Rendering of proposed new entry at downtown Ann Arbor library, located at 343 S. Fifth Ave. (Image by InForm Studio.)

A vote to continue with the project followed a presentation by Cory Lavigne of InForm Studio, the architecture firm that previously designed AADL’s Traverwood branch. A final design will likely be brought forward for approval at the board’s April 21 meeting, after a public forum in mid-March. Update: The forum is scheduled for Thursday, March 13 at 5:30 p.m. at the downtown building.

The entrance would continue to be oriented to South Fifth Avenue, with new doors into the building. The plan described by Lavigne includes replacing the existing teal strip that wraps around the front of the building – above the doors and windows – with a “concrete skin” panel. Wood paneling would be used in the ceiling of the outside walkway adjacent to the building. Sloping entry walkways would be located on the north side from the Library Lane parking structure and on the south side from William Street, with steps in front leading to South Fifth Avenue. Additional elements include landscaping, a bench, handrails and other features that visually link the library to the adjacent city-owned Library Lane.

The north side of the front facade, closest to Library Lane, would also include a large, translucent sign – made of glass or cast resin – that would be placed between existing brick columns, creating a screen along part of the walkway on that side of the building. The sign would be lit from the inside, with additional lighting along the walkway, to create a glowing effect.

It was that sign element that drew some criticism and concern at the board’s Feb. 17 meeting, primarily from Ed Surovell. He cautioned against creating any kind of shelter, saying it would simply be “an inviting nuisance.” AADL director Josie Parker acknowledged the concern, saying that she had discussed the issue with the library’s security staff as well. She told the board that no matter how the area is designed, security issues will always be a factor and would be handled as they are now, by security staff.

In other action at the board meeting, trustees approved revisions to more than a dozen sections of the AADL policy manual, and voted to create a new committee to help develop the next strategic plan, for 2015-2020. That planning effort had been the focus of a Feb. 3, 2014 board retreat.

Board members also got a brief update on the agreement for a new bike share program called ArborBike, which trustees will likely be asked to approve at their March 17 meeting. It relates to a bike station that will be located on the northern end of the downtown library’s property.

During her director’s report, Josie Parker told the board that the downtown library will be a site for the Living Lab Initiative, a project funded by the National Science Foundation. AADL will be the first public library to be involved in this project, and researchers will be working in the youth department through the end of September.

The board also heard from two people during public commentary: Changming Fan of TiniLite World Inc., who expressed interest in working with the library; and Jamie Vander Broek, a University of Michigan librarian and homeowner who described several reasons why she appreciated AADL. She concluded her remarks by saying: “I love paying my taxes for this library.”

Downtown Library Entrance

The issue of renovating the front entrance of the downtown building arose in the summer of 2013 during a board committee report. At the board’s Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, Margaret Leary, chair of the facilities committee, reported that the committee had received a request from AADL director Josie Parker to pursue options for the front entrance. Parker had told the committee that the building’s front doors had been breaking frequently and are unreliable. The plan was for Parker to get cost estimates from an architect to be vetted by the committee before bringing a proposal to the full board.

In addition to Leary, facilities committee members are Jan Barney Newman and Ed Surovell.

Although other infrastructure projects have been undertaken at the downtown building, located at 343 S. Fifth Ave., this would be the first highly visible renovation since a November 2012 bond proposal was defeated by voters. That proposal would have provided funding for the demolition of the downtown library and construction of a new library on that same site.

Downtown Library Entrance: Facilities Committee Report

During her report from the facilities committee on Feb. 17, Leary told trustees that Parker had brought forward the issue of the downtown library entrance, and the committee had discussed it. The front doors have corroded over the years, and need to be replaced. The initial question was whether to just buy new doors, she said, or to try to improve the entire entry.

The committee decided that it wanted to pursue improving the entry, and had agreed that Parker should consult with InForm Studio, a firm that the library has used in the past. InForm designed the Traverwood branch, and Leary described their work as innovative and creative. For that project, InForm had looked at all of the library’s internal processes in order to develop its design for the branch, she said, and even suggested changes in the way the library had traditionally operated.

Margaret Leary, chair of the AADL board’s facilities committee.

The first thing that InForm was asked to do, Leary said, was to look at whether the entry should remain at its current orientation, facing South Fifth Avenue on the west, or be moved to the north of the building, facing the Library Lane underground parking structure. Leary noted that a north entrance would have been used if the library had built a new building.

But when the committee considered the consequences of moving the entrance now, in terms of the amount of usable space on the first floor, they decided against it. It would have taken all the space used by the existing teen room, she said, and the entire first floor would have been reorganized, as well as possibly some things in the basement and other floors.

Leary reported that she, Parker and board chair Prue Rosenthal also had met with three representatives of the city’s commission on disability issues. It was a follow-up to a letter that the commission had sent to the library with concerns about the existing entrance, and ideas to enhance it. [.pdf of November 2013 letter from Linda Evans, chair of the commission on disability issues] Some of those ideas will be acted upon, Leary said.

InForm was asked to come up with a redesign for the entire entrance – including the steps in front of the library, and the sloped walkways.

Leary said the committee wants to hold a public forum on the project sometime in mid-March, at a date to be determined. Architects from InForm will make a presentation, and members of the facilities committee and library staff will be on hand to get feedback. Other board members will be welcome to attend too, she said. It will likely be held in the evening.

Downtown Library Entrance: Presentation

Cory Lavigne of InForm Studio began his presentation by noting that nine years ago, the firm was interviewing with AADL to be the architect for the Traverwood branch. He called that “the project that just keeps giving,” because of the publicity it receives. People love hearing about the wood, he said. [Background on the building is featured in a video called "Up From Ashes: The Making of the Traverwood Branch."]

Cory Lavigne of InForm Studio (standing) talks with AADL board members Ed Surovell and Margaret Leary.

He described how the proposed design was developed, saying he had started by sitting outside the library trying to get a feel for how people are using the space. Some of the challenges include a lack of identity in the current building, and the need to create something “that tells you where you are,” he said. There’s a sign at the top of the building, but otherwise it’s hard to tell that it’s a library, he said. At night the building’s use is more visual, because you can see inside through the front windows. But generally, unless you know that it’s a library, “it’s really kind of a hard building to identify,” Lavigne said.

He noted that there were some “dark pockets” around the main entrance, as well as concerns about security and accessibility. Those were two high-priority items that InForm wanted to address in its design.

They decided to start at AADL’s property line, and not address the front step that the city of Ann Arbor put in, he said, or the existing slope of the city sidewalk, which Lavigne said does not meet code. He added that everything currently on AADL property does conform to code.

The proposal calls for sloped walkways coming from the north and south sides of the property, sloping at 3% – rising one foot for every 30 feet of length. It’s a very subtle slope that doesn’t require handrails, he said. However, the design includes placing handrails on both sides for support.

Lavigne described the current entrance as giving a sense of a vast expanse of concrete. There’s not a lot of green space or softer materials like wood. So the proposed design includes a planting bed on the north end, next to a new proposed sign. The grasses and wildflowers in that space would be watered in part by diverting rainwater from the overhead canopy.

Rendering by InForm Studio, showing a proposed design for the front entrance of the Ann Arbor downtown library at 343 S. Fifth Ave. On the left is a proposed wooden bench facing the street.

A large, lit sign on that north end clearly would mark the building as the Ann Arbor District Library, he said. Another sign would be added toward the center of the entrance, in front of the building, and the flagpole would be shifted slightly closer to the doors.

The design includes five main materials, Lavigne said, though there’s still a lot of flexibility in that. The existing teal metal panel that wraps around the front of the building – above the doors and windows – would be replaced with a rain screen made of cement fiber called fibreC. He described it as a cast concrete plank that’s durable, lightweight and fire resistant, with “high eco-value.” The existing framing would be used to mount it.

The large lit sign on the northern end could be made of tempered, laminated glass or a translucent 1-inch-thick cast resin called 3form, which was used at the Traverwood branch at the main circulation desk. There are pros and cons for each material, he said. It would be lit from within, and there would also be lighting on the ceiling behind it – over the walkway – so you could see shapes of people walking through the passageway. “There wouldn’t be a complete visual cutoff,” he said.

