climb the sculpture, or someone in a wheelchair could roll over the edge, he noted – there would always be potential safety issues. At some point, personal responsibility should be a factor. Winborne said he agreed with that, but he also was aware that we live in a litigious society.

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor’s public art administrator.

John Kotarski and Derezinski both felt it was a city decision – not something for AAPAC to decide. Chamberlin agreed that it’s the city’s call, but argued that AAPAC’s role is to protect the integrity of the artwork. She noted that years ago, when a large sculpture at Sculpture Plaza was refurbished, for example, there was a lot of discussion about whether to paint it. [The Arch by David F. Heberling – located in the small city park at Fourth and Catherine – was removed, repaired and painted in 2007-08.]

Chamberlin recalled that when she talked with Dreiseitl after his sculpture’s dedication in October of 2011, he told her that he had intended for people to interact with the water – and children were playing in it that night, she said. With that in mind, the surfaces had been treated so that they’d be less slippery, she reported. Kotarski said he could confirm that – he had walked down the watery surfaces himself, to see how slippery they were, and he didn’t slip. That convinced him that there’s not a risk, but he still felt the decision should be left to the city staff.

Chamberlin wondered who was making these decisions at the city. She wanted to make an inquiry about the fencing. Matt Kulhanek, the city’s facilities supervisor, is making the call, Seagraves said. Derezinski cautioned that if AAPAC makes an inquiry about it, they should “be prepared to accept the answer.”

“I’m not going to take this lying down,” Chamberlin replied. AAPAC might have to accept the fence this time, she added, but they need to be very clear in the future that it’s not acceptable.

Miller asked if transparent glass could be used, rather than metal mesh. Seagraves reported that maintenance would be a concern with glass. He noted that Dreiseitl preferred having the sign attached to the top of the fence, rather than the alternate option.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to support the placement of the Dreiseitl sign atop the new fence on the pedestrian bridge. Marsha Chamberlin abstained, stating ”I want to go on the record of being ornery about this.”

Kingsley Rain Garden Art

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that in September a request for proposals (RFP) was forwarded to the city’s legal staff for review regarding artwork for a rain garden that the city is building at the corner of Kingsley and First.

John Kotarski questioned why an RFP was being used, rather than an SOQ (statement of qualifications). For other projects – like artwork for Argo Cascades and East Stadium bridges – AAPAC is using an SOQ, he noted. That approach solicits a pool of artists from which finalists are selected. The finalists are paid a stipend to develop a proposal that’s then selected. He felt that was the proper way to proceed. With no stipends, he said, serious artists wouldn’t respond.

John Kotarski

Seagraves explained that with this particular project, AAPAC wanted an artist to work hand-in-hand with the landscape architect who’ll be designing the rain garden. They don’t want a design done prior to that, he said. Another factor is that the city procedurally can’t issue a contract with an artist directly from an SOQ – the SOQ usually leads to an RFP. So in this case, an RFP was being used instead, skipping the SOQ step.

There was a fair amount of confusion about how the process would work. Seagraves eventually explained that the process would actually work like an SOQ. A task force will use the RFP responses to choose a group of finalists, who’ll then be interviewed before the task force recommends someone for the project. Unlike typical RFPs, however, none of the artists will be asked to develop a specific design for the project, he said. The task force recommendation will be forwarded to AAPAC for review – and if approved, at that point the city will develop a contract with the artist for the work.

Kotarski said it sounded like the city would be hiring the artist’s services, much like an artist in residence. In that light, he said it made sense to him to proceed in this way.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. 

Canoe Art

At the end of the Oct. 24 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin floated an idea for a possible art project to pursue. She noted that the city has about 100 old aluminum canoes that it’s planning to get rid of. She reported that Cheryl Saam, facilities supervisor for the city’s canoe liveries, had raised the possibility of using the canoes for some kind of community art project. One idea is to cut the canoes in half and stand them upright, to serve as a base. The visual analogy is a crèche made from an old bathtub, Chamberlin said. They could be painted, embellished, or transformed in any way – the common theme would be the canoe. The project could involve artists, the general community, or both. The final artwork could be sold, donated as a fundraiser, or used as installations throughout the city.

Chamberlin wanted feedback from other commissioners to see if this was something they’d like to pursue. There was general agreement among the five other commissioners who attended the meeting, so Chamberlin said she’d work on a more formal proposal for a future meeting.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

State & Ellsworth Roundabout

A roundabout is being built at the intersection of South State and Ellsworth, and AAPAC plans to incorporate public art into the project. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, told commissioners that they needed to select a “champion” for the project.

Bob Miller volunteered, saying he wanted to tie in the roundabout art into a corridor study of South State that’s underway. [See Chronicle coverage: "Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study."]

There was some discussion among commissioners about the importance of integrating artwork not just at the roundabout, but throughout the length of the corridor as well. Marsha Chamberlin suggested developing a “visual database” of ideas that could be drawn on, showing how artwork could be integrated into the design of fencing, road dividers and signs, for example. Otherwise, art will just be “plopped” onto a site, she said.

Miller said he’d touch base with Jeff Kahan, the city planner who’s working on this corridor project, to see how AAPAC can coordinate with it.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Other Project & Budget Updates

Aaron Seagraves gave several brief project updates during the meeting. Here are some highlights:

• Justice Center lobby sculpture: The $150,000 project will be delayed for a few months because the fabricators selected by the sculptor – Ed Carpenter – aren’t available until later this year. The installation of the hanging glass work now isn’t expected until March or April, rather than January. The sculpture, called “Radius,” was approved by city council in May of 2012 based on AAPAC’s recommendation.
• East Stadium bridge artwork: The statement of qualifications (SOQ) has been issued for artwork at the new East Stadium bridge and nearby areas. [.pdf of SOQ-837] The deadline for submissions is Nov. 30 at 10 a.m. The $400,000 budget for that project was recommended by AAPAC in March of 2012.
• Mural program: Also issued is a statement of qualifications (SOQ) to select a pool of artists for future mural projects. [.pdf of SOQ-835] The deadline for submissions is Nov. 9 at 10 a.m. AAPAC had approved this approach at its June 27, 2012 meeting, to facilitate faster development of mural projects.
• Argo Cascades: The city attorney’s office has signed off on an SOQ for artwork at Argo Cascades. Seagraves expects that the SOQ will be released in November. [SOQs for the city are posted online here.] AAPAC approved a $150,000 budget for that project in April of 2012.
• Forest Avenue Plaza: Seagraves reported that Marsha Chamberlin and Bob Miller had met with park planner Amy Kuras earlier in the month, and would be meeting again in November with other task force members who’ll be selected from the neighborhood. AAPAC voted at its Aug. 22, 2012 meeting to move ahead on a public art project for the plaza, located next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University.

Seagraves also provided commissioners with a budget summary on Percent for Art funds, showing a balance of $1.533 million. Of that, $847,104 has been earmarked for previously approved projects, leaving about $686,000 unallocated. [.pdf of budget summary] There was no discussion of the budget.

