Twenty candidates for political office attended a forum hosted by the Arts Alliance on July 23, held at the Michigan Theater in downtown Ann Arbor and focused on the creative sector.

Arts Alliance executive director Deb Polich. (Photos by Dave Askins.)

The event included presentations by each candidate as well as opportunities for questions from the audience, and drew out policy positions related to the arts.

County-level candidates shared their thoughts on the possibility of a countywide arts millage.

And mayoral candidate Sally Petersen took the occasion to float the idea of an Ann Arbor city income tax as an approach that would generate more revenue, at the same time shifting some of the burden of local government funding to those who work in Ann Arbor but do not live here.

Bryan Kelly, independent candidate for mayor of Ann Arbor in the Nov. 4 general election, made his first public appearance since qualifying for the ballot. “I can say firsthand that being an artist is the toughest damn job in the world. I’d rather run for mayor than keep writing novels,” he quipped.

Ypsilanti mayoral candidate Tyrone Bridges shared an example of his daughter’s artwork with forum attendees.

Favorite public art named by the candidates included the mosaic adorning the Fourth and Washington parking structure, as well as the half-mile of daffodils planted in The Arb.

And Ann Arbor Ward 5 incumbent Chuck Warpehoski delivered his opening statement in the form of a rap.

In her remarks at the end of the forum, Arts Alliance executive director Deb Polich urged candidates and elected officials to tap into the experts who know the creative sector. She encouraged candidates to touch base with ArtServe Michigan and the Arts Alliance to get accurate information. Ann Arbor is losing ground to other communities like Grand Rapids and Detroit, she said, and that’s why public funding and investment in the arts is important. “Private funding is absolutely here in this county, but it’s not enough – there’s not enough.”

It’s not just about funding, however. Polich stressed the importance of public policy to make the city a fertile ground for the creative sector.

Polich reported that the Arts Alliance will be holding a statewide conference called Creative Convergence on March 19, 2015. Thought leaders from across the country, state and Washtenaw County will be coming to speak about these issues, she said.

This report focuses on state and local candidates, including the Ann Arbor mayoral and city council races, Washtenaw County commissioners, and state legislators. It also includes responses to a candidate survey distributed by the Arts Alliance prior to the forum. Not included here are statements by the two Congressional candidates who attended the forum: Democrat Debbie Dingell, who’s running in the primary against Raymond Mullins of Ypsilanti for the District 12 seat in the U.S. House of Representatives; and Republican Douglas Radcliffe North, who’s running against incumbent Republican Tim Walberg for the District 7 seat in the U.S. House.

The outcomes of many of the local races will be determined in the Aug. 5, 2014 Democratic primary elections, if no Republicans or independent candidates are running. More information about candidates can be found on the Washtenaw County elections division website. Check the Michigan Votes website to find out your polling location and view a sample ballot.

Ann Arbor Mayor

Three of the four Democrats running for Ann Arbor mayor attended the July 23 forum: Sabra Briere, Sally Petersen and Christopher Taylor. Not attending the 8:30 a.m. event was Stephen Kunselman. All candidates completed the Arts Alliance survey. [.pdf of Briere survey response] [.pdf of Kunselman survey response] [.pdf of Petersen survey response] [.pdf of Taylor survey response]

There are no Republicans in this race. In November, one independent candidate – Bryan Kelly – will face the winner of the Democratic primary. Kelly attended the Arts Alliance forum, but did not complete the survey.

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Sabra Briere

Sabra Briere said it had been interesting to sit in the audience and listen to what other candidates had to say, as well as being “part of the show.”

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate Sabra Briere.

Art is both passive and active, she said. One person can create a score, a play or a piece of visual art. Some people can work with that one person – as a crew, as a band, as a cast – to create something bigger. But many people enjoy art in a passive way, by going to a lecture or a gallery. She’d like to see more people in the second type of group, rather than the passive group.

There’s no doubt that public art, private art and creativity all create an opportunity for economic development, and that’s important, she said. But what’s more important to her is community development. “I want to see people engaged in creativity, because the more people who are engaged in this, the greater the opportunity they have to enrich their lives.” Being a passive audience is good, but being a participant in art is better, she said.

A decade ago, an artist envisioned a bright yellow line across an uneven surface, Briere recalled. And dozens of community members showed up at The Arb to plant over 10,000 daffodils. It was work, and it was wet, she said. “But it was an act of anticipation.” There wasn’t immediate gratification – you had to spend months waiting for those daffodils to bloom. She’d bet that many of the people who planted those daffodils go back every year to see how that line has changed. They go back to see where it’s gotten fuzzy, because the daffodils have spread, and where it’s nearly disappeared because it was too shady. “This is what I want to see happen in our community – more community building, strengthening our relationships with each other.”

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Bryan Kelly

Bryan Kelly told the audience that this was the first time he’s addressed an audience as a mayoral candidate. He’s a novelist, having studied writing at the University of Michigan.

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate (November general election) Bryan Kelly.

“I can say firsthand that being an artist is the toughest damn job in the world. I’d rather run for mayor than keep writing novels.” He joked that he might drop out of the race and move to Ypsilanti to vote for Tyrone Bridges, because he liked everything that Bridges had to say. [Bridges, an Ypsilanti mayoral candidate, spoke earlier in the event.]

Kelly liked the idea of an art auction, saying that’s a reasonable application of what the city government can do. There’s a long history of scholarship that calls into question whether the public sector should support the arts, he said, based on the idea that the public would be subsidizing one artist over another.

“And it’s not always the case that politicians are the best determiners of what is good art,” he said. “I think the public is, and the people are.” He said he might have some uncomfortable responses to questions that were posed at this forum.

He said that “art begins with the individual and not with funding. You can have all the funding in the world, but if you don’t have artists, you don’t have art.”

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Sally Petersen

Sally Petersen began by talking about her family’s commitment to art. She and her husband, Tim Petersen, have supported FestiFools since it started, she said – “Mark Tucker had us at ‘hello.’” Her husband is a board member of the University Musical Society, and she’s a past board member of the Ann Arbor Art Center, and she’s about to begin her third term on the board of the Neutral Zone, a nonprofit for teens.

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate Sally Petersen.

Petersen had three points. The first related to economic development. When she started on city council, she quickly learned that even though the council had made economic development a budget priority, the city has no economic development staff and only makes a $75,000 allocation to Ann Arbor SPARK for job creation.

And SPARK is very focused on technology jobs, she noted. As mayor, Petersen would focus on job creation in all sectors that do well in Ann Arbor, including arts and culture. She reported that the Americans for the Arts have said that nationally, 4.4% of the companies in the country are in the arts and creative sector. In Washtenaw County, that number is higher – at 5.3%, she said. But nationally, 2.1% of jobs are in that sector, compared to only 1.8% in Washtenaw County. So there’s room to grow here in terms of jobs in the arts sector, she said.

Her second point related to public-private partnerships. Grand Rapids has ArtPrize. So Ann Arbor gets compared to Grand Rapids all the time, she noted, but it’s important to remember that ArtPrize is privately funded. She spent the first five years of her business career in Columbus, Indiana, working for Cummins Engine, which made significant investments in public art in that community. [As one example of public art in that southern Indiana city of about 45,000 people is the sculpture by Henry Moore that stands in front of the public library, which was designed by I.M. Pei.] In Ann Arbor, there’s Sonic Lunch that’s supported by the Bank of Ann Arbor, she said. Neutral Zone’s annual Live on Washington event has lots of private-sector donations. “To me, it feels like the appetite for public expression of art through private donations is pretty healthy in Ann Arbor. We just need to leverage that more as the economy improves.”

Finally, Petersen said it’s important to keep a pulse on the public attitude toward art. The city’s Percent for Art program didn’t resonate with the majority of citizens in Ann Arbor, she said, “and we saw that in 2012 when the public art millage failed.” She said she had supported that millage. As the economy improves, if the city leverages public-private partnerships and creates more jobs in the arts, “we can change the public attitudes towards art so that perhaps in the future, a millage will actually work.”

Petersen concluded by reminding the audience of Ann Arbor Art Center’s motto: “Where creativity and community meet.” This inclusive nature about art is what she’d promote as mayor, Petersen said.

Ann Arbor Mayor: Opening Statement – Christopher Taylor

Art and the arts are important to him as an individual, Christopher Taylor said. Ever since his seventh grade teacher realized that he could carry a tune, arts have been a part of his daily life. He attended the University of Michigan on a music scholarship, and he has a degree in vocal performance. “And like of course many aspiring opera singers, I’m now a lawyer,” he joked. He works at the law firm of Hooper Hathaway on Main Street in Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor mayoral candidate Christopher Taylor.

He noted that the arts play an important role in economic development, as others have mentioned. Several candidates have also mentioned the importance of the arts to children, and it’s true that the arts couldn’t be more effective in “helping raise good little people.” But he said he wanted to expand on something that Briere had mentioned – the role of arts in the community. The creation of art by the people of Ann Arbor is important to people’s quality of life and sense of being and place, he said, and to their engagement with one another.

With “all profound respect” to the city’s professional arts organizations like the Arts Alliance, Michigan Theater and UMS, Taylor said, people’s day-to-day lives are most profoundly affected by things like the Water Hill Music Fest, the Burns Park Players and Thurston Community Players. These are events where people come together with common purpose to create something that’s meaningful and personal, that creates connections among neighbors, Taylor said.

They create lifelong friendships, and a “third place” where people can come when they’re not at work or home. As mayor, he’d love to help propagate and expand these kinds of things. If he were mayor, people in the arts would know that they had a true friend and ally and advocate in the mayor’s office, he said. “What you needed, what you could dream of, what you can imagine a mayor could do – ask, and I’ll do everything I can to get it done.”

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: What is your position on public art in Ann Arbor? What elements are necessary to make a public art program successful?

Bryan Kelly: Public art in Ann Arbor could be better, he said. Some of it makes him scratch his head. As a novelist, “I don’t understand physical art….it needs to have words on it.” But if a painting or other type of physical art has words on it, he added, “it usually undermines its purpose.”

Sabra Briere: Briere said she supports public art in Ann Arbor in a lot of different ways. She supports art that’s a physical manifestation – a sculpture or fountain – but she also supports public art that’s a performance. That includes band performances, plays in The Arb and West Park, and “the mimes that occasionally show up at my table.” Art challenges her and makes her think, “and thinking is always a wonderful thing.”

A successful public art program comes from a combination of resources at the governmental level, and creativity bubbling up from the people, Briere said. She supports opening city hall to temporary exhibits of art, and opening up the city parks to temporary exhibits of art. Other ideas include holding a plein air painting contest for amateurs in the park, or closing Main Street for a play to be performed. “I think you can do lots of creative things with art in public, without it becoming something where the public feels bad art is forced on them.” As mayor, she’d do her best to make sure many of these things happen, and she’s open to other creative ideas that include a small amount of financial or staff support, opening up the creative world to a large number of people. She noted that there’s never been a single piece of art displayed in public that someone doesn’t think is bad.

Christopher Taylor: “I support public art – full stop.” It’s important for the city to invest in and advocate for the arts, he said. Public art programs are most successful when residents believe – and when it is factually true – that their other needs are being addressed, he added. “Being satisfied? Who’s ever satisfied? But when the city is making an earnest and consistent effort, that is appreciated and understood by the residents.” This is what allows a public art program to thrive in a political culture and political environment, he said.

The city failed in its initial effort to support public art through the Percent for Art program, Taylor said. It was insufficiently resourced from the staff side, and the public art commission was given a set of tasks with insufficient tools, he said, so it didn’t work out. Integrating public art design into city capital projects on a project-by-project basis is the best way to move forward. If elected mayor, his votes will reflect the fact that he believes public art to be a value. If a new play structure in a park will cost X without art and enhanced design, but will cost X plus Y – “where Y is reasonable” – with art or expanded design, then he’d support that.

Sally Petersen: Regarding her attitude toward public art, it’s really about priorities, Petersen said. “I’m still kind of shrugging my shoulders over a discussion we had at the council table on Monday night.” The council voted 8-2 to inquire about acquiring two more pieces of property for the parks system. She reported that she and mayor John Hieftje were on the losing side. There are 158 parks – does the city need two more? She characterized one property as swampland, and the other parcel as unbuildable. So the question is about priorities.

The city has only $57,000 allocated for community events, and she’d rather double that budget so that the city could support events like FestiFools. The economic development allocation is only for $75,000 – and that’s for technology jobs, she noted. [That amount is for the contract the city has with Ann Arbor SPARK.] She’d like to double that as well, so that the city could support job creation in other sectors, including the creative sector. “So again, it’s a matter of priorities,” she said.

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: What’s your favorite public art in Ann Arbor?

Bryan Kelly: There’s some decent graffiti in town – under the train bridge at Argo Pond, for example.

Sabra Briere: Her favorite piece of public art is the sculpture in Hanover Square, at the corner of Packard and Division. It’s a set of cascading books. [The piece by Ronald Bauer is titled "Arbor Sapientiae."] Briere said she likes it when it’s wet – it makes noise when it’s raining, and it’s fascinating to see what the artist did. “A lot of people don’t get it, but being a book person, I like it.” Her second favorite piece of public art is on the University of Michigan campus – a fountain at the Kellogg Eye Center that was locally designed.

Christopher Taylor: He works on Main Street and has affection for the artwork on the Fourth & Washington parking structure. [The structure includes "Urban Configurations" by Irina Koukhanova and untitled stoneware panels by Barron Naegel and Yiu-Keung Lee.] Taylor said he loves the “big sculpture with the swing” in front of the UM Museum of Art. [Mark di Suvero's "Shang."] His kids love the sound of it and love interacting with it.

Sally Petersen: Her definition of art is broad, and she’s a huge fan of FestiFools. “It is where community and creativity meet,” she said, so that’s her favorite expression of art in Ann Arbor. She values its inclusive nature. Petersen said she also likes art that’s functional, like the mosaic tile on the Fourth & Washington parking structure [a mural by Michael Hall]. She also spends a lot of time running through Gallup Park, and there’s a playground with a climbing structure in the shape of a frog. Art that’s functional makes a lot of sense to her, Petersen said.

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: Comment on the notion that Ann Arbor is being surpassed by other Michigan communities as a creative destination in Michigan.

Sally Petersen: Grand Rapids is probably one of those communities that has surpassed Ann Arbor, Petersen said. They have a lot of private funding for the arts. That city also has a city income tax, she noted. In Ann Arbor, about 68,000 people come into the city each day for work, she said, so the population of Ann Arbor increases by a third during the workweek. If Ann Arbor had an income tax, the state sets the level, she said – a half percent for out-of-towners, and one percent for people who live and work here. For Ann Arbor residents, the current city operations millage would be eliminated, she noted.

When the city looked at a possible income tax in 2009, the net gain was $12 million. Petersen thought the first priority would be repairing the roads, but it might free up other areas of the budget to invest in the arts. “It’s kind of a crazy thing to say – I’m running for mayor, and I want to consider a city income tax? What a crazy thing to run on! But at the same time, it lessens the tax burden for all of Ann Arbor.” It would shift part of the tax burden onto people who are coming from out of town, who are also using the city’s resources, she said.

Sabra Briere: Ann Arbor is best known for performance art – music and vocal art – and is less known for visual art, she said. In the past five years, a lot of people have asked why the city needs to put money into visual art, she added, because the university does that already. As a mechanism for becoming economically healthier, other communities are turning to art and to the expression of the human soul – while Ann Arbor is getting just a little bit more pragmatic and saying “Just fix the roads.” In order to be healthy, to be a growing, vibrant, exciting community, Ann Arbor needs to do both, Briere said. We need to figure out what an expression of the city’s artistic soul may be, she added, and she’d like to see that expression as a community that works together to create art.

Christopher Taylor: Taylor said he didn’t think it was necessarily true that other communities are surpassing Ann Arbor. Grand Rapids receives a great deal of notoriety for ArtPrize. “If any of the local billionaires in the audience are interested helping out in this regard, I think we could certainly move the bar a little bit on that one,” he joked. But it’s true that there’s a competitive environment, he said, and Ann Arbor needs to move forward and be better at what it does, and to advocate for the creative sector.

He’d like to see the community propagate and support organizations that want to put on events throughout the city, whether it’s in neighborhoods or downtown. The city has a role there. Also, the city owns a lot of land, including some land that city officials are considering selling. Taylor said he’d be interested in entertaining the possibility of workspace for artists, where appropriate, if a practical proposal is brought forward. It’s a community value, and would help move any misconception about Ann Arbor’s friendliness for arts to the side, he said.

Bryan Kelly: “This is easy,” Kelly said. “Over my dead body. I’d dare any city to be more artistic.” Being more artistic comes down to the individuals that a city attracts, and he takes very seriously the part of the city charter that defines the mayor as the ceremonial head of the city. That’s part of the reason why he was attracted to run for mayor. He intends to be symbolic, as a candidate “who has not found success in their creative life,” but who is able to apply his talents to running for mayor and share a commonality with the artistic experience. “And I’m not going to Grand Rapids to buy any art,” he quipped. “I’ll buy from a neighbor first.”

Ann Arbor Mayor Q&A: It sounds as if candidates don’t see a significant role for city government funding for the arts via the city’s general fund. Why is that?

Bryan Kelly: The public arts millage wasn’t approved by voters, he noted. And as Briere had pointed out, there will always be people who hate a public presentation of art. So what the city is dealing with is the fallout from the millage. Personally, Kelly said, he’s dealing with the question of whether the public sphere should take the primary role in supporting the arts – or should it be individuals and the private sector.

Christopher Taylor: Taylor said he’s very much in favor of public support of art. At the council table, he said, he’s been a strong supporter for funding public art, and he’s supporting the new public art program that integrates art into enhanced design of city capital projects. The city needs to expand its support of community events, and many of those events are arts-based. The city provides support to the original Street Art Fair, he said, through a direct subsidy. The city also supports the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, Taylor said. He didn’t know whether the city has a role at this point in directly supporting performing arts organizations. The city needs to continue to support the infrastructure and underlying environment where these programs can prosper, he said.

Sabra Briere: Briere noted that she, Petersen and Taylor had all helped rewrite the public art ordinance and removed the Percent for Art concept. Now, the ordinance includes the concept of “baking in” art into capital improvement projects. That allows the city to designate some types of capital improvement to be enhanced by more architectural design, or including art in the design of the project from the beginning – not slapped on as an afterthought. “If you don’t hear a dedication to spending money on public art, it’s not that we aren’t dedicated,” she said. It’s something they might not talk about explicitly because they’ve already thought about it and committed to supporting public art. “We give money to cultural events, though not enough. But we all care about public art.”

Sally Petersen: Petersen addressed the issue of why the city’s general fund doesn’t have a larger line item for public art. “I think it comes back to the current appetite for public dollars for public art.” For a variety of reasons, the Percent for Art approach didn’t work in Ann Arbor, she said. The councilmembers who are running for mayor worked on a task force to transition the program to become part of capital improvements, and to crowdfund public art projects as well, she noted. She thinks there’s an appetite for crowdfunding from the private sector for public art. “I think we need to see some examples of positive art – positive public art that’s privately funded.” If the private sector gets on board, that might “water the soil” for the public coming forward. She’d like to see another try at a public art millage. The time might not be now, but it might be four years from now, she said. “If we can rely on private-sector partners first, maybe we can sow the seeds for that in the future.”

Ann Arbor City Council

Four candidates for Ann Arbor city council attended the July 23 forum: Don Adams, Kirk Westphal, Julie Grand and Chuck Warpehoski.

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Don Adams

Don Adams is running for a seat in Ward 1 currently held by Sumi Kailasapathy, who is seeking re-election. Both are Democrats. Kailasapathy did not attend the forum, but did complete the candidate survey. [.pdf of Kailasapathy survey response] Adams did not turn in the survey.

Ann Arbor Ward 1 city council candidate Don Adams.

Adams said that if elected, he’d like to see the council work with the creative sector more to improve art. Art is something that’s close to his heart. The council can help attract and retain talent to the city. Artists can bring a vibrant community together. Some people say it would attract young talent, but Adams noted that older people love art as well. He pointed out that Debbie Dingell, in her remarks earlier in the forum, had mentioned the STEM (science technology engineering math) approach to education. At Northside Elementary, which his two daughters attend, the program is STEAM – adding art into the mix.

Adams also talked about how art can work with rehab. He’s on the board of directors at the Eisenhower Center, where they work with people who have traumatic brain injuries, including veterans. There’s a music therapist who works with the patients and gets good results, he said. They had an art therapist student too, but she recently finished her degree and moved on. At their Manchester campus, there’s an art therapy program with ceramics, drawing and painting, and a woodshop. Art and rehab is something he holds dear to his heart.

In conclusion, Adams noted that his seven-year-old daughter’s artwork was hung at the Ann Arbor District Library. “So she is now officially a published artist.”

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Kirk Westphal

Kirk Westphal is running against Nancy Kaplan in Ward 2. There’s no incumbent in this race. Both candidates are Democrats, and no Republicans are running this year. Kaplan did not attend the forum, but both candidates completed the Arts Alliance survey. [.pdf of Westphal survey response] [.pdf of Kaplan survey response]

Ann Arbor Ward 2 city council candidate Kirk Westphal.

When his family talks about the arts, Westphal said, his wife literally and figuratively steals the show – she was a Broadway music director who’s now a professor with the University of Michigan musical theater department. He encouraged people to attend the department’s productions, saying “it’s the best value ticket in town.”

Westphal told the audience that he’s an urban planner. His job includes creating educational documentaries about cities and different aspects of urban life. His latest one is based in Ann Arbor, called “Ride ‘Round A2.” It focuses on bus and bike commuting.

The role of the creative sector in this community is absolutely about art objects and entertainment venues, Westphal said. But in the bigger picture, it has to do with creative problem-solving and creativity in different industries. It’s a core competency in today’s economy – whether you’re an artist or an engineer or an architect, creative problem-solving is important, and the arts play a major role in that.

Last year, the Knight Foundation completed a major study, interviewing more than 40,000 people over a three-year period in small to mid-sized cities nationwide. The purpose was to find out what the drivers are for growing people’s affection for their community, he said – what makes people love a city and stay there. The three major drivers were the city’s aesthetics, its social offerings, and its openness. “Now if the creative industry can’t tackle these items, I don’t know who can.”