Other materials used in the overall design would include some concrete and stainless steel, tying into the materials used on the Library Lane parking structure. The ceiling of the entry overhang would be made of tongue-and-groove wood, to add some warmth to the entry. A wood bench would also be added in the front, facing South Fifth Avenue.

The doorways would be reconfigured, using four double-doors. Lavigne said they’re considering different options for those doors, including a “balanced” door that would be easier to open. However, that type of door is roughly 6-10 times more expensive than a normal door. So maybe only one set of doors would be balanced doors, he said.

Downtown Library Entrance: Board Discussion

Nancy Kaplan asked if an amount for the project’s cost has been established. Josie Parker replied that she’d like to keep it to about $250,000. But that figure was floated initially without knowing what the project entails, she noted. The final amount will depend on decisions that the board makes. “It’s always a process,” Parker said, adding that after being involved in building three branches, she’s learned that “it’s never the first figure.”

Jan Barney Newman, a member of the AADL board’s facilities committee.

Jan Barney Newman noted that it will be much less expensive than moving the entrance to the building’s north side. Margaret Leary added that cost wasn’t the only factor in the decision of how to orient the entrance, though it was an important element.

Rebecca Head asked if it would be possible to use pervious concrete. Cory Lavigne replied that not a lot of concrete will be used and most of the areas that include concrete aren’t exposed, but they could look into it. He noted that another option is to include heated sidewalks in the sloped sections leading up to the entrance.

Kaplan asked about the large lit sign, wondering if it would be possible to see the shadow of someone walking behind it. She was concerned that the passageway behind it might feel “tunnel-y” to walk through. Lavigne told the board that his firm would need to do a full-scale mockup to get a better idea of how it would look. They plan to use existing brick columns as the frame, and would need to decide on a level of translucency. With the light pouring out of the sign, plus two picture windows on the building looking into the library, plus new lighting in the soffit, the walkway between the sign and the building would be very bright, he said.

Prue Rosenthal asked about the price for that sign. Lavigne explained that glass would be cheaper. The 3form product costs about $350 per square foot, compared to about $40 for glass. But glass would include other hardware, he noted, bringing the total cost for glass to about $120 per square foot. There would be other advantages and disadvantages to weigh in using the materials, too.

Leary said she always has wanted signs that are visible from a relatively far distance. “We are sitting here in the midst of nothing,” she said. There’s currently no building directly to the north, where the Library Lane underground parking structure is located, and there’s nothing across the street at the former Y lot. Why not take advantage of that and have a sign somewhere high on the building? “What I would like to achieve is a library building that is visible and labeled as a library from as far away as possible,” she said.

Parker noted that the kind of sign Leary was describing hadn’t been part of the scope of work that InForm was asked to address. They could talk about whether it’s something they want to add, Parker said.

Rendering by InForm Studio.

Rosenthal wanted to know more about the sign that is intended to be placed more toward the center front of the building. Lavigne described it as a folded stainless steel plate that sits off a concrete wall by about 2 inches, with a cutout of the address in front. It would have an LED light so that at night, the letters and numbers would be backlit. There’s no ledge for people to stuff garbage into, he said. Ed Surovell noted that it’s not garbage they’re worried about. [The downtown library has had problems in the past with the front area being used for drug drops.]

Regarding the panel/rain screen being proposed to replace the existing teal panel, Leary told Lavigne that it looks like the skin of the Justice Center in Ann Arbor, next to city hall. “That building has not been uniformly….” she then stopped, and added: “I’ve said enough.” Lavigne indicated that there are other options for color.

Leary also was concerned about the proposed stairs at the front of the library, which are deeper than typical stairs, and curved. Even though the existing stairs and ramps conform to code, they are perceived by some people as being difficult to navigate, she said. “I would hate to deliberately put something there that would be perceived the same way,” Leary added. Noting that you can never control how something will be perceived, she wondered if a more straightforward design for the stairs would be a better option.

Lavigne replied that the idea was to create a kind of “monumental” stairs with the larger tread, so that it might become more of a gathering space rather than having it just be a pathway. But he could see the concern, and said it’s an easy change to make.

Rendering by InForm Studio, showing some curved “monumental” stairs at the downtown library entrance.

Kaplan asked if there was any thought given to moving the doors forward. Lavigne indicated that they started the design at the existing envelope of the building, so that they wouldn’t need to deal with any interior mechanical or electrical infrastructure.

In response to another query, Lavigne said that there will be more lighting in the ceilings and walls, and the materials used for the entryway will be steel and stainless steel, so that will add to the brightness as well.

Returning to the issue of the large translucent sign at the north end of the building, Newman wondered if there would be space for “nighttime campers” to fit. Lavigne explained that each end of the two faces would be closed off with a stainless steel plate, so no one could get in between the two faces – that is, they couldn’t get inside the sign.

Newman clarified that she was asking about the space in the walkway, between the sign and the building. Lavigne said one way to deal with security is to provide as much light as possible, and to ensure that there would be enough translucency to see the shapes of people behind the sign. No one could really lurk there, he said.

Surovell said he didn’t think the level of translucency solved the problem. “It’s a shelter. I don’t care if the glass is clear and it’s lit to beat the band. A shelter in the city, in the winter or in the rain, is a shelter. It is an inviting nuisance, and it only seems to me to emphasize the problem that we have already. We have a covered space that serves as a point of harassment to some of our friends, to some of our patrons, and I don’t understand why I would create a wind shelter, which is the real issue in the winter.”

If he were to do something like that, Surovell continued, he’d want to be able to close it off when the library wasn’t open. “And to be frank, we have problems during ordinary business hours – hot, cold, dry, rain.” He noted that the original architect for the building, Alden B. Dow, had a fascination for indents. But such indents are an “attractive shelter, and I don’t know why we’d build another one,” Surovell said.

Rebecca Head.

Rosenthal expressed concern with people hanging out there during the day, causing some patrons to be afraid. Lavigne said these were valid concerns, and that the design tries to address the issue by making it brighter in that area than it is now. “We’re trying to change the environment in its entirety,” he said, trying to activate the space to be used by more people – adding a bench, for example, where people can sit and read a book or wait for their ride. The intent is to work with the bones of the building, trying to make it as attractive, vibrant and light as possible within the budget they’ve been given.

Leary said she loved the “light box” sign, but understands the concerns about security. If it does end up being a problem, what would the library do about it – what’s the fix? she asked.

The fix, Parker replied, would be the same as what the library does currently. Even though there’s no wind shelter, people still hang out under the overhang. The library’s security staff circulates out there on a regular basis, she said, and ask people to move along. “I don’t know that anything we do will change that,” Parker said. She added that these plans have been shown to the library’s security and facilities staff.

Kaplan clarified with Lavigne that the sign wouldn’t provide structural support. In that case, Kaplan said, it wouldn’t need to go from top to bottom.

Rosenthal said that in light of Parker’s feedback, she’d be inclined to defer to the administration and the front-line security and facilities staff. If they are comfortable with it, she said, that’s a factor.

Ed Surovell, a member of the AADL board’s facilities committee.

Parker said she wanted to the board to understand that by putting in a bench, handrails and steps, the library is creating a “front porch, which is the only way in and only way out of a very busy building. There isn’t any condition that we can create that will eliminate the need for security.”

There isn’t a bench in front now, so adding one might create new issues, Parker noted. But it will also allow people to sit there and wait for a ride. “We’re trying to make the best possible situation with what we have, and make it as attractive and inviting as we can for far more people than it is attractive and inviting for now.”

Head cautioned that they shouldn’t make perfect be the enemy of the good. She supported bringing in some comforts for patrons, while recognizing that it might bring in some problems, too.

Kaplan suggested putting dividers on the bench, to prevent people from lying down.

As the discussion wrapped up, Rosenthal outlined the next steps for this project. Based on feedback from the board, InForm would work with the facilities committee to tweak its design. A public forum will be scheduled to get additional feedback in mid-March. A new design will likely be brought to the board for its April 21 meeting.

The board then voted on a resolution that authorized the project to move forward.

Outcome: On a voice vote, the board approved moving ahead on this project.

Committee Appointments

The Feb. 17 agenda included a resolution to create a committee to lead the process for developing the 2015-2020 strategic plan, and to appoint members to the director’s evaluation committee.