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

Absent: Cathy Gendron, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

At its Aug. 9 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered three different charter amendments for inclusion on the Nov. 6 ballot. Two were for millages, and a third was for a restriction on the contractual powers of the city with respect to parkland.

The council voted unanimously to place on the ballot a renewal of the city’s parks maintenance and capital improvements millage at the rate of 1.1 mills. One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value on a property. So for a house worth $200,000, with a state-equalized value of $100,000, a 1.1 mill tax would cost that property owner $110 per year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $5 million next year.

Examples of park maintenance activities include forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity. 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. The city’s park advisory commission (PAC) had voted unanimously nearly two months ago at its June 19, 2012 meeting to recommend placing that millage renewal before voters.

But one day before the council’s Aug. 9 meeting, PAC had voted unanimously against recommending that another park-related question be placed on the ballot – one that would have asked voters if they wanted to amend the city charter to require a referendum to lease parkland for non-park or non-recreational use for longer than five years. PAC was able to consider a recommendation only because the council had postponed the measure at its July 16, 2012 meeting.

And at its Aug. 9 meeting, the city council did not meet the 7-vote threshold on the 11-member body to place that charter amendment on the ballot. It got just four votes – from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the original resolution, did not vote for it, after modifications to the wording had failed to win the council’s approval.

Not originally on the council’s Aug. 9 agenda, but added at the start of the meeting, was a resolution to place a ballot question before voters in November that would ask them if they want – at least temporarily – to change the way that funds are accumulated to pay for public art in the city. Currently, funds must be set aside as part of most capital improvement project budgets – 1% up to a limit of $250,000 per project.

The ballot proposal on public art would levy a 0.1 mill tax for a four-year period – which translates roughly to $450,000 per year. In its current version, the wording of the proposal would suspend the collection of Percent for Art funds under the city’s ordinance just for the four-year period of the millage. So if voters approved the public art millage this year, and then failed to approve a millage renewal four years from now – either because the council did not place a renewal on the ballot, or voters rejected the renewal – the Percent for Art ordinance would again require that funds from capital project budgets be set aside for public art.

The reaction from councilmembers to the proposal from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was generally positive; however, there was considerable dissatisfaction expressed – at the meeting and subsequently – with the secretive nature of the work that had produced it. Taylor’s apparent goal in placing it on the agenda at all was to reveal the content of the proposal, without asking his colleagues to vote on it. Taylor asked for postponement of the resolution after reading aloud a speech about it. The council agreed unanimously to postpone action until its next meeting, on Aug. 20.

Voting on Aug. 20 to place the question on the ballot would allow for some public discussion before taking action on that issue, while still meeting the statutory deadline for delivering ballot language to the Washtenaw County clerk.

The public art commission has called a special meeting for Aug. 15 in order to weigh in on the subject.

Part 1 of this council meeting report deals just with these ballot questions. Part 2 will handle other business items at the Aug. 9 meeting.

Public Art Millage

The council was asked to consider a resolution that would place a question on the Nov. 6 ballot, asking Ann Arbor voters to pay a 0.1 mill tax for four years to support public art.

Public Art Millage: Content

The ballot question would read:

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

The corresponding charter language would be [emphasis added]:

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

One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value on a property. So for a house worth $200,000, with a state-equalized value of $100,000, a 0.1 mill public art tax would cost that property owner $10 per year. In Ann Arbor, a rule of thumb for the amount of revenue generate by 1 mill is $4.5 million. So a 0.1 mill public art tax would generate roughly $450,000 annually.

In place since 2007, the city’s Percent for Art program requires that 1% of the budget for any capital improvement project be set aside for public art – up to a cap of $250,000 per project. More than $1 million in Percent for Art revenues have been expended to date, primarily for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall.

By year, here’s how much money has been set aside for public art by the Percent for Art program, according to information provided to The Chronicle by public art administrator Aaron Seagraves:

FY 08    $318,689    
FY 09    $521,457    
FY 10    $450,166    
FY 11    $451,213    
FY 12    $334,660    
FY 13    $320,837 (estimated)

-
So the proposed millage would generate somewhat more money per year than the Percent for Art program has generated, on average, over its first six years of existence.

If approved by voters, the public art funds from a millage would not necessarily be restricted to permanent “monumental” type art, as the current Percent for Art funds are. The additional flexibility afforded by a millage-based public art program might include the ability to fund performance art or support artist-in-residency programs. It would also enjoy the endorsement of a referendum, eliminating the criticism that residents had not voted on the question of the Percent for Art program.

Public Art Millage: History

As far back as Feb. 1, 2009 at a council Sunday caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) publicly expressed her concern about the large amount of money the program was generating. Later that year, at a Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, the council gave initial approval to an ordinance revision that would have reduced the allotment from 1% to 0.5%. But at the council’s following meeting, on Dec. 21, 2009, the council voted down the ordinance revision, with councilmembers citing art as key to Ann Arbor’s identity.

At the Aug. 9 meeting, Ann Arbor resident Thomas Partridge peruses a Detroit Free Press article about the Detroit Institute of Arts millage that won voter approval on Aug. 7, 2012.

In connection with approval of the fiscal year 2012 budget in May 2011, Higgins brought forward a budget amendment that would have directed the city attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment to reduce the percentage in the public art ordinance from 1% to 0.5%. That attempted amendment failed on a 4-7 vote. Six months later, the council again gave initial approval to a reduction in the percentage allocated from 1% to 0.5%. But in its Dec. 5, 2011 vote, the council ultimately opted to make only a minor tweak to the ordinance, without changing the basic percentage.

During deliberations on May 7, 2012 about a piece of public art to be commissioned for the city’s new justice center, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) mentioned the possibility of establishing a millage just for public art. Kunselman has been a vocal critic of the funding mechanism of the Percent for Art program, based on the idea that it is not legal to appropriate public utility funds or dedicated millage funds for other purposes to public art, as the city’s Percent for Art ordinance does.

The council voted down a proposal by Kunselman on April 2, 2012 to request a legal opinion on the question from city attorney Stephen Postema.

Public Art Millage: Analysis

The effect of passing the public art millage would be to suspend the accumulation of funds for public art purposes under the city’s current Percent for Art ordinance. The language that does that is this:

… for the duration of this millage, the City shall not raise, set aside or designate funds for public art in any other manner.

Christopher Taylor has stated that the reason that the Percent for Art ordinance cannot be repealed with the same ballot resolution is a state law restricting ballot proposals to a single question. [From an email Taylor has sent to constituents of his]:

… state law requires that ballot measures be one-subject, Yes/No questions. For this reason, we cannot ask the voters to approve or reject a millage AND effect an ordinance repeal in the event of a No vote.

The state law in question is the Home Rule City Act:

A proposed charter amendment shall be confined to 1 subject. If the subject of a charter amendment includes more than 1 related proposition, each proposition shall be separately stated to afford an opportunity for an elector to vote for or against each proposition. If a proposed charter amendment is rejected at an election, the amendment shall not be resubmitted for a period of 2 years.