So how can Ann Arbor leverage and strengthen the talent and organizations that the city has now? First, the city needs an arts and culture master plan, Westphal said. Unless the community can describe what it wants and where – and come up with something that can be measured, documented, and inventoried – it’s much less likely to happen. Creating a master plan would be a great opportunity to talk about what the community values. Another strategy is to empower people to make creativity happen now, he said. There are tens of thousands of people in this community who voted to tax themselves to make public art happen, he noted. [This was a reference to those who voted for the unsuccessful 2012 millage proposal.] “So where are they now, and where’s their money?” Let them envision where they’d like to invest and then let them build it, he said.

This is a conversation that needs to keep happening – and not just during an election, Westphal said. As a city councilmember, he’d help facilitate an ongoing dialogue with the community and artists.

[Regarding the master plan, five years ago the Arts Alliance had developed a cultural master plan for Washtenaw County, with customized "working plans" for several local population centers, including Ann Arbor. Deb Polich, the Arts Alliance executive director, reported that "we're ready to dust it off" and refresh it next spring.]

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Julie Grand

Julie Grand is one of three Democrats running for Ward 3 city council. There is no incumbent for this seat. Other candidates are Samuel McMullen and Bob Dascola, who did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey. [.pdf of Grand survey response]

Ann Arbor Ward 3 city council candidate Julie Grand.

As a parent, Grand sees how her own kids get out their emotions through art – “even if it’s sometimes an X over my face when they don’t like what they hear.” She shared a personal anecdote that she said reflected the community’s relationship with art. She was a dancer from kindergarten through college, and taught dance in high school. Her last performances were in Philadelphia. When she came to Ann Arbor for grad school, she thought she’d keep dancing. She went to the dance department and was told that she wasn’t in the right kind of shape. “So since I was too fat to dance, I stopped.” Grand said she wasn’t trying to engender sympathy, but wanted to point out that it takes a lot of courage to participate in the creative sector. “You have to be willing to put yourself out there to an often anonymous and unkind public.” It’s really easy to abandon a focus on the arts and turn to other priorities, she said.

Similarly, it takes a lot of courage to stand up for public funding of the arts, Grand said. There’s that unkind and anonymous public out there, who would rather see the city spend its money elsewhere. It’s really easy to use the small amount of funding that’s spent on arts as a scapegoat, instead of coming up with real solutions to things like roads and sewers, “which have nothing to do with the arts.”

Grand said she didn’t want to preach to the choir, but from her perspective, the city council can take several actions to help bring the community back to an appreciation and support of the arts. Residents want projects that are smaller in scale, she said, so that’s important. The city also needs to have projects that are unrestricted in theme. “The site should dictate the art, not the funding source.” Residents also really want to support local artists, Grand said. The city needs to do a better job of reaching out to the creative sector. She’d also like to see more opportunities for temporary art that can provide exposure for lots of local artists. The city should promote and provide funding for festivals so that everyone in the community can get exposure to the arts. It contributes to the unique character of this community. Ann Arborites also want to see projects that are accessible, Grand said – not just in the downtown, but in parks, libraries, along the Huron River and elsewhere. The city needs to think about public-private partnerships, as well as partnerships with educational institutions and nonprofits.

Grand pointed out that John Kotarski, vice chair of the city’s public art commission, was in the audience. He has lots of wonderful ideas, she said. Six months was not enough time for the art commission to “turn that process around,” and she’d like to see it reversed. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Grand said she was referring to the defunding of public art and lack of staff support for the public art commission.]

Ann Arbor City Council: Opening Statements – Chuck Warpehoski

Democrat Chuck Warpehoski is running for a second term representing Ward 5. [.pdf of Warpehoski survey response] Leon Bryson will appear on the Ward 5 Democratic primary ballot, but is not campaigning and announced his intent to withdraw from that race.

Warpehoski delivered his statement in verse:

I’m a politician
I’m not a poet
And here with the Arts Alliance
I don’t wanna blow it

When I think of about the role of arts
Here in our city
It’s about more than just trying
to make things pretty

While we wring our hands 
talking about economic health
the creative sector's a source
of true community wealth

As we rebuild
this great Great Lakes state
we can't do the old things
we have to innovate

And create places
where people want to be
sounds like a job for the arts
if you ask me

Nobody chooses a city
about our sewer drains
Or the miles and miles of
new water mains

Those are important
we have to get them right
but curb and gutter work
doesn’t bring anybody delight

And the kids, man, the kids
Tyrone said it – the kids
corporate culture has them tuning out
watching YouTube vids

Better to nurture
Their creative expression
that's a much more healthy
fulfilling lifelong obsession

You don’t just have to receive
and passively watch
You can create – to do so
is our most fundamental human trait

The arts here in town
They have some challenges
That’s no lie
Studio rents are too damn high

Maybe you wait tables
and do art on the side
I want Ann Arbor to be a place
where you can reside

So whether you sculpt
or dance or sing
We need more 
and affordable workforce housing

So what can you expect
If I'm re-elected?
Funding for the arts
will be protected

From Top of the Park
to FoolMoon in the dark
or that great new mural
Down in Allmendinger Park

But there’s a limit
To what the government can do
That’s why to succeed 
We need all of you

You keep creating
We’ll keep debating
Let’s hope the outcome
invigorating

Hey, I’m a politician
I’m not a poet
But Ann Arbor is art town
I want you to know it.

-

Ann Arbor City Council Q&A: The public art commission is taking a hiatus as the program goes through some restructuring. What message do you have for the art commission and the broader arts community in terms of next steps for the program?

Chuck Warpehoski: There was a fight to get funding to hire an arts administrator to help move to the next stage, he said. The city had put a lot of responsibility on the public art commission without giving them the support they need.

Ann Arbor Ward 5 city council incumbent Chuck Warpehoski.

Now, the city has lined up funds to get a professional arts coordinator to provide that support. “Where that’s gonna go? I don’t know – we’re still figuring that out.” But having institutional support will be vital, he said.

The public art commission has done great work, but if residents want this to be a priority for the city, they need to be involved, and encourage their friends and neighbors to get involved too. That’s important to build support for the arts, he noted, “because the fight to get the funding for the arts administrator was a real fight, and without your support, it’s going to get harder and harder.”

Kirk Westphal: Westphal said he’d echo Warpehoski’s sentiments. “This is a bottom-up fight for culture in our community. We cannot just offload it onto our politicians and our commissioners.” People need to communicate with their elected leaders about what they want. People love Ann Arbor for the culture it has, and “we have to keep infusing it with more.” It takes being proactive action from the bottom up – from citizens asking for it. We need to support the existing institutions and public art commissioners, “and we need more people under the tent.” There are a lot of different tastes in town, and different tolerances for how the city spends money – “so let’s get those ideas together, and expand the people in charge of this process.”

Julie Grand: With due respect to the councilmembers who worked on restructuring the Percent for Art program, Grand said, the public art commission had some really innovative ideas and she was profoundly disappointed when their funding and staff support was taken away. This process can’t happen in six months, she said. The commission was looking to incorporate best practices, and to go through a stronger community input process – which she supports whenever the city is dealing with complex issues. “We can’t expect that private donors are just going to fall out of the sky,” she said. It takes time to build those relationships. She’d be in favor of allowing the public art commission to do its work, and would like to be supportive of their recommendations.

Don Adams: Adams agreed with the other candidates, telling the creative sector that “you’ll always have a seat at my table.” He’s willing to work with the arts community to see how they can make things better. It won’t happy overnight, he said, but he’s willing to work on it.

Ypsilanti Mayor

Tyrone Bridges was the only Democratic mayoral candidate for the city of Ypsilanti who attended the July 23 forum. The other candidates are Amanda Edmonds and Peter Murdock. None of the candidates filled out the Arts Alliance survey. There are no Republicans in this race.

Ypsilanti Mayor: Opening Statement

Tyrone Bridges told the audience that he’s a 45-year-old single parent who’s been an artist for many years.

Tyrone Bridges is running for mayor of Ypsilanti. He brought a piece of artwork drawn by his son.

It started in the late 1970s when he was a breakdance artist. He joked that if there was more room, “I’d cut a little rug for you.” As an African American growing up in a home with abuse, he used art to escape. “Art was the closest thing that I had as a friend,” he said. Most people didn’t think he had artistic abilities, “but I can pretty much draw anything I can see.” God gives us artist ability and energy, he said.

As a single parent with a 15-year-old child, Bridges said he taught his son how to draw. His son was selected out of a group of 40 students to present his art to the public for an auction, he reported.

He’d brought the drawing to the July 23 forum, and showed it to the audience – a colorful Celtic knot. “My son took colors and made beauty.” This is what makes Washtenaw County powerful, he said – our colorful community, and our ability to share beauty. “We are some beautiful people created by God,” he said. He thanked God for giving him the ability to show his child how to be creative instead of being destructive.

As mayor of Ypsilanti, he’d work with the Arts Alliance on a countywide art competition for all students.

Ypsilanti Mayor Q&A: What’s your favorite piece of public art in Ypsilanti?

Bridges said he didn’t have a favorite piece of public art, but he always creates art in his spare time. God is always reaching down for you when you fall, just like parents picking up their children when they fall, he said. “Our communities should reach down and pick up our youth.” As mayor, Bridges said he would inspire more youth to be creative instead of destructive.

Ypsilanti Mayor Q&A: What would be your top public policy change as mayor, to support the creative sector?

Bridges said he didn’t know much about the policies in Ypsilanti, but as mayor, he’d have leverage to do some things. He’d love to bring all artists in the county together. In Ypsilanti, he’d like to do an art challenge for students. The city could do fundraisers and find matching grants, he said. Elected officials need to eliminate the word “can’t” from their vocabulary.

Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners

Five candidates for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners attended the July 23 forum: Felicia Brabec, Wilma Gold-Jones, Ruth Ann Jamnick, Andy LaBarre and Yousef Rabhi.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Felicia Brabec

Felicia Brabec, a Democrat from Pittsfield Township, is the incumbent representing District 4 on the county board. She is unchallenged in the primary, and faces Republican Stanley Watson on Nov. 4. [.pdf of Brabec survey response] Watson did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Democrat Felicia Brabec, a Democrat from Pittsfield Township, is the incumbent representing District 4 on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Brabec said she’s lucky that she grew up as an arts lover because of her parents. Her mom was an educator, and during many summers there was always one day a week when her family would go on excursions – to places like museums or concerts. Brabec and her husband try to encourage an appreciation of arts in their own children. She brought her son to the forum, and on the way over he asked what she planned to talk about. She reminded him of how they look for Sluggo and Philomena – characters by chalk artist David Zinn. “That’s part of our family culture,” she said.

At the county, there are some opportunities to support arts and culture. They can hang work by local artists and children in the county buildings, she said. The county also runs camps for kids, and being able to support arts education is a way to make a difference. It’s an important connection to make between arts and the community. Brabec also mentioned the revenue raised by levying a countywide Act 88 millage – a portion of that is used to invest in cultural preservation. She would continue to support that endeavor. The county also partners with local municipalities, she noted. District 4 includes Pittsfield Township, which recently installed its first public art piece at the township hall. She encouraged people to come out and see it.

Brabec concluded by reading a quote attributed to John F. Kennedy: “If arts is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.” Her hope is to support all local artists, to see where our community can go.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Wilma Gold-Jones

Wilma Gold-Jones is one of four Democrats running for District 5, which covers Augusta Township and part of Ypsilanti Township south of I-94.

Wilma Gold-Jones is one of four Democrats running for District 5, which covers Augusta Township and part of Ypsilanti Township south of I-94.

Other Democratic candidates are Ruth Ann Jamnick, Victor Dobrin and Keith Jason. The winner of the primary will face Republican Timothy King in November. The current commissioner from that district, Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr., is not seeking re-election. Gold-Jones did not complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Art is an educational tool, Gold-Jones said. Kids learn their creativity in school and are energized when they’re allowed to express themselves – through poetry, dance, music or other artistic ways. When she was a child, as an African American, she learned about her rich cultural heritage.

Learning about other cultures helps to dissipate fears and teaches people to appreciate each other. She said she’s not an artist, but she loves to dance.

Music is her way of expressing herself. She also likes to go to festivals and other arts and cultural events.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Ruth Ann Jamnick

Ruth Ann Jamnick is another Democrat running for the District 5 seat. [.pdf of Jamnick survey response]

Ruth Ann Jamnick is another Democrat running for the District 5 seat.

Jamnick began by saying she was born and raised in Ypsilanti, but graduated from St. Thomas school in Ann Arbor. In Ypsilanti Township, there’s a company called Sensitile that asked for a tax abatement to refurbish an old building. They do unique lighting for businesses and homes, she said. The township gave them a tax abatement, she reported.

So that’s one way that government can support businesses that are oriented “in a little bit of a different nuance than what most people think is art.”

Jamnick said she was probably the least “artist-type person” in the room. “My doodles are squares.” She’s been a volunteer for various organizations over the years, including the Heritage Festival and the Festival of Lights.

She would work with leaders in other communities to preserve historic buildings. In Augusta Township, for example, there are two hamlets that could be helped, she said. Funding is still tight, but she’s heartened that the state might be bringing back some deductions for the state income tax.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Andy LaBarre

Incumbent Democrat Andy LaBarre is running for a second two-year term to represent District 7 in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of LaBarre survey response] He’s unopposed in the primary, and faces Republican Joe Miriani in November. Miriani did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Incumbent Democrat Andy LaBarre is running for a second two-year term on the county board to represent District 7 in Ann Arbor.

LaBarre reported that on Monday night he was weeding his garden, and his mom came over to help. “As moms are wont to do, she was telling me a lot of things.” One of those things was a report that friends are coming to visit from London. His mom is meeting them in Chicago and on their way back to Ann Arbor, they’ll be stopping in Grand Rapids for an art festival. She told him that periodic interaction with the arts “recharges my soul.” And it does, he said. Brabec had done a good job in describing some of the ways that the county can support the arts, and he agrees with those. Sometimes people describe art as frivolous or not a basic function of government. “My pledge is that you’re not going to hear that from me.”

There are times when public money has to be spent on other things, but art itself is never a frivolous use of money or a waste of money. It connects you to who you are as a community, he said. To be honest, he added, the most he can do is to be open and receptive to ideas on how to expand the access to arts, and “how we can recharge souls.” That’s the job – don’t denigrate art, and try to promote it when they can, and be receptive to ways in which the arts affect people’s lives.

Washtenaw County Commissioners: Opening Statements – Yousef Rabhi

Yousef Rabhi is the incumbent Democrat in District 8, who current serves as chair of the county board of commissioners. The Ann Arbor resident is unopposed in the primary, and faces Republican Jeffrey Gallatin in November. Neither Rabhi nor Gallatin completed the Arts Alliance survey.

Ann Arbor resident Yousef Rabhi is the incumbent Democrat in District 8, who currently serves as chair of the county board of commissioners.

Rabhi said that for him, the definition of art is “the organic expression of the human spirit.” He feels that it’s essential to who we are as humans, and to who we are as a community. The founding of this country included the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he noted. “What is the pursuit of happiness if you don’t have art?” So as a fundamental value for government, for communities and for our very being, he said, the importance of art should go without saying. He agreed with the things that Brabec and LaBarre had highlighted, but he wanted to highlight a couple of things that deserve “a little bit more watering of the roots.”

The county invests in the Washtenaw Area Teens for Tomorrow and other youth alliances, he said, to facilitate artistic expression like music, painting and sculpture. Every year, there’s a showcase of youth art and it’s a phenomenal event, he said. Access to art is an important thing, and investment is needed. Art shouldn’t be just for the wealthy – it should be for everyone. That’s why the investments on the east side of the county are important, Rabhi said.

Everyone should be able to be an artist, if that’s their calling. Part of this is a public campaign, he added, to convince the public that art is important. People should be reminded that everyone is an artist, and the role of government should be to create a community canvas where everyone can paint their expression of the human spirit.

Washtenaw County Commissioners Q&A: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a countywide arts millage. Would you support it?

Yousef Rabhi: Rabhi joked that he always likes to talk about taxes. More revenue for art is a good thing. However, when thinking about a millage, it’s something the community has to support. A lot of effort and money would be spent on getting it passed, and that’s a challenge. “But if an arts millage is the way we want to go, then fine. I think that being strategic is important.” Rabhi said he’d advocate more strongly for finding new ways of funding local government in general, including art. “We’re being pinched at every corner.” It’s ridiculous that property taxes are the only way to fund local government in Michigan, and it’s limiting the ability to provide even basic services. Options might be a local sales tax, or a tax on special events – but those changes would need to happen at the state level, he noted. It’s important that state legislators understand that local government can’t continue by relying solely on millages.

Andy LaBarre: He wouldn’t support putting a countywide public art millage on the ballot in the next two to four years. He didn’t think it would pass, and it would be detrimental to efforts to pass possible millages for public safety or human services. But if it were on the ballot, “I’d vote for it,” he said. If the community wants to fund art locally, they need to look at what other tools exist or ask for new tools. He wished he would say that he absolutely supports a public arts millage, “but I think the ‘No’ crowd and the anti-government crowd is still strong.”

Ruth Ann Jamnick: She’d support a public arts millage, with the caveat that there should be a very clear distribution of funds. The county would need to tell people in each community how they’d get a share, and how it could be spent. Every community would want to know what’s going to come to their community, in terms of funding to enhance their quality of life. Ann Arbor is obviously the cultural center of Washtenaw County, she said, but outside of that, people would want to know what their community would get. So they’d need to be very careful about that.

Wilma Gold-Jones: She agreed with LaBarre about the need to convince the public that an arts millage would be for the greater good, when funding in general is very tight. Most creative energy comes through the schools, and through grants that leverage county funds. With that approach, it spills over into the community, she said. Gold-Jones agreed with Jamnick that each community would want to know what its share would be, and what it could fund. It’s important to look at this possibility and do their homework ahead of time, to make sure such a millage would provide the community with the best bang for their buck.

Felicia Brabec: Theoretically, she’d be in favor of an arts millage. However, she’d balance that with the reality of the county’s situation now. Other issues are on the table, including public safety and human services. It was helpful to hear some of the data in ArtServe’s Creative State report, Brabec said, but there are some other pressing needs. She’d try to balance those and ask constituents what they want. But in general, she agreed with Rabhi that more funding tools are needed.

Dexter Township Supervisor

Only one candidate from the townships attended the Arts Alliance forum – Democrat Michael Kundak-Cowall, who’s running for Dexter Township supervisor. [.pdf of Kundak-Cowall survey response] He is unchallenged in the primary, and in November will face the winner of the Republican primary – either Mark Wojno or Harley Rider. They did not attend the forum or complete the Arts Alliance survey.

Dexter Township Supervisor: Opening Statement

Michael Kundak-Cowall described Dexter Township “solidly rural,” located between Chelsea and Dexter but not including the village of Dexter.

Dexter Township supervisor candidate Michael Kundak-Cowall.

It has a population of about 6,000. The township budget currently has no money appropriated for the arts, he said. However, the township is home to a significant number of artists. Why? “First off, it’s just plain beautiful out there.” The township is at the edge of the Pinckney State Recreation Area, and there are several parks in the area. The infrastructure includes broadband access through Charter Communications, he noted. His neighbor is an oil painter, and the vocal music director for the Chelsea School District lives nearby.

To bring in more people, the township needs to improve its quality of life, Kundak-Cowall said. The township is on the edge of Detroit Edison’s energy grid, he said, so when power goes out, the township is usually among the last to get its power back. The vast majority of roads are unpaved, so whenever it rains there’s massive erosion and flooding, which sometimes makes the dirt roads impassable. A new substation is being built, which hopefully will improve the reliability of power, he said. The township is also doing what it can to help improve the roads, so you won’t have to renavigate the back roads when “part of the road is just kind of mysteriously washed away.”

So by spending less time taking care of your generator and less time trying to make sure the wheels of your car haven’t fallen off because of hitting a pothole, Kundak-Cowall said, you have more time to do what you want to do – whether it’s making art, or spending time with local artists.

Dexter Township Supervisor Q&A: As supervisor, are there concrete ways to support the local artists living in Dexter Township?

The township is currently running a budget surplus of about $200,000, Kundak-Cowall said. Some of that could be used for appropriations and grants, if the rest of the board agrees. That would be the most direct form. Right now the township hall is being renovated, and he’d appreciate art contributions for that. Most galleries in the area are in Dexter and Chelsea, outside of the township. The township appreciates all artists who contribute to the community, he said.

State Level Candidates

Three candidates at the state level attended the July 23 forum: Shari Pollesch, Gretchen Driskell and Jeff Irwin.

State Level Candidates: Opening Statement – Shari Pollesch

Democrat Shari Pollesch is running for a state Senate seat in District 22. The Livingston County resident is unchallenged in the August primary, and faces incumbent Republican Joe Hune on Nov. 4. Hune did not attend the July 23 forum.

Democrat Shari Pollesch is running for a state Senate seat in District 22.

The district covers Livingston County and western Washtenaw County, including the townships of Lyndon, Dexter, Webster, Northfield, Sylvan, Lima, Scio, Sharon, Freedom, Lodi, Manchester, Bridgewater, and Saline, as well as the villages of Dexter and Manchester, and the city of Chelsea. [.pdf of Pollesch survey responses] [.pdf of Hune survey responses]

Pollesch said she’s a strong believer in the arts in terms of education. Especially for at-risk kids, it’s one of the ways to keep them energized and interested in their education. She serves on the board of the Livingston County Concert Band, and they’ve talked about whether millages should be levied to help with the arts.

Any community that’s thriving is doing so in part because it has a thriving arts culture, she said. It’s the hallmark for quality of life. If elected, Pollesch said she’d support the arts and will continue to participate in the arts. “I’m much better at enjoying the arts than participation,” she joked, “but they let me play every week anyway.”

State Level Candidates: Opening Statement – Gretchen Driskell

Gretchen Driskell, a Saline resident, is the incumbent Democrat state Representative for District 52. She is unopposed in the Aug. 5 primary, and faces Republican John Hochstetler of Manchester in November.

Democrat Gretchen Driskell, state Representative for District 52, is seeking re-election.