AADL board committees consist of no more than three trustees. Because that does not constitute a quorum of the seven-member board, the committee meetings are generally not subject to the state’s Open Meetings Act and are not open to the public.

Committee Appointments: Strategic Plan

The need for more strategic planning at the committee level emerged during the board’s Feb. 3, 2014 retreat. On Feb. 17, the resolution establishing a special committee described its charge as leading the process to develop a strategic plan for 2015-2020.

Nancy Kaplan was named chair of the special committee for strategic planning.

Noting that the term of the committee runs through 2014, Margaret Leary asked whether that reflects the hope that this work will be finished by the end of December.

AADL director Josie Parker replied that the committee term reflects the tenure of the board president. At their first meeting of each year, trustees elect board officers, including a president, to serve for that calendar year. Prue Rosenthal serves as the current president, through 2014.

Leary rephrased her question, asking whether the intent is to finish the strategic committee’s work before 2015. Yes, Rosenthal said.

Parker told the board that it’s never taken more than six months to develop a strategic plan.

Outcome: On a voice vote, the board created a special strategic planning committee.

Rosenthal then nominated the following members to serve on the strategic planning committee through 2014: Nancy Kaplan (chair), Barbara Murphy and Rebecca Head.

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a voice vote, members were appointed to the strategic planning committee.

Committee Appointments: Director’s Evaluation

Rosenthal nominated the following trustees to the director’s evaluation committee for the annual review of AADL director Josie Parker: Barbara Murphy (chair), Jan Barney Newman and Rebecca Head.

Ed Surovell asked if this is a standing committee. Parker clarified that it’s a standing committee, as described in the board’s bylaws.

Surovell complained that the board wasn’t given advance notice about this. “I have some objections that I do not wish to discuss in public,” he said, adding that he didn’t want to be the sole vote against it, so he’d support the resolution. He indicated that he would discuss it with Rosenthal at a later time.

Outcome: On a voice vote, the board approved appointments to the director’s evaluation committee.

Policy Revisions

A resolution to approve revisions to a set of Ann Arbor District Library policies was on the board’s Feb. 17 agenda. The proposed revisions had been presented to the board at its meeting on Jan. 20, 2014.

The changes affect more than a dozen sections of the AADL policy manual, which covers a wide range of issues spanning overall library philosophy to circulation policies and rules of behavior for patrons. Among the changes include a new policy to offer free library cards to non-resident students and staff at state-sanctioned schools within AADL’s district.

The board’s policy committee had already reviewed all revisions that were proposed by AADL staff and vetted by legal counsel.

Revisions were made in the following sections of the policy handbook. [Each topic in this list includes a .pdf file with the old policy, a marked-up version showing changes, and the new policy.]:

• AADL philosophy
• “Freedom to Read” policy
• Privacy statement
• Internet use policy
• MichNet acceptable use policy
• Interlibrary loan services
• Photocopying/fax services & fees
• Circulation policy
• Confidentiality policy
• Requests for access to records from general public
• Display/distribution of materials by outside groups
• Rules of behavior in public sectors
• Unattended child policy
• Equal employment opportunity & affirmative action policy

The board was also asked to eliminate five policies, which have been incorporated into other policies or were outdated: (1) freedom to view; (2) providing access to computer-based resources; (3) release of minor child’s records; (4) fines for damaged or lost materials; and (5) business use of facilities.

Discussion was brief. Margaret Leary thanked staff and the policy committee for their work. Others noted that many of the policies had been out of date.

Outcome: In separate unanimous votes, the board approved the policy revisions and eliminated five policies.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees, not including the new committee created during the Feb. 17 meeting. The committees are: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, and executive. Only one committee report was made on Feb. 17.

Committee Reports: Facilities

In addition to her report regarding the downtown library entrance (see above), Margaret Leary – chair of the facilities committee – gave an update on the bike share program.

She reported that the committee has looked at the most recent draft of the bike share agreement. The board had previously discussed the arrangement – trustees were briefed on the program at their Aug. 19, 2013 meeting. AADL has been waiting for the University of Michigan to finalize its agreement with the Clean Energy Coalition, which is managing the program. When that happens, Leary said, AADL will move forward with an agreement that will come before the board.

Parker added that UM has signed a master agreement with CEC, and AADL is now reviewing its own agreement regarding a bike share station that would be located on the northern end of the downtown library property. AADL’s agreement will mimic the master agreement, she said. Parker reported that she and Ken Nieman, the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations, are recommending to the facilities committee that the library participate in the bike share program. It’s likely that the facilities committee will bring forward a resolution at the board’s March 17 meeting to approve the agreement, Parker said.

Responding to a query from Ed Surovell, Parker said that the documents have already been reviewed by the library’s legal counsel. Surovell requested that the facilities committee receive a formal transmittal letter from counsel.

By way of additional background, the CEC and other supporters of the program issued a press release on Feb. 5, 2014 announcing its logo and name: ArborBike. [.pdf of press release]

ArborBike logo.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the January 2014 financial statements. [.pdf of financial report]

Through Jan. 31, the library has received 97.4% of its budgeted tax receipts. The library had $12.7 million in unrestricted cash at the end of January, with a fund balance of $8.26 million.

During the month, the library made a payment of about $74,000 to the state of Michigan pension system. This was a pass-through amount, Nieman reported, because the library also received a payment of the same amount – recorded in the “state aid” line item. “It’s the state’s way of helping out the pension system,” he said. The same kind of payments are being made to schools in the state as well. It’s likely that a budget adjustment will be required later in the year to reflect this transaction, he said.

Outcome: This is not a voting item.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker told that board that it was a pleasure “with a level of regret” that Celeste Choate has been named the new director of the Urbana Free Library in Urbana, Illinois. Choate has served as associate director of services, collections and access at AADL since 2007. She was part of getting the collection ready for the opening of the Traverwood branch that year, and was instrumental in bringing the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled to AADL. Her “joie de vivre” is a wonderful positive attribute for this kind of work, Parker said. “That attitude, I think, will be greatly appreciated in Urbana and greatly missed by this library.”

Josie Parker, AADL director.

Choate’s last day with AADL is Feb. 28, and she’ll be starting at the Urbana library on April 1. She did not attend the Feb. 17 board meeting.

Parker told trustees that Choate is the fifth AADL manager in the past 12 years who has left to become director at another public library. “That’s something that I think we should all be proud of, in terms of one more contribution that AADL makes to the profession, and I think we should see it that way,” Parker said.

“We wouldn’t want it any other way,” Ed Surovell replied. “It’s a high honor to attract people like that, who can develop to the point where they can go run their own library.”

Parker also told the board that the library had been approached by Craig Smith, a social scientist at the University of Michigan’s Conceptual Development Lab, who is also a father who uses the library. He wanted to know if the library would be interested in being a site for the Living Lab Initiative, a project funded by the National Science Foundation. Typically, the sites are children’s museums, Parker said, including the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum. AADL would be the first public library to be involved in this national project.

Researchers will be working in the youth department of the downtown library through the end of September, Parker said. It’s a voluntary process with children over four years old, and a parent must be present. Issues include how a child perceives the difference between “fair” and “just.” Parker said that some of the research will help AADL develop its programs and services for families and children. It’s an interesting opportunity for AADL, she said, “and because it’s local, we decided to try it.”

Parker also noted that the 10th anniversary of Malletts Creek opening will be celebrated on March 22 at that branch. It was the first new branch that had been opened in over 30 years, and she hoped that board members could attend the event to mark its anniversary.

She also observed that 12 years ago this month, she became AADL’s director. “It’s still just the best job in Ann Arbor and in my profession,” Parker said.

Library Stats

Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development – gave a presentation on library statistics, providing details in five categories for the month of January: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. The data is compared to year-ago figures, when available.

AADL collections data: January 2014.

AADL users data: January 2014.

AADL visits data: January 2014.

AADL usage data: January 2014.

AADL participation data: January 2014.

Among the highlights, Neiburger noted that the weather in January affected door counts and event attendance. One Sunday, the library was closed due to bad weather. He pointed out that despite the weather, there was a huge turnout for the event featuring Ruta Sepetys, author of “Between Shades Of Gray,” this year’s Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Reads selection. Online usage was up during the month, because when the weather is bad “you can stay home and use the web,” Neiburger said.