Taylor’s email to constituents continues:

That said, after a No vote, one could easily imagine an effort to wind down the program on the grounds that the people had spoken and rejected taxpayer support for the arts.

Taylor does not indicate that he would support such an effort to “wind down” the Percent for Art program – only that he can imagine such an effort. Based on the results of the Aug. 7 primary election, the necessary votes to repeal the Percent for Art ordinance might exist on post-general-election council in November – even without Taylor’s vote to repeal it. That scenario would allow Taylor to maintain that he’d never voted in a way to place funding for public art in jeopardy.

But if the public art millage were approved by voters, then the ballot initiative mandates that funds would not be set aside for public art through the Percent for Art ordinance for the duration of the millage. And if the public art millage were not approved by voters, then Taylor appears to be indicating that the council would be inclined to repeal the Percent for Art ordinance – even if that took place without his vote.

If the Percent of Art ordinance will not persist after the millage vote election – no matter what the outcome – it is not clear what argument would exist against repealing of the ordinance before a millage vote.

With the Percent for Art ordinance in place during the millage vote, the intent of voters in casting yes and no votes is not necessarily clear. A no vote might mean, “I support public art funding, and I think that the best way is through the Percent for Art ordinance, not this millage that I’m being asked to approve.” On the other hand, a yes vote might mean, “I do not support the use of public money on public art, but if it’s going to be spent, then I prefer that the funds be flexible enough to support performance art.”

If the city council were to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism before the millage vote – through a partial rescinding of the ordinance (keeping the parts that establish the public art commission) – it would give clarity to the question on the ballot and to voters’ intent.

However, repeal of the Percent for Art ordinance before the millage vote would likely require Taylor’s vote of support for the repeal – given the current composition of the council.

Public Art Millage: Adding to the Agenda

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had added the item to the agenda at the start of the meeting, though he seemingly had not wanted or planned to do so, and had intended only to share the content of the resolution with his colleagues, without placing it on the agenda formally. Taylor’s demeanor at the table as he added the item, and the fact that he was unprepared to name the title of the agenda item, is consistent with the idea that Taylor added the item to the agenda only because of pressure from a council colleague just prior to the meeting.

According to city council rules, an item can only be added to the agenda with a 3/4 majority, and typically a separate vote is taken on the action to add the item, and then on the amended agenda. However, mayor John Hieftje, who chairs city council meetings, skipped the vote on the agenda addition.

The secrecy that Taylor maintained around the proposal was a point of friction for some councilmembers. Responding to an email from a WDET reporter asking for an interview, Jane Lumm wrote back to the reporter:

When I became aware that a ballot initiative was to be added (again, at the start of the council meeting), I did attempt to obtain information about the initiative from [city attorney] staff, but was told they were instructed and “not permitted to discuss” the matter. (That’s a verbatim statement.)

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Taylor refused to say whether he’d instructed the assistant city attorney to keep information from other councilmembers, but defended that kind of secrecy as an appropriate application of the attorney-client privilege:

… the ACP [attorney-client privilege] exists to incentivize clients to consult with their lawyers. Client knowledge of the law, its boundaries and opportunities is a social good. In this context, we want council members to consult with the attorney’s office – we want members to enlist the assistance of counsel early and often. If Member Jones thought that Attorney Miller would cavalierly discuss the subject of their conversation – the legal advice given to Jones – then that would have a chilling effect. In this case, Jones would not readily consult with counsel and the public would be harmed. It strikes me, therefore, that the attorney who declines to speak with one council member about legal advice given to another council member does so in the public interest.

By way of comparison, the Legislative Services Bureau – the group of attorneys who help legislators in Lansing do research, draft bills and the like – is bound by strict confidentiality rules with respect to their work for different legislators. So if a state legislator wants to work on a new bill and shield that work from other legislators, then the rules of confidentiality for the LSB would allow a legislator to keep that work secret, as Taylor did.

Public Art Millage: Taylor’s Remarks

The secretive nature of the work was one aspect Taylor had anticipated as objectionable, based on the prepared speech he read aloud. Although he had not previously indicated publicly his intent to bring forward this proposal, he portrayed the initiative as one that had been arrived at collectively:

I view this proposal without a sense of authorship, but rather as a collective product – the sum total of the many conversations we’ve had at this table and in and among the public.

Another foreseeable objection to the timing of the proposal was that input from the public art commission had not yet been sought.

The proposal did not originate with the commission; when The Chronicle reached Marsha Chamberlin, chair of Ann Arbor’s public art commission, by phone on the afternoon of Aug. 9, she told The Chronicle that she had not heard anything about the specific proposal until a few days ago, when she’d received a phone call to get her reaction to the concept. The issue has not been discussed at AAPAC’s monthly meetings, which are regularly covered by The Chronicle.

Taylor appeared to have anticipated the same criticism that had been made against the timing of the parks charter amendment proposal – that the park advisory commission had not yet been consulted. So Taylor indicated that he hoped to receive input from the public art commission, as part of the public input the council would receive before the council voted on the question of putting an art millage in front of voters.

He then contrasted the function of the public art commission as compared to the park advisory commission, pointing out that the public art commission is primarily a body that implements policy, not one that advises the council on policy as the park advisory commission does.

In order to meet before the council’s Aug. 20 vote, the commission would need to call a special meeting – because its next regular meeting is scheduled for Aug. 22. And subsequently the public art commission did call a special meeting, for Aug. 15 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement of city hall.

Taylor’s remarks also included the standard arguments for using public money to pay for art.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations

After Taylor’s immediate move to postpone the issue, councilmembers weighed in with generally supportive comments. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told his colleagues that he’d already submitted his request for co-sponsorship as soon as he’d found out about the resolution. “Kudos to councilmember Taylor, I’m so, so, so pleased that you have taken the lead on this.” Kunselman said he’d support the resolution, saying it’s exactly what the community needs to move forward with public art.

Mayor John Hieftje followed up on Taylor’s attempt to portray the effort as “collective,” pointing out that several other councilmembers had previously floated the idea. He noted that the restrictions that are placed on the funding due to their source make it difficult to fund the kind of art that people would like to – and that’s the fundamental reason why the millage is needed.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves on the public art commission, noted that the commission had bemoaned the restrictions on the use of funding. The restrictions are onerous, he said, but the millage is a good alternative to that. He felt that the public art commission would want to understand the reasons for the proposal.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) appreciated the postponement, because she wanted the public art commission to have a chance to weigh in on it – to be consistent with the council’s approach to the parks charter amendment, when the council had sought input from PAC before voting. Hieftje assured Smith that the public art commission would be able to meet, saying that the commission was going to meet anyway to talk about something else. [It's not clear what he was referring to, as there had not been any special meeting scheduled at that point.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) supported the postponement, because the council had not had a chance to look at the proposal, and the public needed to weigh in as well. It’s not desirable for the council to look like the proposal was being rushed onto the ballot.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) supported the postponement, as well as the resolution. But she complained about the lack of a heads up about the proposal. She told Taylor it would have been a nice gesture to have included those councilmembers who also had been interested in the topic.