Hochstetler did not attend the Arts Alliance forum or complete the candidate survey. District 52 covers the northern and western portions of Washtenaw County, including: the townships of Bridgewater, Dexter, Freedom, Lima, Lodi, Lyndon, Manchester, Northfield, Salem, Saline, Sharon, Sylvan and Webster; the cities of Chelsea and Saline; and portions of the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township and Scio Township. [.pdf of Driskell survey responses]

Driskell noted that she’s a freshman legislator and a former mayor of Saline. While serving as mayor, she started an arts & culture committee. She’s lived in this area for 26 years, and has served on various board and commissions that recognize the importance of arts and culture, including the economic importance. The creative sector attracts and retains people, she said. In the state legislature, she’s been working on two initiatives related to the arts. One is a bipartisan talent task force, and ArtServe had spoken to the group. It’s important to educate legislature about the importance of arts and culture. “There seems to be a huge disconnect,” she said, so that’s one thing she’s been working on.

The other effort Driskell cited is to increase investment in public education. Several school systems in District 52 are struggling, she noted, so more funding is needed. “Because as we all know, when education gets cut, they cut the things that they think are the soft things, which I strongly disagree with.”

State Level Candidates: Opening Statement – Jeff Irwin

Democrat Jeff Irwin is the incumbent state Representative for District 53, which covers the city of Ann Arbor. He is unopposed in the primary and will run against John Spisak in November. Neither Irwin or Spisak completed the Arts Alliance candidate survey.

District 53 state representative Jeff Irwin, an Ann Arbor Democrat, is seeking re-election.

Irwin focused on three priorities: money, marketing and education. He said that Driskell had done a good job identifying pressures on the education system. Ann Arbor has felt its fair share of those cuts, though the situation isn’t as bad here as elsewhere. The Lansing public schools cut all of their elementary school art teachers, he said, due to a lack of funding. The state needs to do a better job so that schools can focus on things like arts and culture that inspire kids to learn.

The second piece is marketing. The state spends a lot of money marketing economic development, Irwin said, but very little money marketing the economic development opportunities around the creative sector. If the Michigan Economic Development Corp. spent 10% of what they spent on marketing golf, and instead used that to market theaters and galleries, “I think our citizens would know a lot more about the excellent cultural offerings we have here in Michigan, and I think we’d get more bang for our buck.”

The final priority is money. At the end of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration and the depths of Michigan’s economic recession in 2008-2009, funding for the Michigan Council for the Arts was “beaten down to zero,” Irwin said. There’s been more support for the council in the past couple of state budgets, and if that trend continues, the funding will return to its former level and hopefully beyond, he said.

State Level Candidates Q&A: How would you make an argument for resources to support arts and culture, given that there are so many other pressing needs – from roads to education to social services?

Shari Pollesch: Arts and a thriving cultural community is the hallmark of our lifestyle, Pollesch said. “We can improve the roads – and god knows we need to improve the roads,” she added, “but people want more than roads.” We need to find a way to fund roads and education and the arts – it’s all one equation. “I would argue to find funding for all of it.” A millage might be one approach. She noted that other candidates – including Debbie Dingell and Jeff Irwin – touched on the fact that we don’t do a good job of promoting the arts as the reason why we’re living here, she said. “If we do a better job of selling these great amenities in our communities, people would be willing to fund it, if they know that the funding is being used responsibly.”

Gretchen Driskell: Part of attracting and retaining talent is quality of life, Driskell said, and that includes arts and culture at the top of the list. It’s important to educate state legislators about what quality of life means and how Michigan compares to other states, and why it’s an important investment at the state level. A recent report came out by Michigan Future Inc. that’s focused on prosperity, and compares Michigan to Minnesota. It specifically examines state policies, Driskell reported, and is very enlightening. The report looks at how investments are made for the public good – and arts and culture is a public good, she said. It’s an investment in quality of life, and helps attract and retain talent.

Jeff Irwin: When he advocates for these things in Lansing, he focuses mostly on what Driskell described – partially because that’s what Gov. Rick Snyder is saying and it’s an opportunity to work together and get something done. The argument for talent and economic development is a strong one. Irwin said he also makes arguments based on leveraging and proportionality. These types of investments bring a lot of bang for your buck. It’s something that people love and want to support in their community, so sometimes just a little public investment can be the foundation that private giving and volunteering can be built on. The argument of proportionality relates to spending in other areas, like education and roads. The state spends $15 billion each year on schools, and a little over $3 billion a year on roads – while the Michigan Council for the Arts struggles to reach $10 million in funding. Even if that funding were to increase by 50% or 100% to arts and cultural organizations, “it still would be pushing even a percent of what we’re putting into some of these bigger priorities.”

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

This amendment to the contract, given approval by the council at its June 16, 2014 meeting, adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. The East Stadium bridges art was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

The June 16 vote approving the funding was unanimous. It was preceded by a presentation, around 11 p.m., by John Kotarski and Bob Miller, the vice chair and chair of the city’s public art commission.

By way of additional background, in early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this public art project. 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 original proposal] The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval.

Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback] The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

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

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

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

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

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

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The city council’s last meeting of the 2014 fiscal year, on June 16, 2014, features an agenda packed with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure like bridges (including art), the sanitary sewer system and the stormwater system, as well as several resolutions related to construction of new sidewalks.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Part of the task force’s responsibility is to create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city.

The $75,000 cost for the pedestrian safety task force consultant is the same amount the council will be asked to allocate to support the work of Ann Arbor SPARK, a local economic development agency. The contract with SPARK is renewed annually, as is another contract on the June 16 agenda – for lobbying services from Governmental Consultant Services Inc. The GCSI contract is for $48,000.

Also on the council’s June 16 agenda are three items with a connection to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. One is the approval of an end-of-year budget adjustment that was already approved at the DDA board’s June 4, 2014 meeting. Another is approval of a $37,500 expenditure from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to help pay for an affordable housing needs assessment. At its June 4 meeting, the DDA board authorized a $37,500 grant for the same study.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items relate to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

Other downtown items on the council’s June 16 agenda include site plan approvals for First Martin’s hotel project at Ashley and Huron, and the Bank of Ann Arbor expansion at Fifth Avenue and Washington Street.

A resolution to improve Liberty Plaza, a downtown park at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty streets, also appears on the agenda – sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Added as sponsors since its initial appearance on the agenda are Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The council will be asked to approve four items related to supportive services for the criminal justice system: (1) a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services for the 15th District Court’s sobriety and mental health courts; (2) a $44,200 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court; (3) a $108,174 contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services; and (4) a $40,000 contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling is the final topic with multiple items on the June 16 agenda. The council will be asked to approve funds for a $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to create a multi-family recycling incentive pilot program. The council will also be asked to approve $39,480 to reimburse the city’s operator of its materials recovery facility for repair of a conveyor that feeds the baler. And finally, the council will be asked to approve $35,000 for Recycle Ann Arbor to provide solid waste services associated with student move-out activity.

The June 16 council meeting will also feature the annual historic district commission awards and the introduction of one of the Ann Arbor police department’s K-9 units, who won highest honors at a recent national certification trials event. This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items.

More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

The council will be asked to approve a $187,184 contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, and East Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.”

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget. The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

The council will be 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.

This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

By way of additional background, in early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this public art project. 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 original proposal] The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval.

Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback] The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

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

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

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

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

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

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project. The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.”

The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project. This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition.

The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

The council will be asked to approve a $149,500 contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4. The staff memo accompanying the item indicates that the project will renovate the existing restroom facilities to create two unisex restrooms and showers at each station. Facilities and ventilation in the locker room and restroom areas will be improved.

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The council will be asked to authorize transfer up to $157,264 in funds from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage fund to the stormwater fund – to authorize state revolving fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for the stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project, located at Veterans Memorial Park.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a state revolving fund loan is being used to fund the rain garden installation at the skatepark and to reimburse the city’s stormwater fund. Additional stormwater components were approved by the state for 50% loan forgiveness. The transfer of funds that the council is being asked to approve is necessary for the total debt payment of $118,632.00 plus 2% interest over 20 years. The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study. Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015.

The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda. The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

The council will be asked to approve a $570,900 contract with NuView Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system. The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

The council’s agenda features several items related to special-assessed sidewalk construction projects, as well as funding for a pedestrian safety and access task force. Four different special-assessed sidewalk construction projects are on the agenda – two public hearings to be held at the June 16 meeting (for Scio Church and Barton Drive) and two resolutions to set public hearings for future meetings (for Pontiac Trail and Stone School Road).

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

Two resolutions appear on the agenda in connection with construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail – one to direct the assessor to prepare an assessment roll, and another to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 21. The assessable cost is $72,218. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s a part of the city’s Complete Streets program. In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

The council has previously directed the preparation of a special assessment roll for a new sidewalk along the west side of Stone School Road. This work will be done in conjunction with the Stone School Road reconstruction project from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. The total sidewalk project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed. So the requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

The sidewalk on Barton Drive would extend eastward from Bandemer Park at Longshore Drive. The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment. The city council had voted at its May 19, 2014 meeting to set the assessment roll and to schedule the public hearing for June 16.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road. For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of $55,000 $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

The approval of this project comes in the context of the council’s budget deliberations last month, when an amendment was offered but rejected by the council that would have cut the FY 2015 budget allocation for art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and put the $40,000 is savings toward traffic calming projects. The amendment got support only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Traffic calming projects must undergo a neighborhood engagement process in which at least 60% of households support the designed project. In the case of the Larchmont project, 13 out of 15 households supported the project.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

The group has begun to meet and has elected Feldt to chair the task force. The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting.

But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services. This is an annual contract. At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the council spent roughly five hours of deliberations on amendments to the FY 2015 budget, and just under 30% of that time was spent on two amendments involving SPARK – neither of which were approved by the council.

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 hours 45 minutes by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services. One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Ann Arbor SPARK also receives money from other governmental units in Washtenaw County. In 2013, the $75,000 paid by the city of Ann Arbor to SPARK accounted for more than half of the $132,888 total contributed by all governmental units besides Washtenaw County. The county levies a tax under Act 88, and out of that levy, last year the county contributed $200,000, according to the information provided to the city by SPARK. [.pdf of 2013 "return on investment" from Ann Arbor SPARK] [.pdf of 2013 Ann Arbor SPARK projects]

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

As a part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for lobbying services. According to the memo accompanying the item, GCSI has contributed to Ann Arbor’s efforts to increase state funding for fire protection, land-use planning, and parks and recreation projects.

GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001. GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting. The main part of the adjustment is a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted by the DDA for last year, but not paid until this year.

The rest of the adjustment is attributable to expenditures out of the DDA’s housing fund – $500,000 of it to support Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects. The remaining $37,500 went to support a countywide housing needs assessment – an amount that was approved by the board at the same June 4 meeting in a separate vote. The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

The council will be asked to authorize $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to support the Washtenaw County housing needs assessment. The Ann Arbor DDA had approved the same amount at its meeting on June 4, 2014. Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

The firm selected by the OCED to do the needs assessment is czb LLC out of Virginia. [.pdf of RFP for the needs assessment] The current needs assessment will update a report done in 2007. According to a memo from OCED staff to the DDA, the final report will “provide a clear, easy to understand assessment of the local housing market, identify current and future housing needs, and provide specific and implementable policy recommendations to advance affordable housing.

The goal for this update is to include an analysis that links transportation cost and accessibility, as well as other environmental and quality of life issues to the location of affordable housing.” The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a purchase agreement with DTE to convert 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. The up-front cost of the conversion will be $69,555 – but that amount will be reduced to $55,060 after rebates. The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district. Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

Streetlight locations are mapped in the joint Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system. Data available by clicking on icons includes ownership as well as the lighting technology used. This one is a high pressure sodium light operating at 400 watts.

The project the DDA declined to fund this year would have included converting 100 watt MV (mercury vapor), 175 watt MV and 100 watt HPS (high pressure sodium) lights to 65 watt LED (light emitting diode). Further, 400 watt MV and 250 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 135 watt LED. Finally, 1000 watt MV and 400 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 280 watt LED. Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

In deliberations at the DDA board’s May 7 meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt opposed the grant, because the savings that would be realized accrues to the city of Ann Arbor, which pays the energy bills for the lights. Hewitt noted that the relationship between the city and the DDA includes a number of fund transfers to the city. Even though the amount is not huge, Hewitt said, the expenditure of several small amounts could eventually impair the DDA’s ability to pay for major infrastructure improvements.

Other board members joined Hewitt in their concerns, questioning what projects might be sacrificed if the DDA paid for the LED conversion. Concern was also expressed over the possibility that the result of a streetscape framework planning effort could result in a decision to replace all cobrahead lights in the downtown area with pedestrian-scale lampposts. And that would mean that the new LED fixtures would be used for only a short while.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

The council will be asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

To be considered separately by the city council are votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to increase the D2 height limit from 60 feet to 100 feet. Assuming the zoning change is made for the parcel at 425 S. Main, it would be the only D2 parcel in the character district. The changes to the character overlay district also include upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

The planning commission recommended both the changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission. That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting.

The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The planning commission gave a recommendation of approval at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the new building’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the main entrance for the restaurant or retail space is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required.

First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement. The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off. Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The planning commission recommended approval of the project at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. In total, the building would be 32,651 square feet after construction. The project is estimated to cost $4.2 million. [.pdf of staff memo]

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

According to the staff memo, the design “seeks to transform the current style from contemporary to traditional by replacing the yellow brick façade with brown and red-colored bricks and limestone-colored stone accents and trim and creating a brick and glass tower at the street corner to create a prominent entry.”

The original two-story building was constructed in 1965, which included the drive-thru window. An addition was completed in 1999. The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area. D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval.

The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff was comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Modifications to drive-thru regulations are in the works, but not yet enacted. The planning commission approved new drive-thru regulations earlier this year. Amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus received initial approval at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting, and received final approval at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), joined by Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the effort is supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. A report is to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Hieftje, Teall and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court. As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court.

Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court. The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services.

And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units. This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting.

The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away. The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016. According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

1. Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
2. Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
3. Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
4. Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
5. Implement pilot programs.
6. Analyze results of pilot programs.
7. Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

• Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
• Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
• Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
• 300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

The council will be asked to approve a $39,480 reimbursement to Resource Recovery Systems – the city’s contracted operator of its materials recovery facility (MRF) – for repair of the baler infeed conveyor belt. According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

According to the staff memo on the item, RAA’s proposal includes a staffed drop-off location at the corner of Tappan and Oakland streets during student fall and spring move-out periods. The site is also used to collect reusable items (through organizations such as the Salvation Army, Kiwanis, or the Reuse Center), bulky metal items, and recyclable materials.

-

-

4:10 p.m. Staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items. [.pdf of staff responses to June 16, 2014 agenda questions]

6:14 p.m. Paul Fulton of the city’s IT department is setting up the laptop with the Historic District Commission awards presentation. Thomas Partridge has already arrived.

6:48 p.m. Eppie Potts, who’s receiving the Preservationist of the Year Award tonight from the Historic District Commission, has arrived. She quips: “Usually I’m here to yell at them!”

7:08 p.m. The only councilmember not yet arrived is Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Mayor John Hieftje is here, but he seems to have stepped away for a bit. We’re basically ready to go.

7:09 p.m. Warpehoski is now here.

7:10 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Approval of agenda. All are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wants to note that there will be a resolution added on the settlement on the Goldstone case. City attorney Stephen Postema says it can go at the end.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers is thanking Chief John Seto for the Ann Arbor police department and Ann Arbor fire department event on Saturday, recognizing public safety officers for their bravery and service. He thanked Seto for the open house, where equipment was demonstrated. He’s announcing the grand opening of the skatepark on June 21. He’s thanking residents for their patience as the city rolls out its street reconstruction projects for the season.

7:14 p.m. INT-1 Introduction of Ann Arbor Police K-9 Murray and Officer Pat Maguire. Murray, the dog, is named after Vada Murray, an Ann Arbor Police Department officer who passed away a few years ago. His wife and children are in attendance.

7:15 p.m. Chief Seto is introducing Officer Maguire and K-9 Murray. The pair earned distinction in a recent trials competition.

7:16 p.m. INT-2 Presentation of Historic District Commission annual awards. This is the 30th annual presentation of the awards.

7:18 p.m. Tom Stullberg, chair of the HDC, is giving the presentation.

7:18 p.m. Rehabilitation Awards are presented in recognition of substantial work that returned a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration, facilitating contemporary needs but respecting the features of the property that are significant to its historic and architectural values.

7:18 p.m. University of Michigan For East Quad. Details: Built in 1940; $116 million renovation; replaced slate roof, restored leaded glass, replaced window glazing, restored exterior walls; repaired wood paneling and fireplaces in main floor lounges.

7:19 p.m. University of Michigan for Munger Residences, formerly called the Lawyers Club. Details: Built between 1923 and 1933; $39 million renovation; upgraded infrastructure, replaced slate roof (reusing many original pieces), repaired exterior masonry; added two elevators without compromising historical integrity.

7:19 p.m. Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, is on hand to accept the awards on behalf of UM.

7:20 p.m. Preservation Awards are presented in recognition of superior maintenance of a significant property to preserve its essential historical, cultural or architectural value for a period of 10 years or more.

7:20 p.m. Susan and Martin Hurwitz for 1520 Cambridge 1520 Cambridge. Details: Built in 1913 for Max and Clemence Winkler; Colonial Revival; round topped windows, classical surround of pilasters and broken pediment, prominent modillions; owned and maintained by Susan and Martin Hurwitz since 1991.

7:20 p.m. Kappa Alpha Theta (Eta Chapter): 1414 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1867 for Dr. Silas Pratt; Colonial Revival; remodeled by Louis H. Boynton when purchased by Kappa Alpha Theta in 1916; one of the first Greek letter organizations to locate on Washtenaw; received State of Michigan Historic Designation in 1983.

7:21 p.m. First Presbyterian Church for 1432 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1938; Gothic Revival in the English Country style; renovations in 1956 and 1998; Lancet windows with stained glass, buttresses, steep slate roof; stand of mature trees leading to main entry are remnants of the “picnic grove” that surrounded home at the previously occupying site.

7:21 p.m. Ann Arbor City Club for 1830 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1888 by Evart Scott as farmhouse; remodeled into Colonial Revival home by Louis H. Boynton when purchased in 1917 for Dr. R. Bishop Canfield; purchased by Ann Arbor Women’s City Club in 1951 and remodeled into clubhouse; 1962 addition designed by Ralph Hammett.

7:22 p.m. Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass for 13 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by local architect David Osler in 1964 for William and Margaret Mundus; Mid-Century Modern; five levels, mostly hidden from public view; renovation by Stan Monroe in 2012 to change third level into master bedroom and rebuild five decks; owned and maintained by Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass since 1999.

7:23 p.m. Howard Shapiro for 7 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by Alden Dow in 1964 for Joe Morris; three levels, views the Arb; flat roof with flared edges on the west, resembles three boxes with a hidden entry; influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright (Dow studied at Taliesin in the 1920s); owned and maintained by Dr. Howard Shapiro since 2002.

7:23 p.m. Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler for 1448 Broadway. Details: Built in 1852 by John Lennon; Greek Revival; typical early 19th century settler house; 950 square feet, 1½ story, side gable; small, historic barn behind house; owned and maintained by Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler since 1980.

7:24 p.m. Carol and Robert Mull for 1111 Fair Oaks. Details: Designed in 1916 by Fiske Kimball for James N. and Clara Petrie; inspired by Monticello and the White House; irregular floor plan: round rooms in center and rectangular rooms on sides; Ives Woods/Burns Park neighborhood; owned and maintained by Carol and Robert Mull since 1979.

7:25 p.m. Stone School Cooperative Nursery for 2811 Stone School. Details: Built in 1911 as a rural schoolhouse; incorporated materials from 1853 schoolhouse previously on site; original foundation stone and school bell and belfry; purchased and restored in 1995 by the Stone School Cooperative; listed on National Register of Historic Places in 1995.

7:25 p.m. John Hollowell for 844 W. Huron. Details: Built in 1872 by William H. Mallory; Gothic Revival; two porches, two bay windows, eared trim with elaborate scroll details; 1890s Victorian lamp posts from Belle Isle; Old West Side; owned and maintained by John Hollowell since 1970s.

7:26 p.m. Steve Sivak for 1158 Pomona. Details: Built in 1955 for Joseph and Emma Albano; Mid-Century Modern; long, low lines, prominent carport, exposed rafters, vertical cedar siding, flat roofs; large expanses of window glass on the sides, blank façade offering privacy from the street; owned and maintained by Steve Sivak since 1995.

7:27 p.m. Akhavan Rayhaneh for 2022 Delafield. Details: Built in 1958 by James P. Wong for Richard Hadden; “Bonnet house”; Mid-Century Modern; steeply pitched gable in front, floor to ceiling windows form part of façade, overhang has exposed rafters; owned and maintained by Akhavan Rayhaneh since 1989.

7:27 p.m. Special Merit Awards are presented in recognition of exceptional people, projects, landscapes or other unique preservation projects.

7:28 p.m. Susan Wineberg and Patrick McCauley: Authors of “Historic Ann Arbor: An Architectural Guide”; describes over 350 Ann Arbor buildings; includes 40 University of Michigan buildings; four years researching, documenting, photographing, and writing; valuable resource to anyone interested in architecture or history of Ann Arbor.

7:28 p.m. Preservationist of the Year is presented to an individual who has provided the city of Ann Arbor with exemplary services in the pursuit of historic preservation, incentives, and/or education.

7:28 p.m. Ethel K. Potts is the 2014 Preservationist of the Year. Details: attended the University of Michigan; served on city’s zoning board of appeals and the planning commission; advocate for historic preservation; mentor to future preservationists; “This city means a lot to me, its buildings and history must be maintained for generations to come.”

7:30 p.m. Potts is getting an enthusiastic ovation from the audience and councilmembers.

7:30 p.m. Recess. We’re in a short recess so that the awardees can exit.

7:37 p.m. We’re back.

7:37 p.m. Public Commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Two people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force, both of them members of the task force: Vivienne Armentrout and Linda Diane Feldt. Three people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK: Kai Petainen, Jeff Hayner and Dave DeVarti. Hayner’s second topic is the East Stadium bridges art installation. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about improved affordable housing and economic development.