Neiburger also reported that AADL experimented with paying to boost a post on Facebook. AADL has about 3,300 followers on Facebook, but an average post is presented to only 150-200 people. It’s very inexpensive to boost, he said – about $50 per post. “It worked, but it’s a little sketchy.” Neiburger said he’d provide more details about this effort at next month’s board meeting.

Neiburger also presented some of the “top Tweets” from the past two months that mentioned @AADL, including this one from Alex Goldman, a producer from NPR’s On the Media who grew up in Ann Arbor:

Alex Goldman Tweet.

Public Commentary

Two people spoke during public commentary at the start of the Feb. 17 meeting.

Changming Fan of TiniLite World.

Changming Fan told the board that his company, TiniLite World Inc., has been registered in Ann Arbor since 1996. 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.

Fan congratulated AADL on achieving a five-star ranking, and said he’d like to do something to make it even better and help the library face its challenges. AADL is at the frontier, and that brings new trouble, he said.

He told the board that he’s talked with Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and production, and he hopes that the library will consider hosting workshops to make products and possibly even sell them. He called it transforming Read-It-Yourself to Do-It-Yourself, saying it’s the “American spirit.” Fan wants to contribute his company’s technology to this community.

Fan also noted that almost everything is made in China – and that’s a challenge for America, but AADL could be a leader in helping change that, he said. A lot of leaders in the state have supported manufacturing, he said, but nothing has happened. So he wants to work with AADL to be the leader of a social, mobile and local movement. He concluded by again thanking the board for AADL’s work.

Also addressing the board was Jamie Vander Broek, who introduced herself as a librarian working at the University of Michigan. She’s also a homeowner, and wanted to share some recent positive impressions she’s had of AADL.

Jamie Vander Broek.

She attended the FoolMoon event last spring in downtown Ann Arbor, and encountered an area where people were playing a game – and “of course it turned out to be something that AADL had organized.” It was part of a cool outdoor event, and when she sees things that are cool, interesting or on the bleeding edge, “AADL is always involved,” Vander Broek said.

Another example she gave is Nerd Nite, where people share things that they’re passionate about. One of her friends who works at General Electric developing mobile ultrasound devices gave a presentation at Nerd Nite and did an ultrasound of his stomach while he was talking, she said. The event had faced some organizational challenges, however, so she was glad to see that AADL has stepped in and will help “keep the wheels greased and in motion.”

She also noted that in her experience as a librarian, it’s difficult to negotiate licenses with companies that “have zero desire to give us anything for free.” So it was really exciting to her to see that AADL has successfully negotiated an agreement with Ghostly International, a local music firm. The deal will provide access to Ghostly’s music catalog.

Finally, Vander Broek told the board that part of her job is to do traditional library services. She staffs a reference desk and answers questions via online chat. Recently she got a query about an old murder case in Ann Arbor, and it gave her the opportunity to introduce the student asking the question to AADL’s Old News archives. She thought it was cool that AADL excels at traditional library services, like providing access to digitized archives of newspapers, as well as things that people wouldn’t expect a library to be involved in, like Nerd Nite and the Ghostly International licensing deal.

“I love paying my taxes for this library,” she concluded.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Barbara Murphy.

Next regular meeting: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The need for more strategic planning at the committee level emerged during the board’s Feb. 3, 2014 retreat. Members appointed to the committee on Feb. 17 are Nancy Kaplan (chair), Barbara Murphy and Rebecca Head, to serve through 2014.

Also on Feb. 17, the board appointed members to the director’s evaluation committee for the annual review of AADL director Josie Parker. Members are Barbara Murphy (chair), Jan Barney Newman and Rebecca Head. Responding to a query from Ed Surovell before the vote, Parker explained that the director’s evaluation committee is a standing committee, as established in the board’s bylaws. Saying that he hadn’t known about these appointments in advance of the meeting, Surovell said he’d support the appointments, but he objected for reasons that he said he didn’t want to discuss in public. He indicated that he would discuss it with board president Prue Rosenthal at a later time.

AADL board committees consist of no more than three trustees. Because that does not constitute a quorum of the seven-member board, the committee meetings are generally not subject to the state’s Open Meetings Act and are not open to the public.

This brief was filed from the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

A skeleton – wearing an Ann Arbor District Library T-shirt – was part of the non-traditional collections on display at the Feb. 3, 2014 AADL board retreat. (Photos by the writer.)

Discussion during the retreat, held at AADL’s downtown location on South Fifth Avenue, often touched on issues specific to that area. Dealing with the chronically homeless is one of the biggest challenges there, AADL director Josie Parker told the board, because during the hours that it’s open, the library is the shelter of last resort for many people.

“We are not a social service agency, yet we act as a de facto one,” Parker said. “We have a lot to contribute to this conversation because of our experience over the last 15 years.” The board discussed the need to define the library’s advocacy role in general for issues that trustees think are important, though Parker noted that the first responsibility for both the AADL administration and the board is to advocate for the library.

Other challenges faced by AADL include urban development, changes in the education system, issues related to providing Internet access, and “blurred lines” – instances where AADL is providing services to people who don’t live within the district’s boundaries. Also related to work outside the library’s boundaries, Parker reported that she’s talking with other directors of district libraries in Washtenaw County about the possibility of doing a study on the economic development impact of libraries.

The retreat began with a review of AADL’s non-traditional collections, and items from those collections were on display in the meeting room. The library has circulated art prints for more than 30 years, but has been expanding into other areas more recently, including science kits, musical instruments, home tools and craft equipment.

Parker told the board that the public library’s mission – to distribute materials that support the reading, education and even entertainment of the public – isn’t limited to bound volumes. The items for AADL’s non-traditional collections aren’t generally available to rent elsewhere, and are usually expensive to buy, she noted. “What are the limits of sharing? That’s what we’re pushing on.”

The final portion of the retreat was facilitated by local consultant Sandra Greenstone, who has played a similar role at previous retreats. Trustees generated a list of questions that they’d like to answer to help inform their work on the next strategic plan. Many of the issues related to the downtown library, but there was no discussion about putting another ballot proposal before voters. In November 2012, voters defeated a bond proposal that would have funded a new downtown library.

How all of this fits into the next strategic plan is a work in progress. The board will be handling the next steps at the committee level, with an update expected at the board’s Feb. 17 meeting.

Setting the Stage

Prue Rosenthal, the board’s president, began the retreat by saying that oftentimes people are asked for feedback at retreats like this. Although the board was going to get information from staff about what the library is doing and plans to do, Rosenthal hoped that the board would also focus “on what might be.” As an example, she cited the possibility of having games that the adult community could be invited to play – she mentioned Luminosity as the kind of game she had in mind. “What I’m hoping we’ll do is think forward,” she said.

Librarian Mariah Cherem, far left, with AADL trustees Jan Barney Newman, Rebecca Head and Margaret Leary.

AADL director Josie Parker told the board that the staff had set up items around the room that are currently in circulation, as well as things that the library plans to circulate soon. Staff were on hand to talk with board members about these items.

Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and production, gave an overview of the different collections on display, including “Book Clubs To Go” for adults, thematically-related kids books in “Stories To Go” kits, and “Science Tools” that range from dinosaur kits to telescopes and light meters. About three years ago, the AADL added a “Music Tools” collection, which has proven popular, he said. “Science To Go” kits were created with science tools, and “Home Tools” is a collection that started with energy meters, as part of a program in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. Other items are now being added.

“Art Tools” is another collection that’s relatively new, and includes items like a drum card – a device used to take fleece off a sheep and start turning it into yarn. “We now have pretty close to the full set of tools you’d need to go straight from sheep to sweater,” Neiburger said.

These non-traditional collections have grown over the years. In 2011, excluding art prints, there were 18 non-traditional items in circulation, mostly energy meters. Those items were checked out 149 times. In 2012-2013, AADL made a major investment in these collections, increasing the number of items to 236 by the end of fiscal 2013. AADL projects there will be about 300 items and about 3,800 checkouts by the end of this fiscal year – on June 30, 2014. That’s over 10 checkouts per item over the year, Neiburger noted, calling it a very high number for any kind of collection. “Clearly we’ve found something that really is connecting with an audience.”