She called Taylor’s announcement the “most surprising thing” she has seen since she has returned to the council [following her election in November 2011, after having served in the mid-1990s]. She wanted to see the council work in a more open, collaborative, cohesive fashion. Analyzing the resolution as partially a response to the Aug. 7 primary elections, Lumm concluded, “It’s truly amazing what a few elections will do.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated support for the postponement. He felt the point of introducing it and then postponing it was to seek the kind of collaboration that Lumm had mentioned. So rather than having the resolution on the agenda on the Wednesday before the next council meeting, it would be available to the public sooner. He looked forward to the conversation over the next couple of weeks and hearing from residents about what they thought.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone action on the public art millage resolution until Aug. 20.

Contractual Powers: Sale, Leasing of Parkland

Two other ballot-related issues were on the Aug.9 city council agenda, including a possible ballot proposal to amend the city charter with respect to the leasing of parkland.

Concerns about parkland sale are not peculiar to Ann Arbor. Michigan state law addresses the question of parkland sale; and other communities in Michigan have their own recent history with controversial parkland sales. The question of amending the parkland protection clause in Ann Arbor’s city charter dates back to at least 2006.

So this section begins with some general historical background, continues with Ann Arbor’s specific history, before characterizing the public commentary and council deliberations at the Aug. 9 meeting.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: General Background

Michigan’s Home Rule City Act addresses the question of parkland sale by stipulating that cities don’t have the power to sell parkland, except under certain conditions [emphasis added]:

117.5 Prohibited powers.
Sec. 5. (1) A city does not have power to do any of the following: … to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city; [Home Rule City Act, Act 279 of 1909]

Before November 2008, the charter of the city of Ann Arbor mirrored that statutory language as follows:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3
(b) The city shall not sell any park or cemetery, or any part thereof except in accordance with restrictions imposed by law. [Pre-2008 Ann Arbor city charter]

The idea that city parkland could be sold by a city – by first removing it from the official master plan – was tested (successfully) by the city of Novi around a decade ago in connection with the settlement of a legal dispute. The city owed a developer a considerable sum, and sought to meet that financial obligation by transferring 95 acres of parkland to the developer. The Oakland County circuit court ruled that the transfer could only meet the statutory requirement if the 95 acres were first re-designated in the city’s master plan as not parkland.

So that’s what the city of Novi did, beginning the process with review by its planning commission:

After a full hearing, the Court entered an Order on December 11, 2001, which held that, while most aspects of the settlement concept were approved, in order to provide the full approval of the Court, the following action could be taken: If the city’s Master Plan is amended so as to reflect a designation of the property to be transferred in a manner other than “park” . . . it is the determination of this Court that, without further action on the part of any party, the land in question may be transferred as contemplated in the [city council Resolution of October 15, 2001] in conformance with MCL 117.5(e) [the Home Rule Cities Act]. [Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2002 city of Novi planning commission minutes]

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Ann Arbor’s Background – 2006-2007

In 2006, Ann Arbor’s park advisory commission (PAC) passed a resolution recommending to the city council that a charter amendment be placed before voters, asking them to change the city charter’s clause on parkland sale. The resolution contemplated by PAC offered the potential for some confusion, because the text includes not only the clause to be changed, section 14.3(b), but also section 14.3(a) – even though no change was proposed to 14.3(a).

Section 14.3(a) imposes a requirement that real estate transactions – generally, not just related to parks – require an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. Leases are among the real estate transactions that require the eight-vote majority . So glancing quickly at the 2006 PAC resolution might lead to the unwarranted conclusion that the PAC resolution proposed some change in the charter with regard to leasing of parkland.

Here’s the language that PAC, in its Aug. 15, 2006 resolution, recommended that the council add to the city charter [added text in italics]:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(a) The city shall not purchase, sell, or lease any real estate or any interest therein except by resolution concurred in by at least eight members of the council.
(b) The city shall not sell any park, cemetery, or any part thereof except in accordance with restrictions imposed by law and with the approval of a majority of the electors voting in a regular or special election. No park, or any part thereof, identified in the official master plan of the city, or any subsequent acquisition to the park system, or any part thereof, identified as part of the official master plan of the city after January 23, 2006, shall be severable from the city park system and the official master plan of the city. [PAC resolution from Aug. 15, 2006]

A year later, the city council considered placing a ballot question in front of voters. The text of the charter initially considered by the city council at its Aug. 20, 2007 meeting was more succinct than the language recommended by PAC, did not include the issue of severability and underwent some further refinement at the meeting, which resulted in the following:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(a) The city shall not purchase, sell, or lease any real estate or any interest therein except by resolution concurred in by at least eight members of the council.
(b) The city shall not sell without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land acquired by the city for park purposes (whether or not currently designated as a park), cemetery, or any part thereof. [Amended language considered in city council resolution from Aug. 20, 2007]

The council then rejected placing the question before voters – on 2-7 vote. The two yes votes were from then Ward 1 councilmembers Ron Suarez and Bob Johnson.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Ann Arbor’s Background – 2008

A year later, the council again considered that kind of ballot question on a charter amendment protecting parks. This time, the text of the resolution included just section 14.3(b) – because 14.3(a), which involves general real estate transactions (like leasing), had never been at issue. The council considered the following text for the charter on Aug. 7, 2008.

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land in the city acquired for park purposes, (whether or not currently designated as a park), cemetery, or any part thereof. [Initial resolution considered by the city council on Aug. 7, 2008]

The council postponed until Aug. 18, 2008 a vote to place the question on the ballot. And on Aug. 18 the council amended that text as follows:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land in the city acquired for park purposes, (whether or not currently designated as a park), cemetery, or any part thereof. [Final resolution considered by the city council on Aug. 18, 2008]

The council voted to place a question on the ballot for November 2008. Voters in November that year decisively approved the change to the charter – 80% voted yes.

Compared to the pre-2008 version of the charter, here’s how the current (2012) language stacks up [added text in italics and deleted text in strikethrough]:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof , except in accordance with restrictions imposed by law.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Ann Arbor’s Background – 2012

The city council formally considered a resolution at its July 16, 2012 to place a question on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot, asking voters if they would like to revise the city charter further [proposed additions indicated in italics]:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, lease, license or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years.