7:40 p.m. Vivienne Armentrout is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force. She’s asking the council to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative. It’s already in the FY 2014 budget, so it’s “not new money,” she says. She says the task force is “itching” to take on its task. The task force needs the council’s support now, to continue its work – the task force has met three times so far. Armentrout is reviewing the responsibility the council gave the task force. She’s describing how some members of the task force participated in the selection of the facilitator, from the three who responded to the city’s RFP. [.pdf of Armentrout's remarks]

7:41 p.m. Kai Petainen is reading the following statement aloud: [Petainen public comment] [Ann Arbor SPARK 2013 annual report] and [21st Century Jobs Trust Fund 2013 Annual Report]

7:46 p.m. Linda Diane Feldt is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force – and she was elected chair of the group. She’s thanking the council for appointing her to the task force. She’s asking for the council’s support – in the form of approving the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative. She’d participated in the selection process of the consultant, she says. The process that will unfold will involve thousands of volunteer hours, she notes. The value of the work will far exceed the value of the contract, she says. The task force has already dived into its work. She’s noting that The Greenway Collaborative is a local firm with excellent qualifications.

7:49 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that the spirit of economic development is alive and well. There are many partners in this effort, including the UM Tech Transfer Office. He’s criticizing Ann Arbor SPARK for high salaries, but says they’re not using income for terrorist activities. He says that SPARK has misrepresented its results. He suggests revising the resolution to reduce the $75,000 to just 10% of that figure.

7:51 p.m. David DeVarti is a former city councilmember and former member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He’s speaking against the funding for SPARK, asking the council to deny it or table it. He allows that as a DDA member he had voted for money for SPARK. He’d been disappointed by what SPARK had produced, but he’d gone along to get along with mayor John Hieftje and with Bob Guenzel. He points out that $75,000 could go a long way for a human services agency. He asks that the council hold Ann Arbor SPARK to the same kind of standards as it does the human services agencies it has contracts with. That would create a real sense for the council for what SPARK is failing to provide in terms of documentation.

7:54 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a resident of Ward 5 as well as recent candidate for various public offices. He calls for improved funding for affordable housing and economic development. He wants the council to take direct responsibility for funding the elimination of homelessness and measurably increasing the amount of funding available for affordable housing.

7:59 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:59 p.m. Sally Petersen says that the LDFA board will be discussing an independent audit of the SmartZone at its meeting tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. She also notes that the LDFA board has heard the council’s interest in seeing investments in infrastructure.

7:59 p.m. Kunselman is talking about the activity of the nuisance committee, of which he’s the only member. He’s also explaining his research on the DDA terms. Attached to the agenda are old DDA records Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) retrieved from the University of Michigan Bentley Library. [link]

8:03 p.m. Kunselman is now talking about the issue of TIF refunds that were made by the DDA in the early 1980s. He’s now talking about the DDA’s development plan and the requirements for that plan in the statute. He’s calling for the council to work with the DDA to work on a new development plan. He’s pointing out that the city administrator is the city’s representative on the DDA board. He said he’s told city administrator Steve Powers that he expects the DDA will be following the law.

8:04 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is alerting people to the removal of some stop signs on Nixon Road near Green and Dhu Varren. This is a temporary measure related to nearby construction. She asks people to be careful. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is now talking about the same stop sign removal issue. There will be additional police enforcement, she says.

8:05 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) announces that the Michigan Theater has agreed to purchase the State Theater.

8:07 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is announcing that the environmental commission had three vacancies. There were 10 applicants. He says that tonight Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey are being presented as candidates to serve on the city’s environmental commission. The vote on their appointments will be at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

8:08 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of June 2, 2014 nominations. Nominated at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting for reappointment to the city planning commission were Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Nominated at that meeting for reappointment to the commission on disability issues were Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Those confirmations are being voted on tonight.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:08 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Audrey Wojtkowiak is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to fill the vacancy left by Christopher Geer. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as back next year.

8:08 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of June 2, 2014 nominations. Nominated at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting for reappointment to the city planning commission were Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Nominated at that meeting for reappointment to the commission on disability issues were Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Those confirmations are being voted on tonight.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:08 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Audrey Wojtkowiak is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to fill the vacancy left by Christopher Geer. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as bad next year.

8:14 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. On tonight’s agenda are five hearings:

• PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. This is a standard annexation into the city from Scio Township. The zoning for the 0.22 acre parcel at 375 Glenwood Street will be handled after the annexation is complete.
• PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. This is the site plan for the addition on the building at Fifth Avenue and Washington streets. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]
• PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. This is the site plan for First Martin’s hotel project. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]
• PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]
• PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]

8:15 p.m. PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. Thomas Partridge says that the property should be required to have access to public transportation.

8:16 p.m. That’s it for this public hearing.

8:19 p.m. PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. Ray Detter is expressing support for this project. It takes a building that has been criticized as being “suburban” and making it an asset, instead of building something that is 180 feet tall, even though the site’s zoning would allow for that.

8:20 p.m. Thomas Patridge is advocating for a requirement that access for public transportation be provided at the site. The bank should be a good corporate citizen and give priority to considerations like that.

8:21 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is pointing out that the current site has Juneberry trees that are just now becoming ripe, and they are delicious. He hopes that the site after renovation will also have good landscaping.

8:22 p.m. PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. Ray Detter is expressing support for the project. He notes that a part of the project will preserve the facade of the bus depot.

8:22 p.m. PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. No one speaks during this public hearing.

8:26 p.m. PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. Jeff Hayner says this is his neighborhood. He thanks everyone in the room and in the neighborhood who came together to get this done. It’s been at least 12 years in the works, he says. He encourages the pedestrian task force to take a look at the area. He’s questioning the cost for the project, however. It would have a long-term positive impact, he said. No offense to the public art commission, he says, but the council will be voting on $350,000 for decorative elements on the East Stadium bridges, when the approach to the bridge is in terrible shape.

8:26 p.m. Council minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:26 p.m. Consent Agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve DTE LED Conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). [For additional background, see (Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion above.]
• CA-2 Approve contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. ($62,800).
• CA-3 Approve purchase of hydrofluorosilicic acid for water treatment from PVS Nolwood Chemicals (estimated $34,000/yr).
• CA-4 Amend service purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner (increase of $30,000 for FY 2014 & FY 2015).
• CA-5 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for solid waste student move-out services ($35,000/yr). [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services above.]
• CA-6 Award contract for 8th Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement to Fonson Inc. ($47,193). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Manholes above.]
• CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK above.]
• CA-8 Approve amendment to contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for mental health court ($44,200).
• CA-9 Approve amendment to contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services to sobriety court and mental health court participants ($76,242).
• CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000).
• CA-11 Street closings for the Firecracker 5K (Friday, July 4, 2014).
• CA-12 Street closings for Sonic Lunch (Thursday, July 10, 2014 and Thursday, July 31, 2014).
• CA-13 Street closing for the 2014 Washtenaw Indie Awards, Saturday (June 28, 2014).
• CA-14 Approve contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for Lobbying Services ($48,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: GCSI Lobbying above.]
• CA-15 Approve May 22, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration ($66,142).

8:27 p.m. Outcome: The council approved the consent agenda except for items CA-1, CA-7 and CA-10.

8:30 p.m. CA-1 Approve DTE LED conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). Kunselman says he’s happy this is coming along. He has a question about why the DDA is not funding the project for conversion of lights inside the DDA district. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy says that the general fund pays for streetlights.

Nate Geisler, the city’s energy programs analyst, is explaining that the DDA is undertaking a streetscape framework planning effort and that gave rise to hesitancy by DDA board members to pay for converting those lights at this time.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman questions whether the DDA will be able to implement its streetscape framework plan without council approval, because they are city streets. Kunselman points out that there are cobrahead lights that are out on Division Street. “Point taken,” Hupy says.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje says that DTE owns the lights, but the city pays the electric bill. The DDA had historically paid for conversion of the LED lights. Briere recalls taking a series of tours with downtown merchants to look at the lights and how the lights work. She asks if Hupy can provide information by the next council meeting about which lights in the downtown have been decommissioned and not removed, or are otherwise not working.

8:35 p.m. Lumm is talking about doing LED conversion when a repair is needed.

8:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-1 on the consent agenda.

8:37 p.m. CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). Kailasapathy notes that she’d requested some information about SPARK when the council had debated the FY 2015 budget. She has concerns about the job creation numbers. She’s not talking about LDFA money, just the $75,000 from the general fund. She’s now reviewing the contributions of other municipalities, compared to the $75,000 that the city of Ann Arbor contributes.

8:39 p.m. Relative contributions that she’s discussing are here: [link]

8:42 p.m. Kailasapathy is reviewing the tax rebate given to Mahendra. She says she will not support the SPARK contract.

8:44 p.m. Petersen says that the concerns about the presentation of metrics are valid, but these are the metrics that were chosen. SPARK doesn’t tell companies where to locate, she says. She compares SPARK to the Welcome Wagon. Large floor-plate office space doesn’t exist in Ann Arbor, she says, but it does in Pittsfield Township. SPARK is agnostic about there companies locate, and she allows that Pittsfield is getting a better deal than Ann Arbor. SPARK isn’t taking sole credit for job creation, she says. She’ll support this, because SPARK is the only economic development agency we have.

8:45 p.m. Eaton moves to table, and points out that such motions don’t allow debate.

8:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-5 to table this resolution. Voting to table were Kunselman, Kailsapathy, Eaton, Anglin, Briere, and Lumm.

8:48 p.m. CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000). Taylor, an attorney with Hooper Hathaway, provides legal services to this firm and asks the council to vote to allow him not to participate in the vote. They take that vote. He takes a seat in the audience.

8:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-10 on the consent agenda.

8:48 p.m. C-1 425 S. Main Street rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District). The council is being asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted. First up is the zoning. The next item will involve the character district overlay. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

8:49 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s representative to the planning commission, is reviewing the resolution. She encourages her colleagues to move it forward to a second reading.

8:51 p.m. Anglin is raising the question of heights in D2 – and ventures that D2 zoning is supposed to be 60 feet. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is now at the podium. She’s explaining the notion of “base zoning” – that’s D1 or D2 – and the character overlay districts. The height restrictions are not part of the base zoning, but rather the character overlay districts.

8:54 p.m. Kunselman elicits the fact that the Ashley Mews development, across the street, is a planned unit development (PUD) and is 110 feet tall.

8:55 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is glad to see this come forward, but he’ll have some questions about the character district resolution. He notes that the focus had been on the Huron Street corridor, but he’d asked that this parcel be included in the review of the downtown zoning. He says that D2 is the appropriate zoning, and he’s grateful that the parcel was included in the scope of the review as he’d requested.

8:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of 425 S. Main from D1 to D2.

8:56 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

9:05 p.m. C-2 Main Street Downtown character overlay zoning districts building massing standards. This is the second of two downtown zoning items. The focus of the deliberations will likely be the 100-foot height limit the planning commission has recommended for the D-2 zoned area of the Main Street character area. All other D-2 areas of the downtown have a 60-foot height limit. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

9:07 p.m. Briere is reviewing the planning commission discussion on this item. She says the commission had heard from many members of the community on this issue. The commission had split on this 6-3. [Briere voted as one of the three dissenters.] She’s explaining the rationale for those in the majority – that it would be suitable to terrace a 100-foot building away from the neighborhood.

9:09 p.m. But Briere points out that the city council’s resolution stated D2 at 60 feet. The basic premise of the majority was that even in winter there would be available sunlight, but Briere didn’t think that was the main issue.

9:10 p.m. Lumm complains that there’s no minutes available from the planning commission’s deliberations on the 6-3 vote. [Deliberations are reported in detail in The Chronicle's report of the planning commission's May 6, 2014 meeting.] Lumm asks planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain why the planning commission changed the height from 60 feet to 100 feet.

9:13 p.m. Rampson is reviewing basis of the planning commission’s decision. The commission felt that a 100-foot height would provide some flexibility so that someone would not try to build out the site to 60 feet everywhere on the parcel as one massive building. Rampson says the minutes will be ready by the council’s next meeting, noting that the commission’s meeting was very long.

9:17 p.m. Anglin says this is a unique site. His fear is that the council will be asked to approve the change on a second reading at its next meeting. Now is the chance for the council to set the zoning correctly. He doesn’t want to start the ball rolling toward a second reading on a time schedule. He doesn’t want to approve this tonight.

9:18 p.m. Kunselman asks Rampson what the zoning was before the A2D2 process. It was C2-A or C2-AR, she thinks. There were no height limits. Kunselman notes that this would be the only D2 with a height limit of 100 feet. Why not just leave it D1 and reduce the allowable height from 180 feet to 100 feet?

9:21 p.m. Rampson tells Kunselman that the point of A2D2 was to provide certainty for a property owner about what could be built. He ventures that that never works, and that’s why he’d voted against the A2D2 zoning. He agrees with Anglin that he wouldn’t support moving it forward tonight. Warpehoski says he’s also concerned, but says that moving it to second reading would allow the setting of a public hearing, which would provide a chance for people to weigh in.

9:23 p.m. Petersen asks Anglin if he’s making a motion to postpone. Anglin is reiterating his point that it’s important to set the zoning the way the council wants. Briere says she’s reviewed The Chronicle’s report of the planning commission meeting. Those who spoke at the public hearing were not the adjacent neighbors, she says. She really wants to return it to the planning commission. She moves to refer it to the planning commission for reconsideration.

9:25 p.m. Hieftje says this would accomplish Anglin’s objective. Kunselman says he’ll support this. Lumm says she’ll support Briere’s motion. Lumm was surprised to see the recommendation from the planning commission, as it was different from the council’s direction.

9:26 p.m. Taylor says that moving something from first to second reading is a well-established way to solicit additional input, and he’d oppose the motion to refer it back to the planning commission as an unnecessary step.

9:28 p.m. Briere says Taylor is right about the procedure being well-established, but she appeals to an argument that Leigh Greden had made when he was on the council: He knew that he’d be voting against it at second reading, so it was a waste of time to vote to move it to second reading. Petersen is saying she supports referring it back to planning commission.

9:30 p.m. Hieftje asks Briere if there were people on the planning commission who were on the fence: Would she expect a different outcome from the planning commission? Briere says she thinks there were some people on the fence. She stresses that zoning is the council’s purview. She says there’s no harm and no foul in saying to the commission: This is not quite what we want.

9:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer back to the planning commission the the Main Street character district overlay for D2, after amending the height limit recommended by the planning commission – from 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:32 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema whispers something in Hieftje’s ear. Hieftje points out that the zoning change to which the council had given initial approval is impacted by the council’s decision to refer the character district question back to the planning commission.

9:35 p.m. The council reconsiders item C-1.

9:35 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to table C-1.

9:38 p.m. The council is now reconsidering item C-2. Warpehoski is arguing for moving it along, based on the fact that the parcel is currently zoned D1 where a structure that’s 180 feet tall can be built. Taking a step toward rezoning it to D2 is a step forward. Kunselman suggests replacing the references to 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:39 p.m. Kunselman says if the public wants a height limit greater than 60 feet, the council will hear that.

9:40 p.m. Briere says that this seems simple, but there’s all kinds of other language in the character district that refers to stepped back construction. She says this is about by-right development, so it’s important that the council get it right.

9:43 p.m. Eaton is suggesting that the First Street character overlay language be swapped in. Rampson points out that the First Street character was designed for the industrial buildings abutting the Allen Creek corridor.

9:44 p.m. Warpehoski asks if council and planning commission need to be in concurrence on this. No, Rampson says. That’s just for the master plan.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman asks if the council approves the change to 60 feet, would the planning staff can clean up the other language before the second reading?

9:48 p.m. Based on Rampson’s response, Kunselman thinks the planning staff can deal with the other language, and describes not voting on a final change until October or November. Anglin is complaining about Stalinist architecture and how developers threaten to build those kinds of buildings.

9:50 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment is approved over dissent from Taylor.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has given initial approval to C-2 as amended.

9:51 p.m. C-1 The council now takes up C-1 off the table.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to C-1.

9:52 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:58 p.m. We’re back.

9:58 p.m. DC-1 Improve Liberty Plaza. This resolution would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…” Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. [For additional background, see Downtown: Liberty Plaza above.]

9:59 p.m. Taylor is explaining the background to the resolution. He says there’s been a good deal of discussion about people’s aspirations for downtown parks not at Liberty Plaza. But Liberty Plaza is already there, even though it does not meet our “collective aspirations,” he says. Ann Arbor needs a downtown park that is vibrant and has green space.

10:02 p.m. Petersen says she’d originally had a concern that the resolution didn’t incorporate Library Lane. She feels strongly that the entire block should be considered as a whole. Petersen moves to refer the issue to the park advisory commission. Hieftje suggests to Petersen that the council can talk about it a bit. He says that he sees this resolution as a reaction to work that PAC has already done in making recommendations on downtown parks.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman questions the funding allocation. He says that the city has just one park planner – Amy Kuras. So he was not sure he wanted to place that responsibility on her. He wondered why direction had to be given to staff and PAC, saying that PAC doesn’t need direction to act in this manner. He suggests that the University of Michigan landscape architecture students could be a partner on the design. He notes that Mike Martin is attending the meeting, but wouldn’t call him to the podium. [Martin is attending because of a resolution related to a hotel project by First Martin Corp., which comes later on the agenda.]

Kunselman has heard rumors that First Martin is planning to demolish the Michigan Square building (west of Liberty Plaza) in the next year, and he wants to know if that’s true before redesigning the park.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman said that the problem of people hanging out at Liberty Plaza wouldn’t be solved through redesign. But the UM had solved its problem with people hanging out at State and North University by doing the only thing that works – removing the seating. He says that it’s important to have downtown beat cops. He says he’ll support Petersen’s motion to refer it back to PAC.

10:10 p.m. Hieftje asks Powers to comment. Powers says the amount was the amount included in the “parks fairness” budget resolution. He doesn’t know if it’s enough money. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, comes to the podium.

10:13 p.m. Briere is reflecting on her perceptions of Liberty Plaza. She was happy to see it on the agenda, and had added her name as a sponsor. She didn’t know if this was enough money. She supports it but doesn’t object to referring it to PAC.

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

10:21 p.m. Lumm says she’s going to propose some amendments to this resolution. She’s adding language about an “integrated plan for the Library Block.” She’s ticking through a number of amendments to various resolved clauses.

10:21 p.m. Taylor says that Lumm’s amendments are not “friendly,” so the council will need to vote on the amendments.

10:23 p.m. Hieftje says he’s been told by experts that without the newsstand downstairs and the restaurant adjacent to it, Liberty Plaza can’t succeed because it doesn’t have “eyes on the park.”

10:26 p.m. Hieftje is contrasting Liberty Plaza with Sculpture Plaza, at Fourth and Catherine. He says Liberty Plaza needs to be redesigned. He doesn’t mind postponing this, but wanted the council to talk about this tonight. He describes the resolution as providing seed money. Liberty Plaza has been “festering” there for quite some time. Petersen says there’s a shining light in Liberty Plaza, which is the sensory garden, and she hopes that if Liberty Plaza is redesigned, an alternate place can be found.

10:28 p.m. Teall says that Library Lane and Liberty Plaza are not connected. It’s asking too much of the resolution to expect it to connect the whole block.

10:29 p.m. Teall says that many people have responded to the Library Green Conservancy by saying that we should focus on improving Liberty Plaza, but no one has done that. This resolution would do that.

10:30 p.m. Warpehoski is sizing up how he sees the issue.

10:30 p.m. Lumm has now sent her amendments around via email.

10:35 p.m. Petersen reiterates the desirability of connecting Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, even if they are not currently connected. Taylor allows that integrated planning on a large scale does on occasion make sense. But he feels that a park that is already here and that has design challenges can be addressed. “These parks will not be connected,” he says, because there is private land between them.

10:36 p.m. Eaton is arguing for considering Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane lot at the same time, as they have many common traits.

10:37 p.m. Eaton will support Lumm’s amendments as well as Petersen’s motion to refer it to PAC.

10:39 p.m. Powers clarifies that the money in the resolution is in the FY 2015 budget. Anglin feels that it’s a budget amendment and might need 8 votes. Powers explains that it’s not a budget amendment, because the money is already there, so it doesn’t need 8 votes.

10:39 p.m. Briere says she’ll support the amendments.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s an easement that connects the Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, and a gate that First Martin uses to periodically block off access so that there’s no opportunity for adverse possession.

10:42 p.m. Kunselman wonders if First Martin is interested in working with the city. Putting up a retaining wall, blocking the stair and back filling the area is essentially the basic option, Kunselman.

10:43 p.m. Hieftje says that there’s no easement, as Kunselman had contended. Mike Martin, from the audience, tells Hieftje that he’s right.

10:44 p.m. Hieftje says that if this resolution is attached to the Library Lane project, it will take years to accomplish anything, he cautions.

10:48 p.m. Here are Lumm’s amendments: [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

10:49 p.m. Warpehoski is citing parliamentary procedure: a motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend. So he’s moving to refer the unamended resolution to PAC.

10:51 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to refer the resolution without her amendments.

10:54 p.m. Kunselman asks Taylor why this was not brought up to PAC before bringing it to council. Taylor says it’s not necessary, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. If passed as drafted, it would have established Liberty Plaza as a priority of the council. Hieftje notes that the referral is now the question before the council.

10:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer to PAC the unamended resolution allocating funds to move forward a process for the redesign of Liberty Plaza.

10:56 p.m. Closed Session. A vote to go into closed session fails. So the council votes instead to suspend the rule on a unanimous vote required for going into closed session after 11 p.m.

10:56 p.m. They’re still in open session.

10:56 p.m. DC-2 Approve 2014 Ann Arbor Jaycees Carnival. The event will take place at Pioneer High School June 25 to June 29, 2014.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Jaycees Carnival.

10:57 p.m. DC-3 Kids Day This resolution was added to the agenda just today, so it’s not a part of the consent agenda with other street closing resolutions. This would close State Street between William and Washington for Kids Day on Saturday, June 28, 2014 from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closing for Kids Day.

10:57 p.m. DB-1 Approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation 0.22 Acre, 375 Glenwood Street. This is a standard annexation, from Scio Township.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation.

10:57 p.m. DB-2 Approve Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters addition. The council is being asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for the Bank of Ann Arbor addition.

10:57 p.m. DB-3 Approve 116-120 West Huron Street Site Plan and Development Agreement (First Martin hotel). The council is being asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the First Martin hotel project.

10:57 p.m. DB-4 Approve Amendment to contract with Widgery Studio, LLC to fabricate and install public art at the Stadium Boulevard Bridges ($353,552). The council is 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. This amendment to the contract on tonight’s council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Art above.]