The library has about 600,000 items all of its collections, including books. So the non-traditional collections are relatively small by comparison, Neiburger said. But they are high-value, active use collections.

Not all of the items in the boardroom that night are in active circulation yet, Neiburger noted, and some are just in beta circulation to get input from a small number of users. One such device reads the codes off of cars – for example, when your “check engine” light comes on, you can hook the tool to your car, find out the diagnostic code, and look up what you need online to fix the problem.

In addition to items that can be reserved, AADL also has a category called “Up For Grabs” – items that can’t be put on hold, and are available on the shelf for walk-ins.

Parker told the board that the public library’s mission – to distribute materials that support the reading, education and entertainment of the public – isn’t limited to bound volumes. The items for AADL’s non-traditional collections are chosen carefully so that they don’t compete with local businesses. The items aren’t generally available to rent, and are usually expensive to buy, she noted. “What are the limits of sharing? That’s what we’re pushing on.”

Margaret Leary wondered whether there’s any evidence that expanding what the library lends attracts different people to the library. The telescopes have brought in a new audience, Parker said, including young males – a group that typically loses interest in the library. But Parker also noted that this kind of lending isn’t new: AADL has been lending framed artwork for over 30 years.

Board members spent about 30 minutes talking with staff about these collections.

Public Library Trends

When the group reconvened, Josie Parker told the board the she and Eli Neiburger would be following up on information they’d presented at a Sept. 30, 2009 board retreat held at the law firm Dykema. Discussions at that retreat were used to help develop the 2010-2015 strategic plan. [All but one of the current board members – Nancy Kaplan – also served on the board at that time.]

To put things in perspective, Neiburger noted that when he gave his presentation in 2009, “I speculated that Apple would be releasing a tablet called the iPad in the next year.”

AADL staff and trustees at the Feb. 3 board retreat.

It’s a very challenging time for the “content industry,” Neiburger said. From the first quarter of 2012 through the first quarter of 2013, sales of eBooks declined by 5%. Although adult eBook sales actually grew during that period, it was offset by a sharp decline in eBook sales for kids and teens. He noted that “Hunger Games” was released in 2012, adding that when the financial health of an entire format is influenced by the release of a single title or series, that doesn’t bode well for the long-term survivability of that format.

On the print side, all book sales were also down about 5%, and paperback books sales were down about 11%. Hardcover sales, however, were up 12%. That trend counters the notion that everything is moving to digital, Neiburger said. “So the story’s not quite what it sometimes seems to be, especially for people who are avid book readers.”

In terms of a long-term trend, Neiburger said the sales trend for eBooks don’t look like an adoption curve. That is, the trend doesn’t indicate that everyone is switching to the eBook format. Sales of tablets like the iPad are growing, he noted, but those devices are being used more for streaming services – like movies – than for eBooks. He pointed out that Netflix “is off like a shot,” with a business model that charges a fixed monthly price for unlimited usage. Cable TV is still popular, but there’s a “big bomb” awaiting that service, Neiburger said: unbundling. “If people are ever able to actually choose what channels they want to subscribe to, the cable industry is going to be in a lot of trouble very quickly,” he said.

The most telling things about these trends are the popularity of the fixed price/unlimited usage model, he said, and how cable TV does extremely poorly with younger consumers.

Neiburger described another streaming service – Spotify, which provides online music – and noted that paid subscribers hear music without ads. But Spotify has more unpaid subscribers than paid ones, and those unpaid subscribers have to listen to ads. “What this shows is how much more willing people are to consume a free service, even if it’s got ads on it,” he said. The thought of reading an ad-sponsored book “is kind of a horrifying idea,” he added. But that’s the dominant method by which most content is monetized, including radio, newspapers/magazines, and cable TV.

Neiburger noted that the birth of impartiality for newspapers occurred when newspaper owners decided to drop the price to a penny and started selling their readership to advertisers. At that point, there couldn’t be one newspaper for each point of view, he said. It resulted in newspapers trying to encompass a range of views, and reach a larger market.

The fixed price/unlimited usage model is now coming to eBooks in the form of a new service called Oyster, which launched in the fall of 2013. For $9.95 a month, people can read an unlimited amount of books. It doesn’t include all books, Neiburger said, but several major publishers are participating.

Neiburger said AADL is seeing an impact from this kind of model, specifically from services like Netflix and Spotify. An opportunity for the library is to have items that are harder to find, and that won’t be part of the services offered by these larger companies, he said.

Neiburger also reported results from a survey recently released by the Pew Research Center, which showed that a growing number of Americans are reading eBooks. But only 4% said that they only read eBooks – it’s a niche, not a transition, he said.

Regarding data about AADL usage, Neiburger showed that the library system’s door counts have grown from about 1.2 million in 2004, compared to the current door count of between 1.6 million to 1.7 million annually. During that period, the library opened three new branches – Malletts Creek in 2004, Pittsfield in 2006, and Traverwood in 2008. Each of those openings lifted the door count for the entire system, Neiburger noted. Another lifting force was the “recession bump” between 2008-2010, he said. That’s now beginning to flatten, but the door count is still higher now than it was in 2008.

For checkouts and renewals, there were 2.5 million in 2004 compared to about 9 million in 2013 – although it’s been basically flat since 2011. The library received more than 112,000 reference questions in 2004, which dropped to about 62,000 questions in 2013. There’s been a slight uptick recently driven by Old News requests – primarily for obituaries. Event attendance has almost doubled over the past 10 years, from about 45,000 in 2004 to 86,000 in 2013.

The library launched its current website in 2005, starting at about 5 million page views per year and growing to about 85 million page views in 2013.

External Pressures/Opportunities

Josie Parker then presented an overview of some of the outside pressures and challenges that the AADL faces, and Eli Neiburger outlined how those challenges might provide opportunities for AADL.

External Pressures/Opportunities: Education

Parker noted that school libraries haven’t been funded well or consistently for many years. As a public library, “we are now filling gaps in ways that we might not have expected to,” she said. If there isn’t a media center at their school, children will go elsewhere – like the public library. But while the public library is providing uses that it didn’t before, that’s not being followed by additional funding, she noted.

Trustee Ed Surovell talks with AADL director Josie Parker.

There are many opportunities to continue developing programs and services for schools, Neiburger said. For example, AADL has a new kids page – called Jump! – that links to homework help, event listings, and other resources.

Non-traditional collections are another example. A music teacher had checked out two musical tools for her class, which meant that her students had to share. So AADL created a kit with 30 of the devices, Neiburger said, so that each student in a classroom would have one to use. The kits can also be used by a Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop, or any other group.

Another example is the model that AADL uses for digital downloads, which allows users – including teachers – to keep the item after it’s downloaded. For now, this mostly applies to the music collection, but AADL is in the middle of major negotiations for other collections, he said.

The AADL has put infrastructure in place to deliver a variety of content, Neiburger noted, and the library is establishing licensing agreements directly with the rightsholders – not with vendors and publishers.

The AADL will continue to reach out in developing new services, Neiburger said. One challenge related to K-12 efforts, he added, is that it’s hard for teachers to find time to partner with the library, “because it’s hard to show how it connects to test scores.”

Parker noted that it’s not clear to AADL how any of this will evolve. However, she’s sure that AADL wants no part of some of the services that are being sold to libraries now, like Freegal. Such services charge tens of thousands of dollars in set-up costs, as well as a click-per-use fee. Those services also put a limit on what users can access, Parker noted. AADL is taking a different approach, she said, even though the outcome is uncertain. [Some of these issues were covered in more detail at previous board meetings. For example, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Library Signs Digital Music Deal" and "AADL Board Briefed on Public Library Trends."]

Regarding classes offered by AADL for adults, Neiburger reported that demand is way down, and in many cases, the same people were taking classes over and over. People don’t necessarily want to be trained to use new software or learn how to apply for a job, he noted – they’re just trying to complete a task. So there’s an opportunity for AADL staff to offer one-on-one help, he said, and to develop a service around that approach.