Two weeks before the July 16 meeting, one of the resolution’s sponsors, Jane Lumm (Ward 2), had alerted her council colleagues that she was intending to bring the question forward. At that point, she’d been working with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) on the resolution. At the PAC meeting held on Aug. 8, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told commissioners that when she saw a draft of the resolution, she was interested in supporting it, but wanted some “whereas” clauses deleted. Briere felt those “whereas” clauses introduced needless contentiousness. The clauses in question included these:

Whereas, subsequent to the November 2008 passage of the amended section 14.3(b) section of the Ann Arbor City Charter the City has proposed that alternative long-term uses for parkland would be considered and issued an initial RFP for Huron Hills that included the phrase, “at the time of execution of the SALES contract” in the letter to respondents, and the final RFP did not use the words “sale” or “lease”, but “agreement” and “contract for services”, and
Whereas, a sale, lease, agreement, or contract for services are not dissimilar to the extent that they essentially permit the City to enter into a long term arrangement that potentially involves development at a city park and, in so doing, violates the spirit and intent of the voter approval requirement, and
Whereas, the voter approval requirement was not intended to permit the City to utilize alternative terminology to avoid the requirement to present a parkland sale question to voters, but was intended to provide the necessary protection for parkland, and
Whereas, the City continues to utilize language other than the words “sale” or “sell” to permit long-term leases and alternative uses of parkland to avoid the voter approval and referendum requirement,

When the “whereas” clauses were deleted, Briere told PAC, she added herself as a sponsor to the resolution that came forward on July 16, 2012. The council voted to postpone its vote until Aug. 9, amid questions that Briere had raised about interpretation, as well as a desire to have PAC weigh in on the issue.

At PAC’s Aug. 8 meeting, commissioners voted unanimously not to recommend that the council pursue the charter amendment that would require a popular referendum on long-term leasing of parkland for non-park uses.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Public Commentary

Public commentary at the Aug. 9 city council meeting featured many of the same speakers who’d addressed PAC the previous day.

Rita Mitchell asked the council to join her as park stewards – and in that capacity, she asked for their continued support for parkland as “a treasured resource in our community.” Parks are valuable to future generations, she said. That’s why the resolution is important. She reminded councilmembers that she’s appeared before them in the past – because she’s concerned about the potential precedent that various projects might set. Parkland has been targeted for permanent transformation, she said – as a parking structure or a train station [at Fuller Road] and to allow a private management group to use parkland for private profit [an allusion to the Miles of Golf proposal for operation of Huron Hills golf course]. Memoranda of understanding (MOUs), long-term leases and various legal agreements other than a direct sale set a precedent to circumvent the referendum requirement in the event that the city desired to sell city parkland, she said.

Dark green patches indicate city of Ann Arbor parkland.

That allows the city to dispose of parkland using a more casual method of transfer. She believes that the council should consult the public regarding the initial basic question of whether to change the ownership or the use of parkland to something else. If the council wants to consider a change in the use of parkland, she suggested, the council should make a good case for it and convince voters.

The point of the resolution, Mitchell said, is to reinforce the public nature of park ownership. She ventured that referenda would come into play only rarely, as part of the routine management of city parkland. The resolution was initiated due to specific projects, she allowed – and that’s how she knew that such protection was needed for all of the city’s parkland. Members of PAC had raised good questions, she said, about what would constitute a park use versus a non-park use of land as specified in the proposed charter amendment.

Diane Giannola told the council she had two things to say about the proposed charter amendment. First, she said, there is “nothing wrong, improper, devious, unethical or inappropriate” about using parkland for a public purpose that benefits the rest of the city. Parks are not just about nature – they’re also about recreation, athletics, entertainment and community.

She contended that the local chapter of the Sierra Club would like to convince residents that parkland should be exclusively nature areas. But that’s not been the intent of residents, Giannola said. She called that an overreach by a private group with its own agenda. She would welcome some repurposing of parkland as long as it benefits residents. She would not welcome a vote on decisions about every change in use. She felt that a train station built on top of an already paved parking lot that lies between a road and the University of Michigan hospital is in the best interests of the residents of the city.

She called it patently false that the intent of voters in 2008 was to prevent the city council from repurposing or leasing parkland. She had voted for the 2008 charter amendment because she thought she was preventing the balancing of the city budget through parkland sale. She did not think it was about changing the definition of a sale. She objected to the idea that anyone should be able to interpret the intent of voters in a way that was false.

Alan Jackson introduced himself as a park advisory commissioner. [He was recently appointed to replace Sam Offen, who was term limited.] He had been asked to summarize PAC’s conclusions from the previous day’s meeting of the commission.

PAC had voted unanimously against that resolution, he reported. That’s not to say that the commissioners are not passionate about the parks, he said, and they felt that stricter restrictions on the use of parkland is worth careful consideration. PAC felt that the drafting of the ballot language was unnecessarily hasty, he said. PAC felt that a more careful process would yield more predictable results, and would allow citizens to understand the implications better and to develop better informed opinions. Some commissioners also questioned the need for a remedy, given that none of the “egregious transfers” – which people have been concerned about – have actually occurred. There are a number of gray areas, regarding the definition of non-park and non-recreational uses of land. Who would arbitrate the definition of those terms?

There are also a number of unintended consequences, Jackson said, with regard to some institutions that are near and dear to him, giving the example of Leslie Science and Nature Center and other groups that have arrangements with the city. The charter amendment could have a chilling effect. PAC feels that the city’s exposure to litigation could be increased by this charter amendment, he said. PAC wondered what the charter amendment would accomplish, given that the city council would be the arbiter of what constituted park and non-park use.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as chair of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. She began by responding implicitly to remarks from Diane Giannola, whose public commentary had come a couple of turns earlier. For the last 30 years – during the time Shiffler has been involved with the group – the local Sierra Club has been engaged in protecting the park system, both natural areas and recreational areas. A fundamental question raised by the Fuller Road parking structure and now the rail station is this, she said: Does the city council have the authority to change the use of city parkland to some other use, through lease agreements, contracts or some re-designation?

The council has not sought to answer that question as it has discussed the Fuller Road site, Shiffler said. Instead, the city has been “backing in” to setting a precedent that has the potential to subvert the assumption that voters make when they vote to support parks millages – that the parks they voted to support will continue to be parks. The charter amendment would establish a process by which the council would be forced to answer that fundamental question. The language of the charter can’t anticipate every proposal that might come before the council, she allowed, but she encouraged the council to put the question before the voters.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Council Deliberations – Initial Round

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) introduced the resolution, stressing that it was unchanged from the version she’d provided to the rest of the city council on July 9. She reviewed much of the historical context and the intent of resolution. She noted that the previous day, the city’s park advisory commission had met and voted not to recommend its support.

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The 2008 change was a solid step forward in strengthening protection for parks, she said. But since that time, it’s become apparent that “loopholes” still exist that need to be closed in order to ensure that the clear intent of the voters in 2008 is to be realized. The 2008 charter amendment addressed only the sale of parkland, but did not address other mechanisms, such as leasing or long-term contracts. That could result in the outcome that the 2008 amendment was trying to prevent, she contended – conversion of parkland to a non-park or non-recreational use without the approval of residents. The goal of the current amendment, she said, is to close that loophole.

She pointed out that the five-year span that defines “long-term” in the proposed amendment corresponds to the parks planning cycle. She stressed that the proposed amendment doesn’t mean that no city park could ever have its use changed, but rather that voters would need to decide the question.