10:59 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the discussions the council has had in the past on the public art program and the return of much of the money to the funds of origin. She remains unconvinced that this is the optimal investment the city could make with the money. She’s thanking members of the art commission for their effort. “It is a nice project,” she says.

11:00 p.m. Teall is inviting John Kotarski and Bob Miller to the podium to give a presentation on the bridges art. They are vice chair and chair, respectively, of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

11:08 p.m. Lumm is asking about the approach to the bridge to the west. Bob Miller notes that the art is located at Rose White Park. At that location looking west, he doesn’t think it’s going to conflict. Kunselman is asking about the durability of the glass panels. Is it replaceable? Yes, explains Miller, they can be replaced one louver at a time.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the funding for fabrication and installation of public art at East Stadium Boulevard bridges.

11:11 p.m. DB-5 Approve $37,500 for affordable housing needs assessment. Kailasapathy expresses concern that the trust fund should be used for capital construction. It’s a small amount, but the small amounts can chip away at the balance, she says. Briere reads aloud the policy, which allows money in the affordable housing trust fund to be used for analysis, which this is.

11:14 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. She allows that perhaps the policy on allocation could use some updating.

11:16 p.m. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, has been asked to the podium to explain how the assessment will start. The policy on allocation of funds does need to be updated, Callan says. The housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB) is interested in working on that with the city, she says.

11:20 p.m. Kunselman asks CFO Tom Crawford to the podium. Kunselman ventures that there is no affordable housing trust fund, but rather just an account where the city keeps track. Crawford explains that for the city’s audit, the fund is folded into the general fund. It’s noted as a restricted line item. Kunselman is proposing to change the allocation from the affordable housing trust fund to the general fund. This is just a study, he says, and he doesn’t think the city should be using the affordable housing fund for that.

11:22 p.m. Lumm prefers to use the affordable housing fund. Hieftje agrees with Lumm. The needs assessment will guide the construction of affordable housing, he says.

11:24 p.m. Briere says that the existing policy does not specify only capital investment, so she wants to pay for it out of the affordable housing fund.

11:25 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment fails, with support only from Kunsleman, Eaton, Warpehoski, Angin, and Kailasapathy.

11:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to pay for the housing needs assessment.

11:26 p.m. DS-1 Approve a Contract with NuView, Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system ($570,900). The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

11:26 p.m. Lumm has asked a staff member from HR to explain this in detail.

11:27 p.m. The topic is recruitment of veterans. The goal is to make the “onboarding” of candidates paperless.

11:28 p.m. Not all the data will be migrated to the new system. The systems will run parallel for a month or more as a safety check.

11:29 p.m. Kailasapathy is pleased to see the five-year cumulative savings that was provided by the staff analysis.

11:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with NuView for the human resources and payroll system.

11:30 p.m. DS-2 Transfer funds to authorize State Revolving Fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project (Not To Exceed $157,264). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the the transfer of funds in connection with the skatepark rain garden.

11:31 p.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services ($108,174). [For additional background, see Courts Human Services above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Dawn Farm.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Set assessment roll for Pontiac Trail Sidewalk ($72,218) [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the assessment roll for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk.

11:31 p.m. DS-5 Set public hearing for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project – for July 21.

11:32 p.m. DS-6 Set public Hearing for the Stone School Road sidewalk project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment project – for July 7.

11:32 p.m. DS-8 Approve a contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker Rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4 ($149,500). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with ERC for fire station restroom renovation.

11:33 p.m. DS-9 Approve award of a construction contract to Lanzo Lining Services Inc. Michigan for the 2014 sewer lining project ($1,566,121). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining above.]

11:34 p.m. Lumm is asking what all is included. The answer from staff is that there could be additional locations where work could be done.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Lanzo Lining Services.

11:34 p.m. DS-10 Award a construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks water main replacement project ($1,324,357). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Water Main above.]

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to award the construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc.

11:34 p.m. DS-11 Approve installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont Drive ($55,000). The project would install three speedhumps. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming above.]

11:35 p.m. Lumm says that the neighborhood is so excited – as the application went in five years ago. She’s thanking staff who worked on this.

11:38 p.m. Eaton notes that $60,000 had been budgeted for the whole year. Is this $55,000 taking up most of the whole year’s budget? Nick Hutchinson is explaining that the $55,000 that’s being brought forward is from FY 2014. The actual cost of this particular project is just $8,800, Hutchinson explains.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont.

11:39 p.m. DS-12 Approve a contrast with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, E. Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project ($187,184) According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.” [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges above.]

11:41 p.m. Briere wants to know if the amenities that would complete the Border-to-Border Trail are included in this work. Hupy explains that this resolution is for maintenance of existing bridge structures. Kunselman says it’s his understanding that there’s a lot of “human activity” near the location. He wants to know if assistance will be provided to those people who are living in tents. Hupy says there will be plenty of notice given before construction starts.

11:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the bridges rehabilitation project.

11:42 p.m. DS-13 Approve a contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety and access task force ($75,000). This is a contract that had originally been recommended by staff to be awarded to a different vendor, but without issuing an RFP. After issuing an RFP, The Greenway collaborative was selected. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant above.]

11:42 p.m. Lumm thanks Powers and staff for listening to the concerns of council on this project.

11:43 p.m. Lumm is concerned that this effort could be expanded in its scope and could require additional funding.

11:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety task force.

11:43 p.m. DS-14 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for multi-family recycling incentive pilot program ($95,694). This resolution is based on recommendations in the city’s solid waste plan. [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot above.]

11:46 p.m. Kunselman asks RAA staff to come to the podium. Kunselman says that he’s heard it might be the last opportunity he has to ask Tom McMurtrie a question. “As a city employee,” that’s correct, McMurtrie says. Kunselman gets clarification that it’s city employees who do trash collection. He asks what kind of outcomes could be expected.

11:48 p.m. The RAA staff member says the point of the study is to understand the nuances of recycling in multi-family units: transience, language barriers, a willingness to go down from the third floor to put recyclables in container. They want to figure out what makes multi-family units tick. It’s a nut that no one nationally has cracked, he says.

11:50 p.m. Lumm is talking about Palo Alto and Seattle as benchmarks. She asks how much improvement McMurtrie thinks is possible. Based on the percentage of recyclables in the waste stream, McMurtrie thinks there’s potential for improvement.

11:53 p.m. Lumm asks why the work needs to be contracted out. Hupy indicates to Lumm that in him and McMurtrie she’s looking at the staff. Taylor says he thinks this is great – as it’s an area where improvement is needed. Hieftje ventures there’s a “gold mine” out there as far as how much additional material can be recycled in multi-familiy housing units.

11:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a multi-family recycling incentives pilot program.

11:53 p.m. DS-15 Reimburse Resource Recovery Systems for repair of baler infeed conveyor at the Material Recovery Facility ($39,480). RSS operates the city’s material recovery facility under a contract. The typical pattern is for RSS to handle the replacement of equipment with reimbursement from the city. [For additional background, see Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair above.]

11:55 p.m. Teall invites McMurtrie to the podium to congratulate him on his retirement. Solid waste has changed so much in the time that Teall has been on the council. McMurtrie notes that it’s been almost 24 years and he finds it rewarding to do work that touches on every single resident.

11:55 p.m. Teall invites McMurtrie to the podium to congratulate him on his retirement. Solid waste has changed so much in the time that Teall has been on the council. McMurtrie notes that it’s been almost 24 years and he finds it rewarding to do work that touches on every single resident.

11:56 p.m. Hupy says that there’s a new staff member who’ll be taking over for McMurtrie. McMurtrie’s retirement party will be held on July 1 from 3-5 p.m.

11:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the reimbursement to RSS for repair of the MRF baler infeed conveyor.

11:56 p.m. DS-16 Amend Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority budget for fiscal year 2014. This is a routine type of adjustment, which has been approved by the DDA board. [For additional background, see Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment above.]

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amendment of the DDA budget.

11:59 p.m. DS-17 Goldstone vs. Warner settlement.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve a $35,000 settlement.

12:01 a.m. Briere to planning commission. As a result of the background work by the city attorney’s office on terms of appointments to boards and commissions, it was determined that Briere needed to be reappointed in order to continue to serve beyond the end of June.

12:02 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Briere’s appointment to the planning commission until Nov. 17, 2014.

12:02 a.m. Communications from council. Briere has now invited Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko to the podium because he had not had an opportunity to answer questions on the SPARK funding item, which was tabled earlier in the meeting. Krutko says that SPARK is a complicated organization. Krutko says that two reports that had been questioned by a member of the public were about two different activities – work for the state compared to work for Ann Arbor. There’s a variety of reports that SPARK has to provide. He’s sorry that it’s confusing, he says.

12:07 a.m. Krutko is now responding to more questions from Briere.

12:15 a.m. Lumm is telling Krutko that she shares the concerns about SPARK’s reporting. She doesn’t have a problem with the $75,000. She’s saying that more councilmembers wanted to table instead of postpone. She’s reviewing the importance of being good stewards of public funds. Now there’s back and forth between Lumm and Krutko. Lumm says that once a reconciliation of the numbers is achieved, then everyone will be comfortable.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman is now talking about the complexity of economic development. Kunselman asks if layoffs are computed as a part of the jobs numbers.

12:18 a.m. Krutko says there are 22 SPARK staff members. Responding to the lower unemployment figures in this area, Kunselman quips: Thank god for you!

12:21 a.m. Taylor expresses his concern about the tabling and calls it a “self-inflicted wound.” Ann Arbor had a reputation previously for being against growth, he says. That had changed. But now this was a step backward, Taylor says. He indicates that the council had not made a responsible, professional and temperate decision.

12:23 a.m. Warpehoski expresses his dismay that the council had tabled the SPARK resolution (without debate). Kunselman is now taking a turn, defending the tabling action as opposed to postponing.

12:24 a.m. Kailasapathy says she looks at it as a question of how much Ann Arbor taxpayers give – through Act 88 money, which is levied countywide.

12:25 a.m. Kailasapathy says that the council has not said that it won’t pay the $75,000. It’s a matter of getting the information and getting the numbers reconciled, she says.

12:27 a.m. Petersen regrets she used the term, “Welcome Wagon” to describe SPARK’s work – because SPARK is more complex than that. She says that when councilmembers had questions in advance of the FY 2015 debate, they’d had some additional questions and they were given answers within a week.

12:28 a.m. Petersen says that some of the questions have been asked only very recently and many of the questions about SPARK have been answered.

12:31 a.m. Lumm says she would have preferred to postpone instead of tabling, but she knew it would be taken up back up off the table. Briere says she plans to bring this back on July 1 [but the council's next meeting is not until July 7].

12:33 a.m. Teall says she is angry not just that the SPARK resolution was tabled but that there was a rush to table. She reiterates that she’s angry about the fact that the council has departed from the style of interaction that they’d agreed to at their planning retreat.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje is ticking through standard talking points in support of SPARK and economic development.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje says that the tabling was “over the top.”

12:35 a.m. Clerk’s Report. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

12:35 a.m. Public Comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:37 a.m. Kai Petainen says that the difference in the jobs numbers reported by Ann Arbor SPARK and the state stems from how the numbers are reported. He’s reading aloud a note about intent to hire as being recorded as a success, but in the other report there are actual jobs reported.

12:39 a.m. Edward Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He said he thought they tabled something earlier in the meeting, but had they then discussed it at length later. They can discuss whatever they like, but he calls it “not a stunning display of council effectiveness.”

12:40 a.m. Closed Session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

1:05 a.m. We’re back.

1:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the June 16, 2014 meeting agenda.

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city is part of task force’s responsibility.

The $75,000 cost for the pedestrian safety task force consultant is the same amount the council will be asked to allocate to support the work of Ann Arbor SPARK, a local economic development agency. The contract with SPARK is renewed annually, as is another contract on the June 16 agenda – for lobbying services from Governmental Consultant Services Inc. The GCSI contract is for $48,000.

Also on the council’s June 16 agenda are three items with a connection to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. One is the approval of an end-of-year budget adjustment that was already approved at the DDA board’s June 4, 2014 meeting. Another is approval of a $37,500 expenditure from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to help pay for an affordable housing needs assessment. At its June 4 meeting, the DDA board authorized a $37,500 grant for the same study.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items related to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

Other downtown items on the council’s June 16 agenda include site plan approvals for First Martin’s hotel project at Ashley and Huron, and the Bank of Ann Arbor expansion at Fifth Avenue and Washington Street.

A resolution to improve Liberty Plaza, a downtown park at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty streets, also appears on the agenda – sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The council will be asked to approve four items related to supportive services for the criminal justice system: (1) a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services for the 15th District Court’s sobriety and mental health courts; (2) a $44,200 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court; (3) a $108,174 contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services; and (4) a $40,000 contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling is the final topic with multiple items on the June 16 agenda. The council will be asked to approve funds for a $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to create a multi-family recycling incentive pilot program. The council will also be asked to approve $39,480 to reimburse the city’s operator of its materials recovery facility for repair of a conveyor that feeds the baler. And finally, the council will be asked to approve $35,000 for Recycle Ann Arbor to provide solid waste services associated with student move-out activity.

The June 16 council meeting will also feature the annual historic district commission awards and the introduction of one of the Ann Arbor police department’s K-9 units, who won highest honors at a recent national certification trials event.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

The council will be asked to approve a $187,184 contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, and East Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.”

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget.

The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

The council will be 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. This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services.

This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

By way of additional background, in early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this public art project. 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 original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

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

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

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

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

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

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project.

The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.” The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project.

This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition. The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

The council will be asked to approve a $149,500 contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4. The staff memo accompanying the item indicates that the project will renovate the existing restroom facilities to create two unisex restrooms and showers at each station. Facilities and ventilation in the locker room and restroom areas will be improved.

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The council will be asked to authorize transfer up to $157,264 in funds from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage fund to the stormwater fund – to authorize state revolving fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for the stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project, located at Veterans Memorial Park.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a state revolving fund loan is being used to fund the rain garden installation at the skatepark and to reimburse the city’s stormwater fund. Additional stormwater components were approved by the state for 50% loan forgiveness. The transfer of funds that the council is being asked to approve is necessary for the total debt payment of $118,632.00 plus 2% interest over 20 years.

The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study.

Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015. The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda.

The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

The council will be asked to approve a $570,900 contract with NuView Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system. The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

The council’s agenda features several items related to special-assessed sidewalk construction projects, as well as funding for a pedestrian safety and access task force. Four different special-assessed sidewalk construction projects are on the agenda – two public hearings to be held at the June 16 meeting (for Scio Church and Barton Drive) and two resolutions to set public hearings for future meetings (for Pontiac Trail and Stone School Road).

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

Two resolutions appear on the agenda in connection with construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail – one to direct the assessor to prepare an assessment roll, and another to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 21. The assessable cost is $72,218.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s a part of the city’s Complete Streets program.

In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

The council has previously directed the preparation of a special assessment roll for a new sidewalk along the west side of Stone School Road. This work will be done in conjunction with the Stone School Road reconstruction project from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. The total sidewalk project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed.

So the requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

The sidewalk on Barton Drive would extend eastward from Bandemer Park at Longshore Drive. The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment.

The city council had voted at its May 19, 2014 meeting to set the assessment roll and to schedule the public hearing for June 16.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road.

For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of $55,000 $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

The approval of this project comes in the context of the council’s budget deliberations last month, when an amendment was offered but rejected by the council that would have cut the FY 2015 budget allocation for art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and put the $40,000 is savings toward traffic calming projects. The amendment got support only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Traffic calming projects must undergo a neighborhood engagement process in which at least 60% of households support the designed project. In the case of the Larchmont project, 13 out of 15 households supported the project.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator.

The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. The group has begun to meet and has elected Feldt to chair the task force.

The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893]

Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services. This is an annual contract. At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the council spent roughly five hours of deliberations on amendments to the FY 2015 budget, and just under 30% of that time was spent on two amendments involving SPARK – neither of which were approved by the council.

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 Hrs 45 Min by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services.

One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Ann Arbor SPARK also receives money from other governmental units in Washtenaw County. In 2013, the $75,000 paid by the city of Ann Arbor to SPARK accounted for more than half of the $132,888 total contributed by all governmental units besides Washtenaw County. The county levies a tax under Act 88, and out of that levy, last year the county contributed $200,000, according to the information provided to the city by SPARK. [.pdf of 2013 "return on investment" from Ann Arbor SPARK] [.pdf of 2013 Ann Arbor SPARK projects]

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

As a part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for lobbying services. According to the memo accompanying the item, GCSI has contributed to Ann Arbor’s efforts to increase state funding for fire protection, land-use planning, and parks and recreation projects. GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001.

GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting.

The main part of the adjustment is a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted by the DDA for last year, but not paid until this year.

The rest of the adjustment is attributable to expenditures out of the DDA’s housing fund – $500,000 of it to support Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects. The remaining $37,500 went to support a countywide housing needs assessment – an amount that was approved by the board at the same June 4 meeting in a separate vote.

The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

The council will be asked to authorize $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to support the Washtenaw County housing needs assessment. The Ann Arbor DDA had approved the same amount at its meeting last week, on June 4, 2014.

Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

The firm selected by the OCED to do the needs assessment is czb LLC out of Virginia. [.pdf of RFP for the needs assessment] The current needs assessment will update a report done in 2007. According to a memo from OCED staff to the DDA, the final report will “provide a clear, easy to understand assessment of the local housing market, identify current and future housing needs, and provide specific and implementable policy recommendations to advance affordable housing. The goal for this update is to include an analysis that links transportation cost and accessibility, as well as other environmental and quality of life issues to the location of affordable housing.”

The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a purchase agreement with DTE to convert 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. The up-front cost of the conversion will be $69,555 – but that amount will be reduced to $55,060 after rebates.

The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district.

Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

Streetlight locations are mapped in the joint Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system. Data available by clicking on icons includes ownership as well as the lighting technology used. This one is a high pressure sodium light operating at 400 watts.

The project the DDA declined to fund this year would have included converting 100 watt MV (mercury vapor), 175 watt MV and 100 watt HPS (high pressure sodium) lights to 65 watt LED (light emitting diode). Further, 400 watt MV and 250 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 135 watt LED. Finally, 1000 watt MV and 400 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 280 watt LED.

Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

In deliberations at the DDA board’s May 7 meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt opposed the grant, because the savings that would be realized accrues to the city of Ann Arbor, which pays the energy bills for the lights. Hewitt noted that the relationship between the city and the DDA includes a number of fund transfers to the city. Even though the amount is not huge, Hewitt said, the expenditure of several small amounts could eventually impair the DDA’s ability to pay for major infrastructure improvements.

Other board members joined Hewitt in their concerns, questioning what projects might be sacrificed if the DDA paid for the LED conversion. Concern was also expressed over the possibility that the result of a streetscape framework planning effort could result in a decision to replace all cobrahead lights in the downtown area with pedestrian-scale lampposts. And that would mean that the new LED fixtures would be used for only a short while.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

The council will be asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

To be considered separately by the city council are votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to increase the D2 height limit from 60 feet to 100 feet. Assuming the zoning change is made for the parcel at 425 S. Main, it would be the only D2 parcel in the character district. The changes to the character overlay district also include upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

The planning commission recommended both the changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1.

Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development. The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting. The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The planning commission gave a recommendation of approval at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the new building’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the main entrance for the restaurant or retail space is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required. First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement.

The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off.

Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The planning commission recommended approval of the project at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. In total, the building would be 32,651 square feet after construction. The project is estimated to cost $4.2 million. [.pdf of staff memo]

According to the staff memo, the design “seeks to transform the current style from contemporary to traditional by replacing the yellow brick façade with brown and red-colored bricks and limestone-colored stone accents and trim and creating a brick and glass tower at the street corner to create a prominent entry.” The original two-story building was constructed in 1965, which included the drive-thru window. An addition was completed in 1999.

The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area.

D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval. The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however.

In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff was comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Modifications to drive-thru regulations are in the works, but not yet enacted. The planning commission approved new drive-thru regulations earlier this year. Amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus received initial approval at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting, and received final approval at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the effort is supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. A report is to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court.

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court. Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court.

The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services. And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units.

This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting. The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away.

The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016.

According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

1. Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
2. Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
3. Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
4. Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
5. Implement pilot programs.
6. Analyze results of pilot programs.
7. Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

• Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
• Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
• Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
• 300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

The council will be asked to approve a $39,480 reimbursement to Resource Recovery Systems – the city’s contracted operator of its materials recovery facility (MRF) – for repair of the baler infeed conveyor belt.

According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

According to the staff memo on the item, RAA’s proposal includes a staffed drop-off location at the corner of Tappan and Oakland streets during student fall and spring move-out periods. The site is also used to collect reusable items (through organizations such as the Salvation Army, Kiwanis, or the Reuse Center), bulky metal items, and recyclable materials.

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 The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

KT Tomey is working on a project to develop maps for walking or running tours of public art in Ann Arbor. (Photos by the writer.)

“Arbor Winds” by Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery features elevated, stand-alone louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees – three on each end of the bridges, on the north side of Stadium Boulevard. The same type of louvered glass panels will also be used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass – five sets on each side of South State Street. The overall project has a budget of $400,000 and has been in the works since 2011. If approved by council, it will likely be installed in 2015.

Commissioners also expressed enthusiasm for a new effort proposed by KT Tomey, who hopes to develop a mobile app for walking or running routes that highlight public art in Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. As a runner herself, she noted that people look for running routes when they visit new towns. So the app could be used to promote public art both to visitors and residents alike. Her first step is putting together .pdf maps that will be downloadable from AAPAC’s website.

Another new proposal prompted concerns about process. On the day of the meeting, John Kotarski – AAPAC’s vice chair – circulated an email to commissioners proposing that the city accept three pieces of donated art from Jim Pallas, an established Michigan artist and friend of Kotarski’s. The pieces are proposed to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center, in the atrium of city hall, and outside of city hall. Although commissioners seemed supportive of the idea, 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 pointed out that Pallas is 75 years old. He noted that if artists donate artwork before they die, they can deduct the cost of materials from their taxes. But after they die, their estate is taxed on the market value of that artwork. “So these artists, at this point in their lives, have a financial incentive to find a good place for their artwork,” he said. “If we can make that process simple and easy for Jim – and pleasant – then I’m sure he’s willing to go to his friends” and encourage them to donate too.