AADL also is looking for opportunities for classes that have a unique topic. As an example, All Hands Active held a 3-D printing workshop at AADL. They were teaching something that required you to be in the presence of the device that you were learning about, Neiburger said, and “that’s a big opportunity.” There’s also a need for places to do “noisy group work,” he said, and there aren’t many spots in the community that provide that kind of space. AADL needs to think about reconfiguring its space to accommodate these kinds of things, he said, without disturbing other patrons. “A 3-D printer has a distinct odor to it. 3-D printing geeks also have a distinct odor to them,” he joked.

Neiburger also noted that the library is taking its collections outside of its own facilities. AADL held a stargazing party at Leslie Science & Nature Center to launch its telescope collection, for example. AADL also participates in the Neutral Zone’s Washington Street Fair, the Mini Maker Faire, FoolMoon, Top of the Park and other events. It’s an opportunity to reach new audiences who don’t necessarily know what the library offers, he said.

External Pressures: Internet Access

Parker reported that increasingly, other public institutions are moving services online, then telling citizens to access that service or information by using computers at the public library. That includes information about taxes, health care, Secretary of State services, and unemployment services. “In many cases in this country, the public library is the last access point for most folks,” she said.

AADL trustee Rebecca Head.

The Ann Arbor community is a bit different, she noted, but it’s still happening. Parker also pointed out that when these other institutions direct citizens to the public library, “please don’t think that they talked to us about that first. Most of the time, they did not.” She noted that some of these public institutions have shifted services online because they don’t have the staff to support public access, so “they’re taking the path of least resistance.”

Rebecca Head noted that it’s difficult for the downtown library to install more computers, given the building’s infrastructure. Parker clarified that it’s possible to put in more computers at the downtown library. “It’s just a very high cost to do that,” she said.

Parker noted that computing is a common need that runs through all types of services that the library provides, from K-12 education to job searching to tax preparation.

There’s an equity issue here, Head observed. “Libraries have always stood for providing access to people who might not otherwise have access.” It puts an extra burden on the library, she added.

Prue Rosenthal wondered what percentage of people in AADL’s district don’t have access to computers and the Internet. Parker didn’t have that information at hand, but noted that the percentage went up during the recession. That’s why the library’s “recession bump” occurred, as people turned to AADL for that service.

Neiburger noted that even if someone does have a computer and Internet access at home, they can’t always use it for everything if the equipment and software aren’t up to date.

As another example, Parker reported that the library has held classes on PowerSchool, the homework-tracking software used by Ann Arbor Public Schools, because some parents need help in using it.

Parker also raised another issue associated with ubiquitous public access to computers. Sometimes, people will use the computer for purposes that aren’t allowed, she said. Although the library has rules of behavior and monitors computer usage, she said, the staff can’t completely guarantee that a patron won’t look at something online that offends someone else. She cited precautions that are in place. Computers designated for adults have a filter option, she noted, and in the youth department, no one over the age of 14 can be online unless they’re with a child. There is no Internet access in children’s areas at the branches. So the library has done many things to mitigate risk, she said, but “it’s impossible to totally eliminate the possibility.”

The fear that someone will inappropriately use a public library computer for pornography is not enough to offset the positive benefits of providing Internet access for job searches, research and other purposes, Parker told the board.

External Pressures: Urban Development

Parker showed the board an aerial view of the downtown library at the northeast corner of Fifth and William. She pointed out the surrounding properties – including the adjacent city-owned underground parking structure known as Library Lane, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s Blake Transit Center across the street, and the surface lot at the opposite corner of Fifth and William that’s being bought from the city by hotelier Dennis Dahlmann.

Parker cited several questions that relate to AADL’s downtown building: What will surround the downtown library and who supports it? What’s happening that the library can’t control? Where does AADL have a voice? These are questions that she doesn’t have answers to, Parker said, noting that urban development is a big pressure.

External Pressures: Chronically Homeless

This community has seen a change since Parker started working at AADL, she said. A decade or more ago, the staff could identify about 20 homeless people who regularly came to the library, compared to hundreds of homeless today. For the chronically homeless, the library is their last resort, Parker said. “People who have other options, take them. The ones who don’t, come here.”

Screenshot from a Jan. 24, 2014 Channel 7 news report, interviewing a homeless man in front of the downtown Ann Arbor library.

She pointed to a Jan. 24 Channel 7 News report, which included an interview with a homeless man standing in front of the downtown library. The library was a backdrop for the report, she noted, and the homeless man discussed the library as a place where he could be warm.

“We are not part of the community conversation about the solution [to homelessness],” Parker told the board. “We are not a social service agency, yet we act as a de facto one. My point here is that while we aren’t a social service agency, we have a lot to contribute to this conversation because of our experience over the last 15 years. Yet we’re not in that conversation.”

Prue Rosenthal asked how Parker would ideally want to participate in that community conversation. Parker replied that the library staff has tried to insert themselves where they thought it was appropriate. She said she admired all the people who work with the homeless, because the chronically homeless are dealing with a range of other issues too.

But because the library isn’t a social service agency, she added, “we are not seen as equals in this conversation. So we’re a backdrop.” If the library is the last resort for shelter, then the community needs to consider what that means to ask its public library to provide that shelter. “This isn’t a hit on anyone,” Parker added. “But this is real. It costs a lot of money in security and safety and training.”

“It’s something that we just have to start being more vocal about,” she said.

Parker noted that it’s not about the fact that a person is homeless. The library will always be a refuge, Parker said. It’s about people who can’t behave, and who have needs that the library can’t meet.

“This one is our biggest challenge,” she concluded.

External Pressures: Blurred Lines/Clarity of Mission

Parker pointed out that the library provides support for other community organizations by providing a computer server that’s outside of AADL’s firewall. Examples include ArborWiki, Huron Valley Community Network, Washtenaw Literacy and the Ann Arbor Book Festival. That’s a form of blurring lines, she said, because many people involved in these groups or who use the services and programs of these groups don’t live in the AADL district.

From left: Trustees Prue Rosenthal and Rebecca Head look at some of the non-traditional items in the AADL’s collections.

Another example is the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which the AADL manages. Anyone who lives in Washtenaw County and who is eligible for the National Library Service can receive an AADL card, even if they live outside of AADL’s district.

Barbara Murphy noted that anybody anywhere can use the AADL website too – they don’t have to live within the AADL district to gain access to it.

For K-12 education, school librarians can place a link on the school’s media center computers to access AADL databases. That service is provided because schools generally can’t afford those databases, Parker said. A couple of companies have objected to expanding the use of their databases in that way, she noted. When that happens, AADL removes those databases from being accessed via the school computers.

Based on her conversations over the past few months with the new dean of libraries at the University of Michigan, James Hilton, and the new Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent, Jeanice Kerr Swift, Parker said she expects AADL will be looking at more instances of blurring lines in the future.

Responding to a query from Nancy Kaplan, Parker said that talking with Swift had been a big uplift as a library director, because Swift understands the value of having a media center at a school.

Parker also noted that the board is being asked to vote on a policy change – likely at its Feb. 17 meeting – to allow the library to issue cards to students who go to school within the AADL district, but who don’t live here. “That’s the next step for us in blurring those lines – carefully but deliberately,” Parker said.

Margaret Leary wondered if Parker saw any future collaboration happening with the UM library. “I do,” Parker replied. “But I don’t know exactly what it will look like.”

Historically, libraries have resisted these types of ventures for fear of being overwhelmed, Parker said, “and it rarely happens.” For example, when Parker became AADL director, she wanted to eliminate the limits on renewals and holds. There was a lot of fear among staff that this would cause the shelves to be emptied, she said. The limits were lifted and although some adjustments had to be made, it wasn’t a big deal.

Parker noted that unlike many larger cities, AADL isn’t a city library – it’s not part of the city government. So the tax revenues are tied directly to what the library collects from district property owners. That makes it more difficult in some ways, Parker said. She gave the example of Nashville, which has a major problem with illiteracy and high school graduation rates. The school system and library system are departments of the city government, so the city manager can direct those departments to work together, and can provide more funding “because the money is all in the same pot,” Parker explained.

She wasn’t advocating not to be a district library, noting that if AADL hadn’t been independent, it would be a shadow of its current operation. AADL is strong and recognizable in the community, Parker said, and other institutions are looking at how the library can step in to help. That’s a good thing, she added, but “it’s not an automatic easy step to take.”