The intent, she said, is not to require the shorter-term arrangements the city has with various organizations to be subjected to voter approval – as those arrangements are part of ongoing management of the parks system.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described PAC as the protectors of the parks. He described the previous day’s discussion as lively and diverse. But with any piece of legislation, he said, there are uncertainties. He contended that the intent of the legislation back in 2008 was to make the restrictions tighter [than just "sale" of parkland], but he said there was concern that the tighter restrictions would not have been approved for the ballot by the city council.

Anglin described the amount of energy and money that had been invested by citizens to oppose different proposals that have come forward, citing the Miles of Golf proposal for the operation of Huron Hills golf course as an example.

The choice is between having a law that has a high standard, or whether the council says to voters that they have to come together, get organized, and “fight your city.” The council should be fair with the citizens and be fair with the proposals. As a hypothetical, he suggested that perhaps he wanted to donate a merry-go-round to Veterans Memorial Park and it would cost $2 million – he’d pay for all of it. Would that be supported? The charter amendment would help us understand that, he said. He ventured that parks uses continually change.

He suggested that the charter amendment was not perfect, and alluded to the medical marijuana ordinance, which was not perfect, describing that situation as “total chaos.” Based on the charter amendment, Anglin said, if the city chooses to go ahead with locating a rail station at Fuller Road, then the charter amendment would require asking voters. It might be that voters approve it, he said. He also contended that the proposed charter amendment would require a proposal like Miles of Golf had made for operation of Huron Hills to get voter approval. He also maintained that a possible removal of Argo Dam would also require voter approval.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) followed up on Anglin’s statements about different projects that would and would not require a voter referendum, and ventured that some councilmembers have different understandings of what the proposed resolution would accomplish. She asked assistant city attorney Mary Fales, who had helped draft the language, how the proposed charter amendment would have applied to various past proposals, or hypothetical future proposals, if it had then been in place. In bulleted list form, here are responses by Fales to the topics Briere asked her about:

• Building Argo Cascades: The proposed charter amendment would not have applied, because it’s a recreational use.
• Removing Argo Dam: If the purpose of removing it was to improve the waterway for recreational purposes, then the proposed charter amendment would not apply, because the use would be recreational.
• Ice Cube operation of Veterans Memorial Park ice rink or Miles of Golf operation of Huron Hills golf course: Because those parks would still be used for ice rink and golf course services, the proposed charter amendment would not apply.
• Closing Huron Hills golf course and using it for wild land and sledding: The proposed charter amendment would have no bearing on closing a city park – because it affects only the contractual powers of the city. If the city administration or park advisory commission recommended that a golf course be used in a different recreational format, then that could be done without a voter referendum – even under the proposed charter amendment.
• Building a parking structure on a park: A surface lot or a structure could be incidental to the customary use of the land as a park – because it creates a place for people to be able to use the park safely, so no referendum would necessarily be required.
• A 15-year lease with University of Michigan for a parking structure at Fuller Road: If the purpose is to commercialize the property or for some other purpose that is not for park or recreational use, and the contract is longer than five years, then it would require a vote of the people.

Both mayor John Hieftje and Margie Teall (Ward 4) appeared to want to explore the idea that if the commercial purpose of a parking facility would generate revenue supporting the parks [as is the case with the current arrangement between UM and the city for the surface parking lot at Fuller Road], then that arrangement might be construed as a park purpose. But the question was never framed clearly enough to get a specific response from Fales.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he’d be supporting the proposal. A 99-year lease for the Fuller Road parking structure would be outrageous, he said. That went beyond any reasonable expectation about the use of the city’s parkland. [.pdf of MOU with University of Michigan. It does not appear to stipulate any term lengths, but rather an intent to develop some kind of agreement.]

Kunselman felt that the five-year period was reasonable, based on the park planning cycle. There could be multiple renewals of shorter arrangements, so he did not see that as a problem. He did see a problem with a 99-year lease.

Kunselman allowed that they’d been hearing things about voter intent in 2008 – from both sides of the debate. He was not looking at it from a past perspective, but rather was looking toward the future. He did not want to see a future council trying to lease parkland for 99 years. One attempt had been seen, he said, and he doubted it would be tried again anytime soon. But because it has happened once, it could happen again, because it’s a typical response, he contended.

Responding to a standard argument that the Fuller Road site is currently a paved parking lot, he pointed out that it had not always been a parking lot – as he’d played soccer there as a kid back in the 1980s. In the past, Hieftje had made campaign pledges to add additional soccer fields, Kunselman contended – and this was a chance to do that, if the city wanted to convert the Fuller Road parking lot to a soccer field. That would take away the “piddly” amount of money that the lease arrangement with UM generates – about $30,000 he said. That’s small compared to what UM charges its employees for parking passes, he said, and he ventured that UM is making money off the city’s parking lot.

Kunselman figured that if the voter intent wasn’t there, they would vote down the charter amendment: “Let’s just give them that opportunity.” He didn’t think the city would harm itself, the public or the relationship with UM by doing that.

Responding implicitly to remarks from Diane Giannola about repurposing parkland – as long as it benefits the residents – Kunselman asked: Did a 1,000 car parking garage at Fuller Road offer a benefit to residents or rather to UM?

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Council Deliberations – Amendment

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told her colleagues that she’d sent around a draft of a proposed amendment. She said she did not think the charter amendment is a terrible thing to put on the ballot – but we have to be honest about what it accomplishes, she said. She felt like there was confusion in the public about whether a proposal like the one that Miles of Golf had made to operate Huron Hills would require a voter referendum. [Anglin and Lumm feel it would require a referendum; assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated it would not.]

A very informal poll of Briere’s constituents showed that more than 37% believe the proposed amendment would protect parks from bad decisions by the city council, she said. “But I have to tell you, it wouldn’t, as drafted,” she cautioned.

She did not think there’s any way to amend the charter to prevent the council from making a mistake.

She then proposed a substitute amendment for the charter language:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3(b)
The city shall not, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, do any or all of the following with any city park or land in the city acquired for a park or cemetery or with any part thereof: (1) sell any such land; (2) lease, license or contract for any non-park or non-recreational use any such land for a period longer than 5 years; (3) contract for the operation of any such land for non-park or non-recreational use for a period longer than 5 years; (4) contract for the construction of any building on any such land, except as is customarily incidental to the principal use and enjoyment of such land.

Briere said that in her personal view, this was a legitimate effort to look at what the city could do and to worry about whether the city could contract for recreational services and what the implications of that would be. The answer is that the city could maintain its current relationships with vendors at the farmers market, and also with Project Grow, the Leslie Science and Nature Center, and Community Action Network, she said. But it means there could not be automatic renewals. Leases for non-park use would have to come back to the council at least every five years, she said.

The text about customarily incidental use, Briere said, she’d taken from the allowable uses of parks as public land, as described in the city’s zoning ordinance.