He 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’ve “made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.”

Kotarski told commissioners that he’s tried to assure Pallas that this will work out, but “that’s why I’m a little nervous giving him these assurances, only to have this fall through at the last minute. That’s not going to be pleasant.”

Marsha Chamberlin said she recognized the benefits of encouraging Michigan artists to donate their work. “But we are a public body, and we have procedures. I just think it’s important that we observe those rules because we don’t want to make an exception for one thing, then hold someone’s feet to the fire for something else.”

Commissioners 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.

In other action, the commission approved its annual art plan for fiscal 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. The plan includes projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial. The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. The city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward.

Commissioners also approved applying for a $10,000 National Endowment for the Arts Challenge America Fast Track grant. The money, if awarded, would require matching funds in an equivalent amount from other sources for a public art project at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, located near Bryant Elementary School and the Bryant Community Center.

Fundraising continues for the Coleman Jewett memorial at the Ann Arbor farmers market, but Canoe Imagine Art has stalled. The 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 city had hoped that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau would take administrative responsibility for the project, but the CVB has declined. Chamberlin, who’s taking the lead on this effort, said that if workarounds can’t be found for some of the administrative issues, “we have to kiss this project good-bye.”

East Stadium Bridges Artwork

The April 23 agenda included a resolution recommending approval of “Arbor Winds” artwork for East Stadium bridges, designed by Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery. [.pdf of proposal]

Catherine Widgery’s rendering of her proposed public artwork for East Stadium bridges. (Image provided in the April 23, 2014 AAPAC meeting packet.)

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this project. 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 original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Over the past few weeks, AAPAC chair Bob Miller and vice chair John Kotarski have been presenting her revised proposed to several local public entities, including the city’s park advisory commission, planning commission, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. They also presented to the Cultural Leaders Forum, and a public forum was held on April 21 at the downtown library to get additional feedback. [More details on the presentation by Kotarski and Miller are included in The Chronicle’s report of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s April 1, 2014 meeting.]

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features elevated, stand-alone louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees – three on each end of the bridge, on the north side of Stadium Boulevard. The metal support structures are 7 feet tall, with the glass columns rising above that for a total height of 22 feet. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass – five sets on each side of South State Street. The panels will be lit from below, so that the etchings stand out at night. The glass is tempered and laminated for strength.

The artwork is meant to evoke the strength and fragility of this community. From the artist’s statement:

As one drives around Ann Arbor, the gracious stands of trees stand out as a clear expression of the town’s identity so trees have symbolized this arbor town from the beginning.

On a deeper level, the trees as portrayed in the artwork Arbor Winds are a metaphor for our own paradoxical fragility and strength in the context of our life cycles. We speak of having “deep roots” or of “branching out” or of how someone is “blooming”. After a long winter, the return to life of spring is expressed above all through the return of leaves to trees. We all feel the sense of being reborn in the spring with the blossoms and leaves and, in the autumn, the somewhat wistful sadness as the leaves reach their glory of color and then fall.

Arbor Winds evokes not just trees but wind and light as expressions of the energy that surrounds us. In each panel we see the ghostly afterimage as if the wind has blown the tree; we see both moments in time simultaneously. These images etched in glass are like those etched in our memories. We walk through a forest and it is our mental “snapshots” of the branches against the sky or the texture of the thick trunk, or the dense layers of the many trunks silhouetted against the forest underbrush that remain in our memories. Indeed each of these etched images is more the memory of moments rather than a physical reality: a subtle expression of our own ephemeral existence and the light traces we leave behind.

During the April 23 meeting, Kotarski made the same presentation that he and Miller have given to other groups over the past few weeks. He explained the process that’s been undertaken, starting in 2011. “It’s been well-vetted,” he said.

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

Kotarski noted that the question of “why not a local artist?” comes up in almost every discussion. The reason is that the city attorney has said it’s not legal to limit the proposals to local artists, Kotarski stated. There are world-class artists living in the Ann Arbor area, he noted, so outreach was done to make as many people as possible aware of the opportunity. Seven Michigan artists submitted proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Miller noted that Widgery will be providing the LED light fixtures, and the city will be paying for the electricity. He reported that a city councilmember had asked whether the lighting will draw on solar power. That’s not a decision that’s within the purview of AAPAC, Miller said, but he liked the suggestion.

Jim Simpson asked what the general reaction has been from people who’ve seen the presentations by Kotarski and Miller. “Everyone loved it,” Kotarski replied. “I have not heard any negative comments – have you, Bob?”

“I have,” Miller said, adding that he’s only heard a couple of criticisms. One person had complained that it was an exorbitant amount to spend on artwork, and that you could buy potentially two homes for that amount. “That was his perspective, and I respected that,” Miller said. And some people just had aesthetic differences, he added. “Everybody has an opinion, and that’s really wonderful about people.”

Kotarski stressed, as he has during other presentations, that “not one single dollar of the money that goes to this artwork could possibly be used to fill potholes.” Although the money comes from the former Percent for Art program’s street millage funds, he contended that potholes are filled by funds from the state’s gas tax. “This is not a war of public art versus potholes,” he said.

Devon Akmon asked about possible glare from the lights. Miller replied that since the lights will be pointing up, they won’t be shining into traffic or nearby homes. Jokes were made about the difference between that and the University of Michigan’s large electronic billboard in the same area.

Simpson asked what happens if a panel is damaged. Would the artist fabricate a new one? Kotarski replied that Widgery will be providing a maintenance schedule, telling the city how to clean the work. She’ll also be giving the city a digital file with the images that are etched on each panel, he said, so that any damaged panel could be re-fabricated. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said he’d already asked Seagraves to look into possible replacement costs, and “it’s reasonable.”

The recommendation will be placed on the council’s agenda for its first meeting in June – on June 2. If approved, the art would likely be installed sometime in 2015.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

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

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

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

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

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

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the project for East Stadium bridges. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Donated Artwork

At the beginning of the April 23 meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – noted that an item had been added to the agenda since it was first published the previous Friday. Under new business, the item was listed as a presentation of donated artworks. Marsha Chamberlin clarified with Seagraves that it related to an email sent to commissioners earlier in the day on April 23 from John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair. [.pdf of Kotarski's email]

John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair.

Kotarski told commissioners that a friend of his, the artist Jim Pallas, is leaving the state and had asked Kotarski to help place his artwork. [Pallas is based in Applegate, Michigan, on the east side of the state.] Pallas had intended to sell the work, but Kotarski said he persuaded Pallas to consider donating some pieces to the city of Ann Arbor. Kotarski said this idea appealed to Pallas, particularly because Pallas thought his work featuring moons was appropriate for Ann Arbor. “To him, moons are metaphors for dreams and dreamers, and he thought: What better place to situate these moons than Ann Arbor?” Kotarski said. Pallas imagines the city is a place of “dreamers dreaming world-class dreams,” Kotarski said.

The Ann Arbor District Library has agreed to accept a piece, Kotarski reported, as has the University of Michigan North Campus Research Center. [Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, AADL director Josie Parker reported that the Ladies' Library Association has agreed to pay the costs of installing the artwork in the downtown library's garden, near the entry to the children's room.]

Kotarski described Pallas as a world-class artist, and noted that he had emailed commissioners more information on Pallas’ background, including professional references. [.pdf of references and reviews] [.pdf of Pallas resume] He said the work was valued at about $100,000.

Kotarski said he had hoped to bring forward a completed proposal, but hadn’t had time to do that. He’d made the same point in his email, which was provided to The Chronicle after the meeting by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. The email had included a list of people that he’s already talked with about this donation. From Kotarski’s April 23 email to commissioners:

I had hoped to bring you a donation proposal with proposed locations for artwork which was completely vetted by all stakeholders, however municipal government moves slow and Jim plans to leave the state in four weeks. Hence, the last minute addition to our agenda. I think your knowledge of the process to date and my plans moving forward is appropriate now rather than waiting for a completely vetted proposal.

…

I have kept Craig [Hupy] and Bob [Miller, AAPAC's chair] in the loop as I met with Susan Pollay, Jim Curtis, Colin Smith, and Ken Clein. My plan is to review safety, maintenance, and traffic flow with appropriate Justice Center and City Hall staff to insure all stakeholders are in acceptance of the artwork in the proposed locations. Jim’s daughter, Lydia Loren, is a law professor and international scholar in intellectual property rights who happens to have worked closely with our City Attorney, Steve Postema. Lydia and Mr. Postema have made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.

Kotarski said the challenge now is how to proceed. He mentioned that commissioner Marsha Chamberlin had circulated AAPAC’s donation policy in response to his email, but indicated that he had not been aware it had existed. [The policy and process for accepting donated gifts of art, including detailed selection criteria, is included in AAPAC's guidelines, which are posted on the commission's website as a .pdf file.]

The process includes completion of a gift disclosure form and review of the proposed donation by a gift committee. Kotarski suggested that AAPAC could act as that committee, or that he could make recommendations for who would serve on the committee. He said he’s already worked to identify where the three donated pieces could be placed, and to work through any legal issues that the city might have.

Kotarski said the city staff haven’t agreed to yet to the proposed locations, which are in or near city hall and the Justice Center. Here are images of the work, provided in Kotarski’s email:

Fallen Moon by Jim Pallas is proposed to be located outside of city hall.

Luna Maggiore by Jim Pallas is proposed to hang in the atrium of city hall.

This piece by artist Jim Pallas, titled LAW, is proposed to be installed in the lobby of the Justice Center.

Kotarski said he wanted to inform AAPAC about this opportunity. The city won’t accept these pieces without a recommendation from AAPAC, he noted. He wanted to know if commissioners thought they could make that recommendation within four to six weeks. If not, he’d help Pallas place the artwork elsewhere.

Kotarski thought the work would “bring cachet to the city.” He said he’d toured the Justice Center with the building’s architect [Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects], and that several spots had been identified as appropriate. “He feels it’s consistent with and would enhance the building,” Kotarski said.

Marsha Chamberlin.

If the city agrees to place the artwork in the proposed locations, and agrees to pay for installation and maintenance, Kotarski said, he hoped that AAPAC would agree to recommend to council that the city accept these donations. Installation and maintenance costs haven’t yet been determined.

Chamberlin noted that much of the information needed for the gift disclosure form is already available. A gift committee would need to be appointed, she said, and that group would make a recommendation to AAPAC. Chamberlin advocated for following this process. “I just think it’s important to be consistent,” she said.

Kotarski said that UM and AADL each have a “committee of one” who makes a recommendation. “If this [AAPAC process] doesn’t mirror that, you might want to think of revising it,” he said.

The proposed locations aren’t debatable, Kotarski added. Chamberlin said that AAPAC’s role is to evaluate the artwork, not to recommend the locations.

Kotarski stressed that “I don’t want to lead Jim on. I want to be upfront with him.”

Bob Miller stated that most of the work has been done, and he thought it would be reasonable to follow the process within the timeframe of four to six weeks. When he suggested that Kotarski could appoint the gift committee, Chamberlin indicated that Kotarski had a conflict of interest. “I would feel that I had one, if I was bringing the artist forward and representing the artist,” she said. Miller replied that he didn’t think so, because Kotarski wasn’t benefiting from it.

Devon Akmon suggested that Miller, as AAPAC’s chair, and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, should determine the committee members. Seagraves pointed out that the guidelines outline how the committee should be formed. From the guidelines:

Upon receipt of a Gift of Art Disclosure Form, AAPAC will establish a Gift Committee as a subcommittee of AAPAC. The Committee will consist of a minimum of four (4) AAPAC members including: a member of the Committee who will act as chair, an appropriate community representative, an appropriate City representative, an appropriate artist dependent upon the scope of the proposed gift. Members of the Gift Committee will serve two (2) year terms.

Kotarski wasn’t sure there was time to do this, but Miller assured him that it would be possible.

Jim Simpson indicated support for the donation. He noted that it would be a way for the city to highlight Michigan artists. “If you can move quickly and people see that, they tend to get excited about the process as well,” Simpson said. “I think it’s worth it, myself.”

City councilmember Jane Lumm attended AAPAC’s April 23 meeting but did not formally address the group.

Kotarski pointed out that Pallas is 75 years old. He noted that if artists donate artwork before they die, they can deduct the cost of materials from their taxes. But after they die, their estate is taxed on the market value of that artwork. “So these artists, at this point in their lives, have a financial incentive to find a good place for their artwork,” he said. “If we can make that process simple and easy for Jim – and pleasant – then I’m sure he’s willing to go to his friends” and encourage them to donate too.

Kotarski said he’s tried to assure Pallas that this will work out, but “that’s why I’m a little nervous giving him these assurances, only to have this fall through at the last minute. That’s not going to be pleasant.”

Again, Kotarski stressed that AAPAC has the opportunity to get artwork donated by major Michigan artists. He said the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is willing to give Pallas a $500 honorarium for each of the three donated pieces – “which is only reasonable, to recognize this value,” Kotarski said.

Chamberlin said she recognized the benefits of encouraging Michigan artists to donate their work. “But we are a public body, and we have procedures. I just think it’s important that we observe those rules because we don’t want to make an exception for one thing, then hold someone’s feet to the fire for something else.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Art Maps

One of the newest art commissioners, KT Tomey, brought forward a proposal for feedback: Maps for walking or running tours of public art.

Detail of a draft map of public art in downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan’s central campus. Links to .pdf of full map.

She’d been inspired by an “art run” that AAPAC chair Bob Miller had put together, which she had used for her running group. “It was wildly popular – people are still talking about it, wanting to do it again this summer,” she said.

In doing research to add to the next run, Tomey said she was surprised that there wasn’t one coherent map of art in Ann Arbor that people could easily access online. There’s a resource for art on the University of Michigan’s north campus, she noted, but it’s not easy to use to find out about the artwork.

Tomey first laid out what she called her “grand vision” for this project. There could be online .pdf maps with links to more information about each piece of art. But she also envisions a mobile app that people could load onto their phones, so that they could look at the map and information about public art as they’re walking or running. Eventually, she’d like to do a video tour that could be self-directed or used to train people who’d give tours in person.

The tours would serve multiple purposes, Tomey said, such as promoting art and increasing connections with the community.

As an initial modest step, Tomey said, she’d made two drafts of maps – one showing public art around downtown Ann Arbor and UM’s central campus, and another for UM’s north campus. [.pdf of Ann Arbor public art map] [.pdf of north campus public art map]

Tomey asked commissioners for feedback on the overall idea, as well as changes that might be made to the draft maps.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, offered to provide support from the city’s GIS staff in designing the maps. He also said the city’s communications staff can help promote the project, when it’s ready.

Commissioners Devon Akmon and Marsha Chamberlin.

Commissioners expressed enthusiasm for the project. Devon Akmon suggested looking for partnerships with the UM business school or computer science department to help with the mobile app. Regarding map templates, he noted that D:hive in Detroit has developed brochures and maps that might be helpful.

Akmon also wondered whether Google might be a potential partner, as the company has an office in Ann Arbor. Public art would be a good fit for the Google Cultural Institute project, for example. Finally, he said it’s simple and inexpensive to create an audio tour mobile app, similar to ones that are used by museums. [Akmon is director of the Arab American National Museum.] You can also create .mp3 files that are easily downloadable and could be posted online. It would be amazing to hear artists or people from the community describing the public art in Ann Arbor, he said. “What it always comes down to for me is how do you make it beautiful, and how do you make a big splash.”

John Kotarski suggested contacting UM’s Council for Disability Concerns, which is interesting in making public art accessible for people with disabilities.

Marsha Chamberlin said there might be grants available to support this project from the Michigan Council for Arts & Cultural Affairs. She also thought the project might be of interest to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, which is funded in large part by a local accommodation tax.

Tomey said she’d thought about identifying routes of different lengths for runners – both for local residents as well as visitors. “When you visit a city, you look up the running routes,” she said, and that could be another way to promote public art to visitors.

Jim Simpson suggested taking a phased approach, starting with maps that could be put up quickly. He offered to help with implementing the project. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said .pdf maps could be posted on AAPAC’s website.

Seagraves also recommended that the commission add this project to its list of ongoing work. Chamberlin pointed out that AAPAC no longer has available funding and that staff support is unclear after Seagraves’ contract ends on June 30. She wondered whether AAPAC would be able to get any support from the city for projects like this.

Hupy indicated that there would be some kind of ongoing support for this project.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Annual Public Art Plan

Approval of the annual public art plan for fiscal 2015 had been on the March 26, 2014 agenda for approval, but was postponed because it included some items that several commissioners had not previously seen. The March 26 discussion also resulted in some changes to the plan, so a revised version was on the April 23 agenda for approval. [.pdf of annual public art plan]

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Commissioners had initially voted to approve a draft annual plan at their Jan. 29, 2014 meeting. They also directed AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski to work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to make final revisions to the plan, based on feedback from their Jan. 29 discussion. [.pdf of draft plan discussed on Jan. 29]

The plan includes projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial.

The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. The city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward. City staff would be involved in developing guidelines for these installations to “ensure the artwork will meet all applicable codes, are safe for all pedestrians and are compatible with the maintenance of the infrastructure,” according to the plan.

The document also lists four objectives that the commission will work on in the coming fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014:

1. Make plans to use gifts, grants, crowd funding and other non-local government funds for public art in Ann Arbor, as the amended Public Art Ordinance allows.
2. Increase public outreach for long-term public art program goals, artwork selection, and artwork education and thus better carry out the duties of the Public Art Commission established by the Ordinance amendment of June, 2013.
3. Refine the selection of potential public art projects by using a project evaluation and prioritization model and base the initiation of projects on the evaluation of primary criteria.
4. Establish an open and regular channel of communication regarding public art program updates with city administration and City Council.

In addition, the plan lists three recommendations from the city council’s task force on public art, noting that the commission will support city staff in achieving these recommendations in the coming fiscal year:

1. Review the location of the arts program within the City of Ann Arbor government and evaluate the possibility of relocating the public art program.
2. Fulfill the Public Art Task Force’s recommendation of creating a position for a full-time public art staff person.
3. Review and revise the Public Art Commission’s Bylaws and Guidelines.

Discussion was brief. Kotarski thanked Seagraves for his work on this plan, saying it shows the work that AAPAC has been doing “even though juggling public criticism.” It tells the council that AAPAC has heard the city council’s charge for the commission, he said.

Seagraves noted that the plan will be sent to the council in time for their deliberations on the FY 2015 budget. City administrator Steve Powers presented a draft budget at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting. The council will discuss and approve the budget, with possible amendments, at its May 19 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the FY 2015 annual public art plan. It will be forwarded to the city council.

Grant for Arbor Oaks Project

The April 23 agenda included an item to approve applying for a $10,000 National Endowment for the Arts Challenge America Fast Track grant. The money, if awarded, would require matching funds in an equivalent amount from other sources for a public art project at Arbor Oaks Park in southeast Ann Arbor, located near Bryant Elementary School and the Bryant Community Center.

The effort is in partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network, which runs the Bryant Community Center under contract with the city. The idea is to create concrete and mosaic sculptures near the five entrances to the park, to help link the school and different streets in the neighborhood. The artwork would involve residents and students at Bryant Elementary.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, described the small- to medium-sized sculptures as wayfinders. The grant application is due on May 8. Nick Zagar is the commissioner who’s taking the lead on this project. He did not attend AAPAC’s April 23 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the application for this NEA grant.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on projects that are currently underway: (1) Canoe Imagine Art; (2) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (3) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; and (4) a possible mural at Bach Elementary.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin, who’s been leading the Canoe Imagine Art project for AAPAC, reported that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau has declined to be the project’s administrative “home.”

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

The 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 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.

At AAPAC’s April 23 meeting, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – reported that the project was intended as a three-party effort involving the city, the CVB, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. “We are struggling with the other partners not wanting to administer the contract,” Hupy said. As of July 1, which is the start of the city’s next fiscal year, there won’t necessarily be funds for art administration, he noted.

Chamberlin said it wasn’t until December of 2013 that the city attorney’s office informed her that the project couldn’t use a website that was separate from the city’s website, and that an RFP process must be used for seeking artists. Also, she learned that this effort would be required to hire a project manager. At the time, they were hoping to move the project forward more quickly, and so the idea of a “triumvirate” partnership was explored. Now, however, the timeline has been pushed back, but it’s unclear who will lead the project, she said.

Jim Simpson, AAPAC’s newest commissioner.

Hupy added that if another organization takes the lead, then the city’s procurement process – including issuing an RFP – wouldn’t be required. He also noted that the state grant must be spent by the end of September 2014, and it wasn’t clear if that would be possible. And because all the funding hasn’t yet been raised, the city won’t take on responsibility for a project that it doesn’t have the ability to fund completely. “We’re trying to make it work, but I can’t even say that I’m cautiously optimistic at the moment,” he said.

Another issue, Chamberlin noted, is that the city attorney’s staff has said the artwork can’t be sold, because the city’s purchasing policies don’t allow that. The idea had been to sell the pieces after they’d been on display, as a fundraiser. The city’s purchasing policies are perfectly reasonable for typical uses, like buying a truck or generator, she said, “but public art functions differently.”

If they can’t find a workaround for some of these issues, Chamberlin said, “we have to kiss this project good-bye.”

Hupy said that city staff will continue to work to find a solution. “We understand the direness of it,” he said. “I would say as a medical metaphor, it’s on life support at the moment.”

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that a request for proposals (RFP) has been drafted to solicit bids for the Coleman Jewett memorial. The RFP is being reviewed by legal staff.

The memorial will be a bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Jewett, to 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 farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 in city funds to the project, which now has a total project budget of $50,000 – up from its original estimate of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association. So far, $18,795 has been raised, not including the city’s $5,000 contribution.

Marsha Chamberlin, who’s spearheading the project, gave an update on fundraising efforts. A second mailing to solicit donations is being sent out this month. An alumni party for Tappan Middle School – where Jewett served as assistant principal – is being planned as a fundraiser, possibly at the Old German. Information will be passed out at the farmers market, although no solicitation is allowed there.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

The installation of sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First will start in May. The entire project, including the rain garden, will be completed by the end of June. The artist, Joshua Wiener, will be coming to Ann Arbor during the first week in June. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that Wiener will be available for a public event, likely on June 3.

Promotion for the project is being planned. As part of that, one idea is to ask the public to name the artwork, Seagraves said. The rain garden is already named after Ruth Williams. It’s considered by the city to be a “stormwater feature,” not a park.