Murphy suggested that as AADL increases its communications with residents, they should make it clear that the library is separate from city government and other organizations, and doesn’t receive funding from the city government. Parker agreed, noting that it’s a message that has to be made repeatedly.

Parker also reported that she’s talking with other directors of district libraries in Washtenaw County about how to start a process to do an economic development impact study of libraries. It will take collaboration and a pooling of resources to do, she said.

Strategic Plan

Josie Parker reminded trustees that at their Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, they had received an update on activities related to goals in the five-year strategic plan, from 2010-2015. [.pdf of strategic plan, with updates highlighted in yellow] The five-year plan was initially adopted at the board’s March 15, 2010 meeting. It includes goals and objectives for the library in the categories of services, products, finances, communications, organizational development and facilities.

Parker asked if the board had any questions about the current strategic plan.

Responding to a query from Nancy Kaplan, Parker noted that the AADL doesn’t do traditional donor development, nor does it have a foundation. Donor development hasn’t been a priority, but it’s something that the board could discuss if they choose to, she said. One issue is that AADL has a stable source of revenue from the millage it levies, while “many of our nonprofit colleagues in town do not,” Parker noted. So the library is sensitive to that.

However, when someone approaches the library and wants to donate, Parker added, of course she meets with them. For example, a family is donating about $18,000 to the library for an endowment fund in honor of a family member who recently died, and the library staff is working with the family to make that happen.

The library’s legal and financial advisors have indicated that $15,000 is the minimum amount that AADL should accept for an endowment, Parker said.

Kaplan posed the hypothetical scenario of someone donating a half-million dollars in exchange for AADL naming a room after that person. Would that be possible? That would be a board decision, Parker replied. She noted that the fireplace area at the Malletts Creek branch is named after a donor. The tree bases inside the Traverwood branch also are named in honor of people whose families donated money.

Ed Surovell reported that when one of the branches was being designed, a potential donor had indicated interest in contributing about $1 million in order to have naming rights to the building. There was disagreement on the board’s part as to whether that was enough money to name a building, he said. It became a moot point because the donation didn’t materialize, Surovell noted, but it’s a legitimate question.

Next Steps: Information Gathering

The final portion of the retreat was facilitated by local consultant Sandra Greenstone, who has played a similar role at previous retreats. She reminded the board that a decade ago, the discussion had centered on a lack of community space in Ann Arbor. Staff concerns had included the fear of losing print books completely, and questions about why the library had added videos to its collection.

Sandra Greenstone, a local consultant who acted as facilitator at the AADL’s Feb. 3, 2014 retreat.

She reviewed information that had been gathered to support decision-making of the strategic plan 10 years ago, including demographics, technology trends, and what was happening in the political and financial spheres. Staff teams had worked to develop reports in each area, which were presented to the board. The library administration also talked with community stakeholders, surveyed patrons, and held large meetings with staff to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the AADL. There was also a large community-wide meeting to help the board move forward with the strategic plan.

Five years ago, the focus in strategic planning had included technology trends as well as what might happen to the downtown library. [The board ultimately put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to pay for a new downtown library, but that effort was defeated at the polls.]

Now, Greenstone asked how the board wanted to structure its discussion about the future of AADL. She recommended starting with trustees identifying the questions that they had, and the information they needed to gather in order to shape their next strategic plan. What process did they want to use to move forward?

She reviewed AADL’s mission statement, and asked whether it still applied:

The existence of the Ann Arbor District Library assures public ownership of print collections, digital resources, and gathering spaces for the citizens of the library district. We are committed to sustaining the value of public library services for the greater Ann Arbor community through the use of traditional and innovative technologies.

Some new information is already being collected. At its Jan. 20, 2014 meeting, the library board authorized adjusting its budget to include $25,000 for a satisfaction survey of 500-600 library district residents, to be conducted by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA. Last year, the library also commissioned a communications audit by Allerton-Hill Consulting. [.pdf of Allerton-Hill report]  The board has also been receiving statistical information at board meetings over the past few months about library operations, and library managers have been making presentations to the board about various strategic initiatives. Parker said these efforts will help inform development of the next strategic plan, which will begin on July 1, 2015.

Greenstone asked trustees to generate questions regarding what they need to know in order to develop the next strategic plan. Here’s a summary of their responses:

• Who is the library not serving or able to serve – in terms of demographics, or of materials that aren’t available now at the library?
• What kind of context will the library be operating in within the next five years – regarding the broader context of Washtenaw County and southeast Michigan?
• Demographics, including a breakdown of age, education levels, economics, family size, housing. What’s the profile of the library’s users?
• How are the schools changing – in terms of demographics and funding – and how does that impact AADL?
• Does AADL need to do some kind of strategic planning focused on its resources – not collections, but finances, staff and facilities?
• What kind of continuing education does the board need to help inform its decisions? Are there different, better ways that the staff can use the board as a resource?
• Does AADL need more branches, in the context of the overall system and the growing population in townships served by AADL? What’s the role and location of branches? Specifically, Nancy Kaplan noted that the branch in Westgate Plaza doesn’t offer programs, because it’s so small. What kinds of programs and services do people want at the branches, as opposed to downtown?
• How will AADL help address the homeless problem in Ann Arbor, and how it impacts the library?
• What’s the role of the library within the community? How does the library board and administration advocate for what it wants in the community? “We still want to be that ‘third place’ – we still want to be that community center,” Prue Rosenthal said. “We didn’t get the new building to do that, but we still want to be that.” There seemed to be consensus among trustees that the downtown library should be some sort of community “commons.”
• What do the downtown businesses, residents and others who use downtown want from the library? Margaret Leary noted that the type of library building might matter to these groups, for example. “It’s part of the fabric of the downtown,” she said. “An entity that brings 600,000 or 700,000 people downtown matters to people who have businesses downtown. If that entity brought 1.2 million people instead of 600,000, that would matter too.”
• Who uses the downtown library, and how do they use it differently than the branches are used?
• How will the downtown library be affected by dramatic changes around it? The former Y lot across from the library is being purchased from the city by Dennis Dahlmann, though it’s not clear what his plans are for that site. A new Blake Transit Center is being built nearby, and in the future there might be something built on top of the city-owned underground parking structure that’s adjacent to the library. Does the library board and administration have a role in giving input for those sites?

Regarding changes around the downtown library and whether AADL has a role in influencing what happens, Greenstone recalled a previous discussion she had with some of the board members, during which Ed Surovell had said, “We should lead the way.”

At the retreat, Surovell noted that there’s a “very fluid set of players” who are making decisions that impact the downtown, including the city council, DDA board, AAATA, Dahlmann and others. Regarding the sale of the former Y site, Surovell said, “I would have hoped that council would have been more proscriptive” about how that site should be developed.

In general, the city can do whatever it wants, Surovell said. “It may be extremely important for the library to voice its opinions, but we have virtually no muscle. We are not an arm of the city. And we have at times been in conflict with the city – not because we don’t like them, but because our goals are different.” There are people who hope the library would go in a different direction, he added, which “is not surprising – it’s a democracy.”

But as a bottom line, “I think the truth is you don’t know anything right now,” Surovell said, “and whatever might be known to others is not known to you. … Should we speak up? I’d be delighted to say yes. But how?”

Rosenthal said she didn’t think this was something they needed to discuss that night, but it’s something the board needs to explore.

Parker told the board that she felt her responsibility and the board’s responsibility is to advocate for the public library first. “Whatever falls out after that, fine. But that’s the first thing.”

Next Steps: Committee Work

Board members indicated they’d be interested in having more discussions like this, as preparation for developing the strategic plan. Parker noted that as board president, it’s up to Rosenthal to set the agenda for regular meetings or working sessions.

When Greenstone asked about whether there might be a public working session, Parker replied that all board meetings or working sessions are public. Greenstone expressed some confusion about an earlier meeting, and Parker clarified that the meeting Greenstone was referring to had been a committee meeting, and therefore wasn’t open to the public. [AADL board committees consist of no more than three trustees. Because that does not constitute a quorum of the seven-member board, the committee meetings are not subject to the state's Open Meetings Act.]

Greenstone then stated that perhaps at some point the board could consider forming a new committee that would work on developing some of these ideas.