She noted that it meant that the city council could still contract with a builder to construct a new swimming pool or a skatepark or a new ice rink, without having a referendum on it. But the city might have a problem if the city wanted to build a new senior center on a park, she ventured. And the city might have a problem, she said, if it wanted to contract to build a train station on parkland. She indicated that with all the additional language, she had wanted to make the language accomplish what people thought it already did.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) expressed the view that even with Briere’s changes, there are still some unclear issues, and she didn’t think that’s a good way to dive into something. At the PAC meeting the previous day [which Smith attended], she observed that at least two people spoke about the Leslie Science and Nature Center. For an organization of that small size, running a campaign to make sure an arrangement for use of the parkland is approved by voters takes away from the core mission of the center, she said – which is about educating young citizens about nature. And if the voters didn’t approve it, then what?

Smith also pointed to the possibilities for things we haven’t thought about – like new land that the city is thinking about developing along the Huron River. If the city had the opportunity to develop a restaurant, there’s no way a small-business owner would make that kind of investment on a five-year basis. She allowed that Briere’s amendment made things slightly clearer, but didn’t feel she could support the amendment.

Hieftje picked up on Smith’s point about a restaurant. He reported that he’d talked to three restaurateurs about it in the last couple of weeks. He asked them to consider the possibility that the city could make some land available for a restaurant in the Huron River corridor. They said: Great! And they said they could imagine that people would come from a long way away to eat at such a restaurant. The restaurateurs indicated that for them to bring a development proposal would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars – and that would be necessary, because people won’t vote based just on a concept. They would not be willing to risk that on a vote of the people, or base it on a five-year arrangement – which depending on the city council might not be renewed. At some point, he said, folks around this table are elected to make decisions. He appreciated Briere’s amendment but did not see that it achieved enough clarity.

Lumm felt that the example of a restaurant had been floated before at the Huron Parkway bridge near the golf course, and that residents had said that that’s the kind of repurposing that they opposed. She felt that it’s important to know from voters what they think about such a proposal. Lumm then responded implicitly to Smith’s description of the PAC meeting, saying she [Lumm] was there for the duration. [Her point appeared to be that Smith had left a bit before the conclusion of the meeting.]

Lumm did not understand what is so difficult to understand about the proposal. It does restrict what can be done with parks, she allowed, but not if it stays within what any reasonable human being would say is an acceptable parks and recreation use. She felt that the changes proposed by Briere were redundant and unnecessarily complicating. She felt the original language was clear, concise and had the right level of detail.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5)

Kunselman responded to comments from Smith and Hieftje about efforts to commercialize parks along the river. He pointed out that the national park system has concessionaires for many of the national parks. The city could own the building and then contract out the operation, if you want to have a restaurant down on the riverfront. That reduces the risk to the vendor, he pointed out. So those goals can be accomplished, he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he appreciated Briere’s efforts with the amendment – but for him, it made an unclear bad policy a much more clear worse policy. He felt that asking PAC to look at the proposal was exactly the right thing to do. The discussion by PAC highlighted that the language in the amendment was not capturing what we’re trying to capture. He called it a classic example of “hard cases making bad law.”

Hohnke also suggested that all the significant decisions take time – and each year it’s possible to turn over half the council, so voters have had the chance to turn over this council three times over since the Fuller Road memorandum of understanding was signed. So he did not support the amendment or the underlying resolution.

Anglin described the amendments as covering a lot of “what-ifs.” It’s not possible to build in language that covers every possible situation, he said. But it’s possible to start a process for how to treat the city parks. He reminded his council colleagues that he had voted against the PROS plan [the city's Parks and Recreation Open Space plan], because he did not think that the city was protecting its own land as well as it was protecting private investments.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) felt that the system of representative democracy has worked – it worked with the Huron Hills proposal from Miles of Golf. Staff had been asked to bring ideas to the table and they had brought ideas to the table. The golf course has never made any money, she said. The process worked for the people who wanted that land to be protected. She didn’t feel there was a need for Briere’s amendment or the charter amendment, so she’d be voting against both of them, she said.

Briere said her efforts to go through the hypotheticals was an effort to make sure she’d considered as many possibilities as she could. The real question, she said, is whether you view this an improvement of the city charter, and whether the language belongs in the city charter. It’s not just whether the council reassures residents that the council values parks by giving them an opportunity to affirm that they value parks. She believed that we all value parks.

If you feel it’s not an improvement to the city charter, she said, she respected that viewpoint. If you feel it’s an improvement because it clarifies things about the contractual limits on the council, that’s also fine, she said. She’d heard that PAC’s concern was not whether the city could contract, or whether the city could lease, or even whether the city could use parkland for non-park purposes. Their concern was to have a coherent process to follow that would put PAC’s considerations before other considerations. The idea would be that when someone had an idea about how parkland would be used, then that would go to PAC first.

Kunselman addressed the issue of representative democracy. He gave the example of Sylvan Township – a legislative body that moved ahead with a project that put the community into an extreme amount of debt. None of the members of the township board are still on the board. The charter amendment, he said, was to protect citizens from “representative democracy gone awry.”

“It’s important that we protect our parks from ourselves as councilmembers,” he said. He called the 2008 charter amendment redundant, given the Home Rule City Act, but Ann Arbor had gone ahead with that amendment because other communities had found a way around the state statute.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that the amendment increases the specificity and scope of the provided language. He shared PAC’s concerns, and the amendment creates opportunities for those concerns to be exacerbated. So he’d decline to support the amendment, he said.

Outcome: Briere’s amendment failed, with support only from Briere herself and Kunselman.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Council Deliberations – Final

Back on the discussion on the main motion, Lumm asked assistant city attorney Mary Fales if the charter amendment would allow renewal of leases in 5-year increments. Fales essentially confirmed that was the case. Lumm also got Fales to confirm that she’d looked at all the various existing contractual arrangements the city had with different groups, related to the parks – like the rowers at Bandemer, the farmers market, Leslie Science Center and the like.

Lumm returned to her basic point – that even though some interpretation is required, the language is clear, straightforward and focused on how parkland is used. The leases that arise in the course of normal operations, she said, would not trigger a vote. She did not feel the standard is hard to apply.

Responding to the idea that the ultimate rejection of the Miles of Golf proposal showed there was no reason for the charter amendment, Lumm contended that it had been rejected only because it wasn’t a good financial deal for the city. She contended that a proposal like Miles of Golf’s could not have been accepted without prior approval of the voters – based on the language of her proposed charter amendment. [However, Fales had indicated that it would not have triggered a referendum, based on the fact that it would have maintained a recreational use.]

Lumm raised an implicit specter that voters might not approve the parks maintenance and capital millage [which the council placed on the ballot later that evening], if the council did not place the charter amendment before voters. She saw no better way to complement that “ask” than by reassuring voters that the city would be good stewards of the “precious assets of the parks.”

Anglin allowed that the council has discussed the issues and they’re well understood. He described Ann Arbor as a place where people have the free time and expertise to participate in the community, and it makes the community better. The park system is the envy of many towns, he said. In other communities, they’re taking little bits of green away, which Ann Arbor has not yet begun to do. He ventured that in a poorer community, parkland would have already been lost.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5)

In light of Lumm’s statement about Miles of Golf, Briere came back to the past Miles of Golf proposal by asking Fales again to confirm that if the city had contracted for management of the existing course, or a converted 9-hole course with a driving range, the proposed charter amendment would not have triggered a popular vote – Fales confirmed that was the case.