The Denver artist is 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 is 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.

Seagraves reported that the original proposal called for some of the fish to appear submerged into the ground. For structural and aesthetic reasons, Wiener has altered that original design somewhat. Although some fish will appear to be diving down, they will be above ground. He provided a revised rendering:

Josh Wiener’s rendering of fish sculptures for the rain garden at First & Ashley.

Project Updates: Bach Elementary Mural

Bob Miller reported that not much progress has been made on a public art project at Bach Elementary School, on the city’s Old West Side. He’s been working with the school principal Hyeuo Min Park, the school’s art department, local artist David Zinn, the AAPS maintenance staff and others to paint a mural on a concrete wall at Bach’s playground. It’s a place that gets tagged with graffiti, he noted. Miller said it could be a pilot for other projects, if it moves forward.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, quipped: “There’s a lot of retaining walls in the city that could be painted.”

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

Absent: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 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.

Catherine Widgery’s rendering of her proposed public artwork for East Stadium bridges. (Image provided in the April 23, 2014 AAPAC meeting packet.)

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this project. 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 original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Over the past few weeks, AAPAC chair Bob Miller and vice chair John Kotarski have been presenting her revised proposed to several local public entities, including the city’s park advisory commission, planning commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. A public forum to get additional feedback also was held on April 21 at the downtown library. [More details on the presentation by Kotarski and Miller are included in The Chronicle’s report of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s April 1, 2014 meeting.]

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features elevated, 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 will be lit from below, so that the etchings stand out at night. The glass is tempered and laminated for strength.

The artwork is meant to evoke the strength and fragility of this community. From the artist’s statement:

As one drives around Ann Arbor, the gracious stands of trees stand out as a clear expression of the town’s identity so trees have symbolized this arbor town from the beginning.

On a deeper level, the trees as portrayed in the artwork Arbor Winds are a metaphor for our own paradoxical fragility and strength in the context of our life cycles. We speak of having “deep roots” or of “branching out” or of how someone is “blooming”. After a long winter, the return to life of spring is expressed above all through the return of leaves to trees. We all feel the sense of being reborn in the spring with the blossoms and leaves and, in the autumn, the somewhat wistful sadness as the leaves reach their glory of color and then fall.

Arbor Winds evokes not just trees but wind and light as expressions of the energy that surrounds us. In each panel we see the ghostly afterimage as if the wind has blown the tree; we see both moments in time simultaneously. These images etched in glass are like those etched in our memories. We walk through a forest and it is our mental “snapshots” of the branches against the sky or the texture of the thick trunk, or the dense layers of the many trunks silhouetted against the forest underbrush that remain in our memories. Indeed each of these etched images is more the memory of moments rather than a physical reality: a subtle expression of our own ephemeral existence and the light traces we leave behind.

The recommendation will be placed on the council’s agenda for its first meeting in June. If approved, the art would likely be installed sometime in 2015.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

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

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

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

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

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

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

This brief was filed from the basement of city hall, 301 E. Huron, where AAPAC holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Jim Simpson, the newest member of the Ann Arbor public art commission, attended his first AAPAC meeting on March 26. (Photos by the writer.)

Before the council’s action on March 3, about $943,000 had been available for future public art projects. The council had halted the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year, and subsequently directed city staff to develop a transition plan for public art. The plan will be delivered to the council in October, and will likely include an emphasis on partners in the private sector and fundraising from the community. Meanwhile, future city public art will be “baked in” to selected capital projects and approved by council on a case-by-case basis.

The proposed 2015 budget – for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 – includes $80,000 to cover transitional costs for public art administration. The contract for the current part-time public arts administrator, Aaron Seagraves, runs through June 30, 2014. At AAPAC’s March 26 meeting, Craig Hupy – a senior city staff member who’s drafting the transition plan – mentioned the need for a consultant to help guide this process.

Commissioners questioned what their role might be during this interim period, now that former Percent for Art funding is unavailable for future public art projects. After the discussion, AAPAC chair Bob Miller said he had initially considered suggesting that they just shut down the commission, but he’d heard input to the contrary from other commissioners. The consensus was to move forward with meetings, at least for now. AAPAC’s next meeting is on April 23 at city hall.

In other action, commissioners postponed adopting an annual public art plan, and directed Seagraves to make revisions to the draft he had proposed. They’ll consider a new version at their April meeting.

Updates about ongoing projects focused on efforts that had started before the city council pulled funding. The funds for those projects were not affected. Sculptures for a rain garden at Kingsley & First will be installed in May, and more contributions are being sought for a Coleman Jewett memorial at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A public forum to seek input on the final design for artwork at East Stadium bridges will be held on Monday, April 21 at 7 p.m. at the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth. And work on Canoe Imagine Art – a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art – continues to move forward.

It was the first meeting for Jim Simpson, who was appointed to AAPAC in February. He works for the Ann Arbor start-up Duo Security, and is an assistant at Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

Future of Public Art in Ann Arbor

At the start of the March 26 meeting, AAPAC chair Bob Miller gave an update on the status of the city’s public art program. The city council had voted not to fund new projects, although current projects can be completed, he said. That includes artwork for East Stadium bridges, the rain garden at First and Kingsley, and two projects that involve partnerships between the city and other entities – Canoe Imagine Art, and a memorial for long-time educator Coleman Jewett, who died last year.

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 on June 3, 2013, when the council eliminated the Percent for Art mechanism from the 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.

This approach was part of a set of recommendations made by a council committee about 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.

More recently, on March 3, 2014 the city council took three actions. The council (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 the city administrator will propose on April 21 to the city council – in the form of an $80,000 one-time expense for art administration.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair.

Miller and John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair, have been meeting regularly with Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program, to talk about how to move forward. They’ve talked about how to implement changes that the council would like to see, Miller reported, such as moving toward more of a public-private hybrid program. Because neither he nor Kotarski have a background in art management, Miller said, they’ve been talking about possibly finding someone to help guide the city through this transition.

Miller wanted to talk with other commissioners about the role of AAPAC.

Hupy weighed in, saying he wished he could present a sharper vision of what the future would hold. He said he’d been charged with delivering a transition plan to the council in October. There’s clearly an expectation for more public-private partnerships, he said, but also the expectation that public art will be incorporated into capital projects on a case-by-case basis. He’s been wrestling with how to designate projects in the capital improvements plan (CIP) that will be enhanced with public art. That’s a topic that he’s talked with Miller and Kotarski about, Hupy said.

When a transition plan is presented in October, Hupy said, “that doesn’t mean that it’s finished. It’s just a plan to get wherever we’re going.” The expectation is that a transition could take several years.

Hupy didn’t think there was a “doom-and-gloom picture that the public art program within the city is dead. I look at it as transforming.”

Marsha Chamberlin wondered what kinds of topics will be addressed in the transition plan. Hupy said he wasn’t sure yet, adding that his vision at this point would include both public-private partnerships as well as enhanced CIP projects. “I’m very malleable at this time,” he said. The public art program might be housed within the city or with an entity outside the city government. “We’ve got to start with a clean slate, and I’m not presupposing that because something is here today it would be here tomorrow.”

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

Connie Brown asked whether the city council had a strong vision or goal for the public art program, or whether councilmembers simply had a desire to move away from the Percent for Art funding. Miller said his impression is that the council has primarily stated what it doesn’t want.

Hupy offered to provide a copy of the council’s committee report on the public art program. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations] He said that although the council removed some aspects of the program, “it left us a pretty blank palette to paint.” AAPAC can recommend what comes next, he said.

Kotarski thought the goal was to transition away from larger, taxpayer-funded public art. Instead, the council wants to move toward “baked-in” art that’s recommended as part of capital projects. The rest of the funding would be raised through a variety of other mechanisms, he said. “Transitioning is not the art commission’s task,” Kotarski added. “It is Craig’s task.”

Miller noted that there are four projects underway: East Stadium bridges, the rain garden at First & Kingsley, Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial. “Other than that, we really don’t have a whole lot on the table,” he said. Miller questioned what the role of AAPAC should be during this transitional period.

Miller said commissioners could “choose to wind things up and wait for a recommendation from the city.” He floated the idea of recommending approval for the East Stadium bridges artwork via email, and not holding any more meetings until given direction by the city. The other alternative is to keep meeting every month and talking about public art in general. He asked for feedback from other commissioners.

From left: Public art commissioners KT Tomey and Connie Brown.

KT Tomey suggested meeting at least occasionally. Commissioners could talk about public art that’s happening in other cities, for example, to inspire ideas that might be used in Ann Arbor. “We’re so busy with the process that a lot of times we don’t get the chance to talk about different art projects,” she said.

Chamberlin asked whether any of the city’s staff is compiling information about other cities that have public-private art programs. AAPAC is a recommending body, she noted, and understanding more about how those public-private partnerships work would be useful.

Hupy said that it’s been strongly suggested to him to do a survey of “community appetite” for public art and options for how to manage a public art program. He sees this as something that would happen after a transition plan is presented to council, however. If the city hires someone to help guide this transition, he added, that person likely would be responsible for benchmarking with other communities, among other things.

Hupy said that any funding that might be available for this type of consultant wouldn’t be available until July 1, 2014 – the start of the FY 2015 fiscal year. [The proposed 2015 budget – for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 – includes $80,000 to cover transitional costs for art administration.]

Kotarski reported that Sue McCormick, the administrator who previously held Hupy’s position, had done a benchmarking survey to look at how other communities handled their public art programs. Hupy clarified that McCormick had looked only at communities that had a Percent for Art funding mechanism, or something similar. Kotarski noted that almost every community had some supplemental funding approach to the Percent for Art, and didn’t rely exclusively on that funding mechanism. “Ann Arbor was one of the few that put all its eggs into the Percent for Art basket,” Kotarski said.

Chamberlin suggested that Americans for the Arts would be a good resource for benchmarking.

John Kotarski, AAPAC’s vice chair.

Brown was in favor of AAPAC meeting during this transition. Outreach and education are important functions that commissioners can continue to undertake, she said. Brown hoped that AAPAC and the council would create a common vision for public art, rather than simply things to avoid.

Hupy said that Robert Keller, a communications specialist for the city, could be enlisted to help promote the public art projects, including the completion of the First & Kingsley rain garden later this year.

Miller asked Hupy how he envisioned AAPAC working during the transition. Hupy replied that AAPAC shouldn’t “meet just to meet.” However, as he works on a transition plan, Hupy said, there will be times when he’ll need feedback from AAPAC.

Chamberlin said she could use help with the Canoe Imagine Art and Coleman Jewett memorial as well. “I’m in favor of meeting because it keeps us engaged and informed,” she said.

Jim Simpson suggested continuing to meet monthly, until it’s clear that there’s nothing valuable coming out of the meetings. There’s an opportunity for leadership as well, he said.

Kotarski agreed that no matter what Hupy and the council ultimately decide, AAPAC will likely be asked “to be the community’s eyes and ears about whatever the public art program ends up being. So the more we function as a team, the better.”

Miller said he had originally envisioned just shutting down the commission, and he was glad to hear input to the contrary. The consensus he was hearing was to move forward with meetings.

The other issue is the contract for the public art administrator, Miller said. The current contract with Seagraves runs through June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year. Miller wondered what happens next.

Seagraves replied that there will be a recommendation for public art administration in the FY 2015 budget, which the council will be asked to approve in May. He thought AAPAC should plan to meet in April.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Art Annual Plan

The March 26 agenda included final approval of the public art annual plan, which AAPAC had initially reviewed at its Jan. 29, 2014 meeting. AAPAC did not meet in February. [.pdf of draft annual plan for FY 2015, as presented on March 26]

In previous years, a public art annual plan was required to be submitted to the city council by April 1. But at AAPAC’s April 24, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to recommend shifting that date to Feb. 1 – a move intended to allow the council to make budget decisions based on recommendations from AAPAC. Shifting the date of the annual plan was linked to a major restructuring of the city’s public art program, which is still underway. The city council subsequently made revisions to the public art ordinance – Chapter 24 of the city code – that included the Feb. 1 deadline for submitting the annual plan.

This year, commissioners voted to approve a draft annual plan at their Jan. 29, 2014 meeting. They also directed AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski to work with public art administrator Aaron Seagraves to make final revisions to the plan, based on feedback from their Jan. 29 discussion. [.pdf of draft plan discussed on Jan. 29]

The plan considered on March 26 listed seven goals for the upcoming fiscal year, from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015:

1. Maximize the ability to use gifts, grants, crowd funding and other non-local government funds for public art in Ann Arbor, as the amended Public Art Ordinance allows.
2. Review the location of the arts program within Ann Arbor city government and review the possibility of containing the public art program within a nonprofit organization.
3. Fulfill the Public Art Task Force’s recommendation of creating a position for a full-time public art staff person.
4. Increase public outreach for long-term public art program goals, artwork selection, and artwork education and thus better carry out the duties of the Public Art Commission established by the Ordinance amendment.
5. Refine the selection of potential public art projects by using the project evaluation and prioritization model and base the initiation of projects on primary criteria.
6. Revise the Public Art Commission’s Bylaws and Guidelines.
7. Establish an open and regular channel of communication regarding public art program updates with city administration and City Council.

The plan included projects that are already underway, as well as proposed capital projects to be enhanced with public art. The ongoing projects are: (1) artwork for East Stadium bridges; (2) public art at Arbor Oaks Park; (3) Canoe Imagine Art; and (4) the Coleman Jewett memorial.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

The proposed enhanced capital projects are street and sidewalk stamping, painting or stenciling in four locations to be determined, for a total cost of $30,000. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, stressed that the city council would need to approve these projects before they would move forward. City staff would be involved in developing guidelines for these installations to “ensure the artwork will meet all applicable codes, are safe for all pedestrians and are compatible with the maintenance of the infrastructure,” according to the plan.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether the commission had previously seen and formally approved these goals. [Chamberlin had been absent from the Jan. 29 meeting, and AAPAC did not meet in February.] Kotarski replied that these are based on the goals of the city council committee that had recommended changes to the public art program last year.

Chamberlin objected to the first goal: “Maximize the ability to use gifts, grants, crowd funding and other non-local government funds for public art in Ann Arbor, as the amended Public Art Ordinance allows.” The commission might explore the feasibility of doing this, she said, but it’s not clear that it should be a goal. She also noted that the goal of revising the bylaws is really just a management function.

Kotarski replied that the council’s public art ordinance revisions incorporated aspects of these goals, and the commission is governed by the ordinance. “So we really can’t function outside that ordinance,” he said. It’s important that the council knows that AAPAC “gets it,” he added, and that commissioners will work to achieve the changes in the ordinance.

Seagraves, who drafted the annual plan, said these aren’t just annual goals. It’s an indication that the commission will address these issues. In that case, Chamberlin urged that the goals be moved within the document so that it’s clear the goals don’t apply just to FY 2015. She also wanted to change the wording on the first goal, to indicate it would be something the commission would work toward.

Chamberlin also questioned the second goal: “Review the location of the arts program within Ann Arbor city government and review the possibility of containing the public art program within a nonprofit organization.” She said she hadn’t ever been in a meeting when this idea had been discussed. “I didn’t realize that was really a goal of the public art program,” she said.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, said these ideas had been discussed in meetings that he and Kotarski have had with Hupy. Chamberlin replied: “But you’re asking us to approve a public art plan that has things in it we haven’t discussed.”

Connie Brown suggested clarifying the discrepancy between what AAPAC does, what the council committee recommended, and what the staff responsibilities are. Specifically, she thought clarity was needed for goals 2, 3 and 6.

Hupy noted that although there’s a deadline for submitting the annual plan to council, “the deadline has long passed.” He thought it warranted more discussion and revisions, until the commission felt comfortable with the document.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone a vote on the annual plan until its April 23 meeting.

Community Foundation

The commission considered a resolution requesting that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation seek variances from donors who had previously contributed funding for: (1) a project at the Fourth and Washington parking structure; and (2) a project in the South University area that was never completed. Remaining money from those projects is being held in special funds by the AAACF. [.pdf of resolution]

Marsha Chamberlin, the longest-serving current AAPAC member.

The variance, if granted by donors, would allow those remaining funds to be used for other public art projects, or to be put into an endowment for public art. The endowment is for maintenance of public art. Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, reported that the community foundation has asked that AAPAC pass this resolution. The purpose is to free up the money, though there isn’t a specific project that it would be used for at this point, Miller said.

There’s $13,200 remaining in the Fourth & Washington parking structure fund, and $1,100 in the South University fund.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, noted that a variance has already been granted for remaining money in a third public art fund held by AAACF. That money had originally been donated for public art on Fourth Avenue, and has now been designated to “support the creation of a future work of public art in the Ann Arbor downtown area.” The amount in that fund is $10,930.

So in total, the community foundation is holding $25,230 designated for public art, in addition to a maintenance endowment. Seagraves didn’t have information at the meeting about the amount of funds in the endowment.

Marsha Chamberlin advocated for limiting the variance to freeing up money for other public art projects – that is, not to provide donors with the option of putting it into an endowment. She noted that the city’s public art projects each include a 10% set-aside for future maintenance costs.

Hupy replied that for current public art projects, the routine maintenance is the responsibility of the city facility that’s “hosting” the artwork. For example, a sculpture in the parks is the responsibility of the parks and recreation unit. However, non-routine work would be funded through the endowment. A few years ago, the sculpture in Sculpture Plaza at Fourth and Catherine used the endowment in part to pay for significant repairs.

Chamberlin noted that after money is put into a maintenance endowment, it’s locked up – it can’t be pulled out later for other purposes.

Chamberlin suggested wording the final resolved clause to state: ”RESOLVED, To request donors use their donations to support future art projects as reviewed and selected by AAPAC.” The amendment was accepted as friendly.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to pass the resolution, as amended.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on projects that are currently underway: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) Canoe Imagine art; (3) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & first; (4) artwork for East Stadium bridges; and (5) a possible project at Arbor Oaks Park. [.pdf of project report memo]

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 March 26, the project had raised $17,833 in contributions. It doesn’t include 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 with alums from Tappan Middle School, where Jewett was assistant principal.

A request for proposals is being developed to solicit firm bids for the work. Depending on how quickly the RFP is issued, it might be possible to get the memorial installed by late fall, Chamberlin said.

She cautioned that the ability to raise funds for this project is tied to the affection that people in the community had for Jewett. Even at that, many of the gifts are small, she noted. Her point, Chamberlin said, is that “it’s not a slam dunk to raise money for something like this.”

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Canoe Imagine Art, a community art project, will entail 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 is 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.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that she’s been talking to community partners – including the Ann Arbor District Library, Leslie Science & Nature Center, and the Ann Arbor Civic Band – who’ll be putting on ancillary events tied to the art installation. The project also is seeking a grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Chamberlin said that the city attorney’s office has suggested trying to get another organization other than the city to be the administrator of this effort, in order to simplify things. She hoped that it would be sorted out in April so the project could move forward.

In a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Chamberlin reported that the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau is being asked to serve as an umbrella organization for this project, which could entail handling the finances and hiring a project manager. No decision has yet been made, however, and another meeting is planned on April 22 with city staff, AAPAC members, the CVB and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The nonprofit Arts Alliance, which might seem like a better fit, charges a 30% fee for project management, Chamberlin noted. The Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, which has provided a grant for the project, would not allow for a management fee of that size.

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

The installation of sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First is planned for May. The rain garden itself will be constructed in mid-May, with the artwork installed later that month.

One of the sculptures being fabricated for the Kingsley & First rain garden. This photo was provided in AAPAC’s March 26 meeting packet.

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 is 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. 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.

Connie Brown will be spearheading communications about this installation, including an event tied to the completed project, with the artist attending.

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 the artwork.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the project applied for a grant from the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation, but did not receive it. No city public art funds have been allocated, and additional funding is expected to be raised through community donations.

Seagraves reported that AAPAC member Nick Zagar is coming up with a proposal to discuss with the project’s task force. [Zagar did not attend AAPAC's March 26 meeting.] Seagraves also will be talking with the city’s parks staff about possible options, as the city plans to install new playground equipment there.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that Bob Miller and John Kotarski were making presentations about the final design for artwork at East Stadium bridges, attending meetings of local public entities like the city’s park advisory commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

The intent is to get feedback on the proposed design before bringing it back to AAPAC for a recommendation of approval. The city council will be asked to give final authorization to the project.

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this project. 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 original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked 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. [.pdf of panel feedback]

A public forum to get additional feedback will be held on Monday, April 21 at 7 p.m. at the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

More details on the presentation by Kotarski and Miller are included in The Chronicle’s report of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s April 1, 2014 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights from March 26.

Communications & Commentary: New Commissioner

Jim Simpson was attending his first meeting since being appointed to AAPAC on Feb. 3, 2014. The commission did not hold a meeting in February. He told the group that he watched the city council meeting when his appointment was confirmed, noting that it was the same meeting when the future of public art had been debated – “so I had mixed feelings.”

In addition to his job at Duo Security, Jim Simpson is an assistant at Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

He reported that he watches city council meetings because he’s interested in seeing how the city grows and develops, and he wants to become more invested in the city. His family is from California, and he attended the University of Michigan as an undergraduate. When he graduated, he decided to stay here. “A lot of my California family doesn’t understand this,” he joked, “but we do have water here and they don’t, so that’s a plus in my opinion.”

His background is in computer science and Japanese, and he works for a start-up company called Duo Security, which focuses on network security. His job is product manager, interacting between sales, marketing and development.

As far as an artistic background, Simpson told commissioners that he blows glass. He’s been an assistant at Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti for the past five years. He decided to get involved in AAPAC after seeing the request for proposals for art at East Stadium bridges, so he submitted his name for consideration. He said he was excited to be there.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Changming Fan, who in recent months has been attending meetings of many city boards and commissions, 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.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Jim Simpson, Kristin Tomey. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator and Craig Hupy, public services area administrator.

Absent: Devon Akmon, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 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.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

John Kotarski and Bob Miller of the city’s public art commission presented images of a revised design for public art on the East Stadium bridge, a $400,000 project that includes columns of louvered glass panels on the bridge as well as underneath it, along South State Street. The artist – Catherine Widgery, who’s based in Massachusetts – had changed her original proposal at the request of a selection committee. The public art commission is seeking feedback on this new design, including at a public forum on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The public art commission likely will vote on a recommendation at its April 23 meeting. The proposal would then be forwarded to the city council for approval.