Sandi Smith noted that the council postponed a vote on July 16 in order for PAC to be consulted. That body of citizen volunteers had voted unanimously against placing the ballot question before voters, she said, so she wanted to honor that group by following their advice.

She’d heard terms like “steward” and “sacred trust” and she had faith that future councils will also be good park stewards. She noted that since 2000 Ann Arbor has added 151 acres to the park system and no parkland has been lost or repurposed. Since 2007, she said, 44.5 acres have been added. And just this year 10 acres have been added to the park system. That’s a pretty good record, she said. Since 2007 the acreage added represents almost $1 million in taxable value, and that’s about $45,000 in general fund revenue that the city is forgoing. She asked, “Who is the park steward?” She did not want to tie the hands of future councils on ways the city can grow the park system, or find a way to maintain the parks. She pointed to the longer mowing cycle the city had to use last year (19 days), noting that the grass was knee-deep in some places. The city was not able to maintain the soccer fields it has, she contended.

Smith did not want a future council to be in a situation where it could work with a commercial entity to solve a problem, but could not do that without taking it to the voters. The amendment would not allow the city to be as “nimble” as it needs to be. And if it’s a non-presidential election, she wondered how many people might get to the polls to make these decisions. She would trust future councils, she said.

Christopher Taylor began by saying that the Fuller Road Station was never contemplated as a “lease” but rather as a “use agreement.” That’s an important legal distinction, he contended. [In the context of standard principles of statutory interpretation that would apply to a city charter – namely, their ordinary and plain meaning as would have been understood by the electorate, not the way a real estate attorney would understand them – it's not obvious that the distinction Taylor is drawing between a lease and a use agreement would be relevant.]

He addressed the suggestion that the charter amendment is necessary in order to save residents from the need to advocate for their positions. He felt that it is completely appropriate that residents gather on questions of public interest – and it’s not something to be “feared or bemoaned or coddled.” He didn’t think the language of the resolution, if passed, would be a disaster, but did not feel it would be good policy or good for parks. He called it a “solution in search of a problem.” So he opposed the resolution for the reasons cited by PAC – reviewing each of them.

Taylor then turned his attention to the idea that this charter amendment would finally redeem the intent of the voters in 2008. Aside from the fact that the word “sale” could not be more plain, he contended, and that voters are presumed to have read the ballot language that they passed, he reported that he’d learned at PAC’s meeting the previous day that the council specifically removed the word “lease” from the ballot language that went before the voters in 2008. In light of this specific and intentional deletion of “lease” from the 2008 ballot language, he said, the continued assertion that “lease” was part of the initiative’s intent is “demonstrably false.” Its knowing repetition, he claimed, is “simply shocking.” It may be a good idea or a bad idea, he said, but to suggest that opposition to the current proposal is contrary to the demonstrated will of the people is patently false.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

By way of additional background, Taylor did not make clear at the council table how he reasoned from the city council’s reported action of deleting the word “lease” back in 2008 to conclusions about what some voters wanted out of the initiative. Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, Taylor identified Rita Mitchell’s remarks to PAC on Aug. 8 as the source of his contention that the council had consciously acted to delete “lease” from the charter amendment proposal – and conceded he could not cite “chapter and verse” of relevant documents. However, The Chronicle did not discern in Mitchell’s remarks any claims about deletion of the word “lease.” In her remarks, Mitchell’s mention of the 2008 proposal included the outcome of the vote – which was 80% in favor – and her statement that: “The value of adding the terminology that we’re talking about today will provide that extra protection that I believe voters did want.”

Taylor might have confused Mitchell’s comments with those of Jane Lumm – whose remarks at the Aug. 8 PAC meeting included the following: “The language that was brought forward in 2008 and approved by PAC included ‘lease.’ Council chose to amend it and remove that language.”

However, based on The Chronicle’s review of meeting minutes from PAC and the city council during the relevant time frame, it does not appear that the council ever had before it a proposal that included the word lease in Section 14.3(b) – despite Lumm’s characterization. [See the background subsection earlier in this report for the possible source of the confusion.] Taylor maintained in his emailed response to The Chronicle that in his remarks made at the council table he did not draw a negative inference about residents themselves, but rather their tactics.

Taylor also contended that his conclusion that residents’ claims are demonstrably false – about the intent of voters in 2008 – could be derived from the plain meaning of “sale” alone. Taylor did not respond to a follow-up question about the possibility that voters in 2008 might have included a 99-year lease as part of their notion of sale.

At the council’s Aug. 9 meeting, Hieftje wrapped up the deliberations by contending that the council is sometimes punished even for considering options. He would put his record on parks up against any elected official in the state, he said.

Outcome: The resolution received support only from Marcia Higgins, Mike Anglin, Jane Lumm and Stephen Kunselman. Sabra Briere, who pointedly paused when the roll call came to her turn, voted no.

The vote eliminated the chance of placing that type of ballot question before voters on Nov. 6. There have been some smattering of conversations about the possibility of placing the charter amendment before the voters, perhaps in May, through a petition drive, which would require around 4,000 signatures.

However, an easier path to another consideration of the issue might result from the new composition of the city council that will result from the Aug. 7 primary election and subsequent Nov. 6 general election. Democratic primary winners Sally Petersen in Ward 2 and Sumi Kailasapathy in Ward 1, assuming they win the general election, would almost certainly replace no votes with yes votes. And the version that Briere proposed might win her vote. That would give the council the seven votes it needs to put the measure on a future ballot.

Parks Maintenance, Capital Improvements Millage

The council also considered placing a question on the Nov. 6 ballot that would renew the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage at the rate of 1.1 mills.

The city’s park advisory commission had voted at its June 19, 2012 meeting to recommend that the council put the millage renewal on the ballot. The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $5 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. 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.

PAC was first briefed about the millage renewal at its March 22, 2012 meeting. At the time, PAC chair Julie Grand – who served on a working group to strategize about the renewal – said concerns about the economic climate were a major reason why an increase wasn’t being recommended. City parks staff and PAC members subsequently held several public forums about the renewal that were sparsely attended. Technically, the rate of 1.1 is an “increase” inasmuch as the currently authorized millage rate has been reduced from 1.1 mills to 1.0969 by the Headlee Amendment.

The proposed ballot language reads as follows: “Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 1.10 mills for park maintenance and capital improvements for 2013 through 2018 to replace the previously authorized tax for park maintenance and capital improvements for 2007 through 2012, which will raise in the first year of the levy the estimated total revenue of $5,052,000.”

Deliberations were brief at the Aug. 9 council meeting, as Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) gave the background on the millage. He’s one of two council representatives to the park advisory commission. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that it’s a “frugal” millage in that it does not ask for an increase above the originally approved amount – but she noted that costs have increased.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to place the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 20, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to 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!