Also heading to city council is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House, which planning commissioners voted to recommend on April 1. The plan involves major renovations to the existing building at 314 S. Fourth Ave., which most recently housed the Dream Nite Club that closed in 2012. The renovations include adding a second-floor mezzanine level to the front of the building.

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect, Stephen Fry, indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.”

Fry also reported that the restaurant will likely be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building. “So we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good,” he said.

Commissioners also reviewed proposed ordinance revisions related to drive-thrus, and recommended that the city council approve the changes. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require that drive-thru projects obtain a special exception use from the planning commission, and would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda included review of the site plan for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

Proposed facade of Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 314 S. Fourth Ave.

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. An open space in front of the building – about 220 square feet – would also be filled in as part of the new addition.

The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The property owner is Dean Zahn Properties in Saline. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report]

The recommendation of approval is contingent on addressing the following issues: (1) a discrepancy in the property legal description; (2) a license agreement for emergency egress across the front of the Fourth & William parking structure; and (3) construction of one bicycle parking space in the Fourth & William parking structure or payment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the space.

Because the site is within the D-1 zoning district, it’s exempt from vehicle parking requirements. No outdoor dining is proposed.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project. The planning staff recommended approval of the site plan.

This would be the first Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Ann Arbor. The chain is based in Florida, with locations nationwide.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Fire, Water

Wendy Woods asked about fire suppression, pointing to comments in the staff report:

If an automatic sprinkler system is not being required by the Building Official, there will be no fire department connection (FDC) on this building, making the location of the FDC in relation to a supporting fire hydrant null. However, should a sprinkler system be installed, according to City Standards, the FDC is required within 100 feet of a supporting hydrant. With that said, the hydrant located on the southwest corner of E. Liberty and S. Fourth Ave is approximately 135-150 feet from the proposed FDC for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. This does not meet City Standards.

If the building was to be suppressed, in the interest of public safety and welfare, and adding an additional hydrant in order to meet the 100 foot requirement negatively impacts other aspects of the street layout and accessibility of parking and pedestrian traffic, then the current distance from the E. Liberty/S. Fourth Ave. hydrant to the proposed FDC would be considered acceptable in the Fire Marshal’s review.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, the Grand Rapids firm that’s designing this building, said there was a question about whether building code required this renovation to include an automatic sprinkler system, because there isn’t going to be a change of use – it was a restaurant, and it will remain a restaurant. After talking to city building officials, Fry said, he believes a fire suppression system will be required. It will add more than $100,000 to the project, he said.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, a Grand Rapids architectural firm that’s designing the Ann Arbor Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

That requirement might also entail putting in another fire hydrant, Fry added, but he’s been working with the fire department and believed they were close to agreeing that existing fire hydrants in the area will suffice. However, he said, “if they want one, then we’ll provide it.”

Sabra Briere asked Fry to explain the emergency egress issue. Currently, Fry replied, there’s a five-foot-wide egress area on the southeast corner of the site. Because the building will have a second floor, it needs a second means of egress that goes to the public right-of-way, he explained. Fry didn’t want to put an exit along the front of the building, so he’s planning to tuck it onto the building’s south side. To do that, a revocable easement from the city needs to be obtained. If the city ever revokes the easement, he said, then the restaurant would need to install an exit door on the front. “It’s a technical issue that we need to legally take care of,” Fry said.

Bonnie Bona asked about stormwater management, saying it’s nice when an existing building can contribute to the “first flush” stormwater treatment. She asked how it would be done – would they cut through the slab and install an infiltration system? Fry responded by saying that “this building is in a significant state of disrepair.” Between 50-100% of the floors will be removed, and most of the building will be gutted. The back doors don’t open, so they’ll be putting in new doors. If they need to make the door big enough to bring in large concrete basins, “that’s what we’ll do,” he said.

The concept is that the roof water will be fed from the roof directly to two tanks buried below the floor in the rear of the building, near the alley. The tanks will slow down the runoff rate from stormwater that flows from the roof, before entering the city’s stormwater system. If the rainfall is too fast for the tanks to contain, the water will overflow into the stormwater system.

Bona asked what the potential is for actual infiltration. Fry said he had mixed emotions about this approach, saying that he knows the city’s engineering staff really wants to locate infiltration tanks on the site. “But this is a 66-year-old building,” Fry said, “and architecturally, I’m a little bit concerned about inducing water around foundations that have been there that long, that I don’t know what condition they’re in.” There are impervious surfaces in every direction for miles, he noted. “It makes me architecturally nervous about the structure,” he said.

Fry hopes to reach a compromise with the city about how to handle the infiltration. Given the age of the building, the current proposal “is just asking for trouble,” he said. An architect typically has three problems, Fry added: “Water, water and water.” Part of the process will entail excavating that part of the building to see what’s there, he noted. Until that happens, it’s hard to know what they’re dealing with. “The commitment is there for [stormwater] detention,” he said. “We’ll do our best for infiltration.”

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Design

Woods asked if the rendering of the building would actually be what the structure looked like after it was built. Fry replied that it would be very close to that. Adding a second floor will make the building “feel more at home in a very large monumental sort of neighborhood,” he said. “This is a tough street.”

Bonnie Bona.

Fry said he had to convince investors to even look at the building. The location includes a lot of bus traffic but no other retail, he noted. So Ruth’s Chris will be a good transitional use, because it’s a destination restaurant and doesn’t rely on foot traffic as much, he said. They can control what happens inside the building, Fry added, so what’s going on outside isn’t as important.

Bona noted that the proposal is a fairly small second-floor addition to a downtown building. Current downtown zoning doesn’t allow for a one-story building if it’s new construction, she said. Is there any potential for further additions on top of the existing building? Fry replied that the existing building won’t support a second floor, so they’ll be building new support structure for the addition. The design is also nearly the maximum allowable square footage that doesn’t require an elevator, which would be a significant cost, he said.

Fry also reported that a single-floor roof allows for economical kitchen venting – that’s one reason why this building was chosen. He noted that some of the investors didn’t even want to add any second floor, but Fry thought it was the only way to make the restaurant successful. “The private dining sector in this town seems to be very strong, and Ruth’s Chris is certainly a player in that,” he said.

Bona thought the second-floor facade added a lot to the streetscape. She appreciated that it would be a real second floor, saying that there’s a restaurant nearby with a second floor “that’s just open space to the first floor. It’s basically a fake second floor.” [She was referring to Tios, at 401 E. Liberty.]

Regarding the streetscape, Bona asked Fry for his thoughts on the use of the sidewalk. Fry noted that there’s some broken concrete that needs to be repaired. He said the restaurant would be a good neighbor for that area, and would likely make seasonal changes to the planters in front of the building. The restaurant is very serious about having a valet service, Fry added, “so we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good.”

The sidewalk is only 12 feet wide, Fry noted, so there’s not a lot of room. The restaurant would likely go along with whatever improvements are proposed for that block. There’s a lot of activity on the sidewalk during the day, but the restaurant doesn’t intend to be open for lunch initially, Fry said. He added that the restaurant hopes to bring more activity at night, so lighting will be critical to make the sidewalk safe.

Paras Parekh asked about the potential for outdoor seating. There’s no restaurant policy against it, Fry replied, but “we do not think it’s appropriate for this location.” The sun never hits that east wall, he said, and it’s difficult for the restaurant to control the outdoor setting. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.” He wasn’t sure there’d be room for tables anyway, given the valet service.

Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal followed up, asking whether the design would be flexible enough to allow outdoor seating in the future, if the restaurant decided to do that. There’s nothing to preclude it, Fry replied. He noted that the Ruth’s Chris in Grand Rapids has a really nice sidewalk in front and is in a location with a nice environment, so there is outdoor dining. “If there’s a need, we will certainly evaluate that,” Fry said.

The restaurant’s biggest concern is the bus traffic on Fourth Avenue, which causes significant noise, Fry told commissioners. There’s also not a lot to look at, he added – just the wall of the federal building across the street. Westphal noted that the buses stop running at night.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architect had considered having a rooftop deck. Yes, Fry said, but again it came down to whether the restaurant could control the outside environment. There would be kitchen exhaust and other noise, he said, so it didn’t seem to make sense at this location.

Ken Clein said he’d like to see outdoor dining too, but agreed that it probably wasn’t the best location to do that. As a destination restaurant, Clein thought it was a good use of the site, especially considering that it’s been vacant for a long time. “I’m a vegetarian, and I’m still supportive of it,” Clein joked. Fry replied that there’d be options for vegetarians, too.

Clein, who is also an architect, asked about the building materials, which Fry described. There would be some tweaks to respond to recommendations from the city’s design review board regarding the colors of the facade, Fry said. “It all needs to reflect quality and craftsmanship – that’s the idea.” The company doesn’t dictate the design of the franchises, he added, so every building is unique. Fry said he designed the Ruth’s Chris restaurant in Grand Rapids too, which is located inside the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Misc.

Responding to a query from Woods, Fry said that the bicycle parking in the Fourth & William structure is visible from the sidewalk.

City planner Matt Kowalski.

Briere asked if a citizens participation meeting had been required for this project. No, Fry replied, but they did mail out some notifications to surrounding property owners. There were no responses.

Jeremy Peters asked about the staff memo regarding a discrepancy in the property line. The current legal description does not include the western 8 feet at the back of the property, adjacent to the alley. City planner Matt Kowalski explained that it appears to be a clerical error when the deed was drawn up more than 60 years ago. There’s no question about who owns it – it’s clearly part of the lot, he said.

Fry added that it can’t be changed without filing a lawsuit, and that’s being done. “I understand that our odds are extremely high that it’s going to go through,” he said, because the owner has been paying taxes on that portion of the property for decades.

Westphal asked about shielding noise from the restaurant’s mechanical systems. Fry indicated that the noise would be very similar or less than previous restaurants located in that same building. The kitchen, which was built for Maude’s restaurant, is huge, Fry said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the city’s challenge is that it’s difficult to enforce the noise standards – especially after equipment has been installed – other than sending police to respond to complaints. Fry noted that the site is surrounded by a parking structure to the south, a surface parking lot to the north, and an alley on the west. The noise would be shielded in the front by the new second floor addition, he said. Westphal suggested exploring quieter models of mechanical systems, if possible.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes

Commissioners considered several amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

In introducing the proposal, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that planning commission chair Kirk Westphal had requested that staff look into these changes. The issue has been around for a long time, she said.

Since the changes were first considered in 2007, the city’s South State Street corridor plan has been approved, Rampson noted. [It was added to the city's master plan in 2013.] There’s been discussion about how to make the city’s major commercial corridors more pedestrian friendly, she said, by bringing buildings closer to the front of properties and reducing the impact of vehicles. So it made sense to bring forward these proposed revisions related to drive-thrus, she said.

Rampson pointed out that these changes would not preclude having drive-thrus in office, C2B or C3 zoning districts. Rather, it would give planning commissioners the opportunity to look at the layout of the site, though there are some design restrictions. For example, the ordinance revisions would prevent a drive-thru window from being located between a sidewalk and the main building.

These proposed changes, coupled with revisions that the city made two years ago in the off-street parking ordinance, should help minimize the impact of a drive-thru, Rampson said.

Finally, the changes would also give the planning commission the discretion to reject a drive-thru proposal, if it’s in a location that commissioners feel isn’t appropriate, Rampson noted. The intent is to give commissioners the tools they need to make sure a drive-thru works on a particular property, she said.

The biggest impact will likely be on banks that are built in the future, Rampson said, because currently regulations related to drive-thrus haven’t applied to banks at all.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this item.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Definition, Use

Ken Clein asked whether these revisions would impact car washes. No, Rampson replied, because car washes are considered a separate use. She noted that in C2B districts, car washes, automobile service stations and filling stations are allowed as special exception uses.

Wendy Woods.

In the definition of a drive-thru, Clein wondered whether the word “motor” should be added in front of “vehicle” – in case some “intrepid entrepreneur” wanted to have a bicycle or skateboard drive-thru at some point. Rampson noted that the definition describes “customers who remain in their vehicle.” She thought it would be hard to say that someone is “in a skateboard” or “in a bike.” There are also motorized bicycles, she noted.

But Rampson agreed that Clein’s suggestion to add the word “motor” would allow more clarity. If someone proposed a different kind of drive-thru – or a walk-up window, for example – she didn’t think the city would be concerned about that.

Clein proposed an amendment to add the word “motor” to the definition. The revised definition would state: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their motor vehicle during the course of the transaction.”

Bonnie Bona agreed that there would be no problem with a walk-up or bike-up window, because those wouldn’t cause conflicts with sidewalks and pedestrians.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Wendy Woods noted that there are drive-thru funeral homes, including some in Detroit. That’s another kind of use, though she hoped it wouldn’t come to Ann Arbor. She asked whether the ordinance needed to mention that use.

Rampson replied that the advantage of the proposed approach is that the drive-thru is associated with many different uses. It’s only the drive-thru component that would trigger the special exception use requirement.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Past Projects

Bona asked Rampson to share an example that had been discussed at the ordinance revisions committee – a drive-thru on Plymouth Road, near the Holiday Inn North Campus hotel. In that project, the back doors of the building faced Plymouth Road, Bona noted. How would the proposed ordinance revisions have helped the planning commission deal with that project?

Paras Parekh.

[Bona was referring to a project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The retail development – called The Shoppes at 3600 – is located at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.]

Rampson told commissioners that if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the project would have required the commission to grant a special exception use. The drive-thru could not be located between the main building and a public right-of-way. For that project, the window was actually located on the side of the building, Rampson noted, so it wasn’t between the main building and the sidewalk. Commissioners had been more critical of the exiting driveway that led around the back of the building, between the building and the Plymouth Road sidewalk.

However, Rampson said, commissioners could have applied other standards of the special exception use to require modifications to the project.

Rampson also pointed to the drive-thru at the Tim Horton’s on Ellsworth Road, which planning commissioners recommended for approval on March 6, 2012. In that case, the drive-thru window is facing Ellsworth. So if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the city would have required that the building or the window be reoriented.

Woods noted that other drive-thru projects have created problems, like the Walgreens at the corner of Washtenaw and Huron Parkway. It’s very difficult to use the drive-thru, she said, because of traffic coming in from Huron Parkway. And pedestrians “pretty much take their life in their own hands when they want to cross the street to get over there,” she added.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Special Exception Use

Bona said the special exception use allows the developer to be creative about how to solve the problem. She indicated that she preferred this approach, rather than requiring specific design restrictions. The intent is to not prioritize cars over the pedestrian experience, she said.

Jeremy Peters agreed, saying that the standards outlined in the special exception use might yield better designs. He said he was a fan of taking this approach, instead of banning drive-thrus completely. Businesses that have the need for a drive-thru still have that option.

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, Rampson said that if existing drive-thrus need renovations that require an administrative amendment to the site plan or planning commission approval, it’s considered a pre-existing, special exception use. But if a project requires going to city council to get site plan approval, then the special exception use would need to be re-established by the planning commission.

Ken Clein agreed that the special exception use was a good tool for this purpose. It raised the bar a little, in terms of the planning commission’s expectations, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the ordinance revisions. The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Stadium Bridge Artwork

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, gave a presentation to commissioners about the proposed artwork for East Stadium bridge. Also on hand were AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. Seated in the background are AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridge 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 original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked 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. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Kotarski reviewed the process, which started in November 2011. The goal had been to unify the East Stadium bridge overpass and the South State Street underpass, and connect to the neighborhoods. The artwork was intended to connect with different modes of transportation, to be viewed by people walking, biking or in cars. A total of 32 proposals had been originally received.

Kotarski said AAPAC “constantly” is asked the question: Why not pick a local artist? “The short answer is the city attorney said we can’t,” Kotarski told commissioners. The city can’t have an open competition and restrict artists to only ones who live in this area, he said. However, he added that AAPAC did extensive outreach to local artists, contacting local organizations and asking them to spread the word about the request for proposals. Seven Michigan artists presented proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Although Widgery’s work stood out in many ways, Kotarski said, the selection panel wanted her to refine it. For example, her original proposal called for 12 four-by-six-foot acrylic/aluminum or glass banners etched with images of trees, to be hung from existing lightpoles on the bridge. It would have required the lightpoles to be reinforced in some way. The panelists also wanted a more dramatic structure, Kotarski said.

Widgery’s new 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, Kotarski explained.

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

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

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

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

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

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Kotarski noted that he and Miller will be making similar presentations at a public forum and at meetings of local groups like the planning commission. The public forum will be held on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

AAPAC will review the input and likely vote on a recommendation for the project at its April 23 meeting, Kotarski said. That recommendation would then be forwarded to the city council for approval. The hope is to have the artwork installed by the fall of 2014 or early spring of 2015.

Kotarski concluded by saying that “not one penny of the money spent on this artwork could be spent on potholes. This is a completely different fund.” He said the money to fix potholes comes from state revenue, not local taxes. “So this is not art versus potholes – I want to assure you of that,” he said.

The funds for the East Stadium bridge artwork are from the city’s former Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated at its June 3, 2013 meeting. The project’s budget had been approved prior to the council’s decision to suspend funding for new projects. That decision occurred on Dec. 3, 2012.

The specific Percent for Art money for this project comes from street millage revenues. The Percent for Art funding mechanism set aside 1% for public art from the budget of each of the city’s capital projects, such as street work.

Stadium Bridge Artwork: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere confirmed with John Kotarski that the structures would be lit from below. She wondered if the lighting would be solar-powered. Bob Miller replied that the city is getting estimates from the electrician, but the structures won’t be lit with solar power. Briere asked if it would connect with the same electrical system that’s heating the stairs coming up to the bridge from South State. Miller wasn’t sure.

Sabra Briere.

When Briere expressed disappointment that the lighting wouldn’t be solar, Miller said that it would be possible, if the city wanted it.

Miller highlighted the fact that these structures will be on both the east and west ends of the bridge – along the north side.

Ken Clein said he’d seen the previous designs, and thought this version was a great improvement. The lighting makes a big difference. He thanked AAPAC for its work.

Briere noted that the structures on the bridge are adjacent to sidewalks, and thus are removed from traffic. Miller replied that a previous iteration had positioned the structures in a landscaped area on the east end. But feedback from neighbors, who didn’t want the landscaping disturbed, resulted in moving the structures out of that area, but next to the sidewalk.

Briere hoped there would be less risk of vehicular accidents in the proposed location. Miller replied: “I didn’t know there was a risk to begin with.”

Briere said there are always risks, so she wanted to make sure the structures were separated from traffic.

Kirk Westphal asked about maintenance costs, citing the example of a car hitting one of the structures. Miller replied that the artist has been asked to provide a maintenance schedule. That will be part of the final proposal.

Westphal asked if there would be a plaque identifying the artist. Aaron Seagraves indicated that there would be a plaque of some sort.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Meeting Schedule

Commissioners were asked to approve their meeting schedule for fiscal 2015, which runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of meeting schedule]

Ann Arbor planning commissioners.

The planning commission meetings are held on Tuesdays. During the week of an election, the meetings are typically rescheduled for a Thursday. However for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014, the planning staff is recommending that the planning commission meetings be moved to Wednesday after an election, rather than to Thursday.

Sabra Briere asked whether there would be any conflicts with Wednesday meetings. Briere said she was thinking about all the neighborhood and citizen meetings that occur on Wednesdays, and trying to determine “how to adjust my mental schedule.” Planning manager Wendy Rampson thought they’d encounter the same potential conflicts on Thursdays. There are only a limited number of options, she noted, and the staff tries not to conflict with other city boards and commissions.

Rampson reported that city staff hadn’t anticipated the Tuesday, May 6 election. [The election is being held for the sole purpose of voting on a transit tax, which was put on the ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] The elections staff will be using the hallways outside of council chambers on May 6, she noted. The planning staff felt that there would likely be too much noise, so they’ve scheduled the May 6 meeting to be held in the Washtenaw County boardroom, at 220 N. Main St.

That change of venue will get planning commissioners accustomed to the new location, Rampson said. Later in the calendar year, their meetings will be held at that location while asbestos abatement occurs on the second floor of city hall, where the council chambers are located.

Outcome: Commissioners approved their meeting schedule.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on April 1.

Communications & Commentary: City Council

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the city council’s April 7 agenda will include the joint resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers property, which planning commissioners passed at their March 18, 2014 meeting.

The resolution included recommendations on uses for the site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base.

Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The council will be considering the same resolution.

The council’s April 7 agenda will also include the planning commission’s resolution about the use of the Library Lane surface, which commissioners also approved on March 18, 2014. That resolution will be attached to the agenda as an item of communication, Rampson said.

Communications & Commentary: ZORO

Wendy Rampson reported that the city attorney’s office and city planner Alexis DiLeo have been working on the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project. “I just thought you’d be excited to hear that,” she joked. There’s still a lot of work to be done, but the staff is trying to move it forward, she added.

ZORO began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material. The project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff and work by an outside consultant. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald is the lead staff person for ZORO.

At a Jan. 7, 2014 planning commission work session, Rampson had reported that the project had been stalled for about six months. The slow progress has been a point of frustration for commissioners over the years.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Zoning

Bonnie Bona reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) is working on revisions to the downtown zoning ordinance. The planning commission had made recommendations about the revisions at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were subsequently approved by the city council on Jan. 21, 2014, when the council directed the planning commission to craft the corresponding zoning ordinance language to reflect the recommendations.

The ORC started with the rezoning of property at Main and William to D2, Bona said, and that will be on the planning commission’s agenda in May. The next piece is to look at the area north of Huron Street, including potentially rezoning some sites and adjusting the overlay district in that area.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA is kicking off its streetscape framework project. He’ll be representing the planning commission as part of that effort. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

Ken Clein.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, planning manager Wendy Rampson said the framework will include an economic evaluation of the use of sidewalks – whether it’s for dining, outdoor sales, or other activities. The intent is to help provide better guidance about what should be allowed on the sidewalks.

Related to downtown sidewalks, Sabra Briere said she keeps hearing from constituents about problems with handicapped accessibility. In many locations, it’s difficult or impossible for someone in a wheelchair to maneuver, she said. Many times, outdoor seating is marked off with a fence that blocks access at a handicapped parking spot, Briere noted. Any time there are barriers put in place unknowingly, “we’re making a mistake,” she said.

The city should be really sensitive to the situation, so she hoped that Clein could bring that up as the streetscape project moves forward.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.