Margaret Leary noted that the information gathering they’d identified falls into two categories. Some of it is simply data that can be researched, like demographic information. Some of it involves asking other people for input and opinions.

Trustees reached consensus that a subset of the board – possibly the existing executive committee or communications committee – should meet to figure out what the process should be, and propose recommendations to the board.

Rosenthal said she’d talk with Parker and the board’s vice president, Barbara Murphy, to figure out what the next steps should be. The board is expected to get an update at its next meeting on Feb. 17.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next regular meeting: Monday, Feb. 17, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From left: Local developer Peter Allen, 624 Church St. project owner Dennis Tice, that project’s architect Brad Moore, and Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere. Briere accepted congratulations on her council re-election win the previous day. (Photos by the writer.)

Both items were approved on unanimous votes at the meeting, which featured perfect attendance by the 11 current members of the board. The following evening, on Nov. 7, the Ann Arbor city council confirmed the appointment of Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace Cosmetics, to fill a vacancy on the 12-member DDA body. At its Nov. 6 meeting, the board did not discuss either Clark’s appointment or the other council agenda item affecting the DDA – a revision to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA TIF (tax increment financing) capture.

The sale of monthly parking permits for the 624 Church St. development was an issue that the DDA board had previously considered – for an earlier version of the project, which had actually completed the city approval process. It had gone through planning commission review and recommendation, with a site plan approved by the city council on March 4, 2013. For that earlier version, the project was required to provide 42 parking spaces for the additional residential square footage it contained beyond the by-right density under the city’s zoning code. Instead of providing the parking spaces on-site, the owner of the project sought to satisfy the requirement through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program – a request that was granted by the DDA.

For this revised and expanded version of the project – made possible through additional land acquisition – a greater number of parking spaces is required. And the project owner again sought to meet that requirement through the CIL program. So at its Nov. 6 meeting, the DDA board granted the project owner the ability to purchase 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The DDA board also acted on its streetscape framework project. The contract awarded to SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard is meant to provide guidance for developing future streetscape projects, not to design any specific streetscape project. The most recent streetscape improvement undertaken by the DDA was the Fifth and Division project, which included lane reconfigurations and bump-outs.

In addition to its voting items, the board received a raft of updates, which included reports on the first quarter financials. The DDA is essentially on course to realize $4.5 million in TIF capture revenue and about $19 million in parking revenue. Other updates included reports on preparations for the NHL Winter Classic hockey game, debriefing on the International Downtown Association conference attended by some board members and staff, Freedom of Information Act issues, and public commentary.

The board heard from Ray Detter, speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council, about the ongoing downtown zoning review. Detter’s remarks were countered by DDA board members. Detter reprised his comments at the city planning commission meeting later that evening. So that back-and-forth will be reported out in more detail as a part of The Chronicle’s Nov. 6, 2013 city planning commission report.

624 Church Street Parking Permits

The board considered a request by the owner of the 624 Church St. project to purchase additional monthly parking permits as a part of the contribution in lieu (CIL) program – up to 48 such permits. The spaces were requested for the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The original proposal for 624 Church St., which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on site as part of the project.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which still needs planning commission and city council review, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. [The architect for the project, Brad Moore, attended the Nov. 6 DDA board meeting, as did the owner, Dennis Tice. Neither of them formally addressed the board nor were they asked to respond to any questions. The new version of the project could be coming before the planning commission in later in November or December.]

The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site.

The DDA makes the decision about whether there’s adequate capacity in the parking system to allow the sale of additional monthly permits – because the DDA that manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution in lieu of parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project was pursuing.

624 Church Street Parking Permits: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt reviewed how the board had previously approved 42 parking spaces. The project had increased in size as a result of the acquisition of a house to the south of the original project site, Hewitt explained. The total amount of required parking is 53 spaces, five of which will be provided on-site, he noted. That would increase the number of spaces needed in the parking system from 42 to 48. Hewitt pointed out that the number still falls within the framework of a pilot project the DDA was working on, based on assigning the ability to purchase monthly parking permits to owners of property, on a square-footage basis. At the July 3, 2013 DDA board meeting, Hewitt had described the pilot allocation as 1 monthly permit per 2,500 square feet.

[The DDA manages the system in a manner that sells monthly parking permits on a first-come-first-serve basis. Subsequently, DDA staff has reported little interest in the pilot program among property owners in the South University area. Executive director Susan Pollay said at the Sept. 4, 2013 board meeting that letters had been sent to property owners, but almost none of the property owners were interested in managing the parking permits on behalf of their tenants.]

Mayor John Hieftje said it’s important to note that the monthly parking permits purchased under the CIL program are 20% more expensive, so the parking system would receive more revenue than for a regular-priced permit. Hieftje also recalled a discussion at a downtown marketing task force meeting – which he invited DDA board members to attend – when a representative of the South University Area Association reported the impact of having more residents in the area had been positive. The Church Street development would increase activity and vibrancy in that area, he said.

Hewitt added that as a business owner in the area [of revive + replenish], that part of town has definitely become more vibrant and more active.

Keith Orr said that the allocation still falls within the pilot project square footage guidelines, so he’d be supporting the proposal, saying it made sense.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to approve the allocation, under the CIL program, of 48 parking permits in the Forest Avenue structure to the 624 Church St. project.

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract

The board considered awarding a contract to SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard to develop a streetscape framework plan for the city’s downtown.

A budget for the project had been authorized by the board at its July 3, 2013 meeting – $200,000 over the next two years. The Nov. 6 resolution set a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 and indicated that the project scope still requires refinement. The resolution establishing the budget referred in general terms to the DDA’s development plan, which the resolution characterized as including “identity, infrastructure, and transportation as key strategies, and also recognized that an enjoyable pedestrian experience is one of downtown’s principal attractions.”

The downtown streetscape framework plan, according to the July 3 resolution, would “align with these strategies, as it would address quality of place in streetscape design, on-going maintenance, and private development projects.” The July 3 resolution indicated there would be considerable collaboration with other entities like the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the University of Michigan. The benefit of having a streetscape framework plan, according to the July 3 resolution, would be “shortened planning phases, and thus cost, for future streetscape projects due to the overarching plan guidance.”

The most recent streetscape project undertaken by the DDA related to improvements on Fifth and Division, which included a lane reduction and bump-outs.

SmithGroupJJR provided consulting support for the DDA’s Connecting William Street project. Nelson\Nygaard is the consulting firm the DDA hired to study the parking system, resulting in a 2007 report.

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract: Board Deliberations

John Mouat led off by saying the streetscape framework plan would be a wonderful tool for the city and DDA as well as private developers.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board: Nov. 6, 2013

It’s a good step, he said. There’d been good cooperation between the DDA and city staff on the project. DDA planner Amber Miller had put in a lot of work, he said. A consultant selection committee consisting of DDA staff, city staff and a DDA board member had put together a request for qualifications sent out in mid-October, Mouat said. Four teams responded. Two of the qualified submissions were selected and then invited for an interview in October.

The selection committee recommended hiring SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard, Mouat said. Noting that two firms are being recommended, Mouat said that while SmithGroupJJR will be the lead firm, Nelson\Nygaard will do a bit more of the work. Mouat noted that Nelson\Nygaard had completed similar plans for other cities across the country. SmithGroupJJR brings facilitation skills, engineering and more technical and “nitty gritty” skills, he said.

Mouat noted that the resolution in front of the board is for work not to exceed $150,000. The budget has been approved for up to $200,000 – to add additional services. Two things that might be added, Mouat said, were enhanced civil engineering services that the city staff is interested in. The other thing that might be desirable is to bring in an economist who can analyze the benefits of streetscape projects. Potentially, that work could be extended to gathering base data on what exists now in the downtown.

Roger Hewitt mentioned that the board has worked with Nelson\Nygaard in the past on the parking demand study. The experience with that firm had been very satisfactory, Hewitt said.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution on the streetscape plan.

Quarterly Financial Statements

Roger Hewitt gave the board an overview of the financial statements for first quarter of the 2014 fiscal year. [.pdf of July-Sept 2013 financial statements] That’s the three months of July through September for a fiscal year that starts on July 1. [The DDA's fiscal year aligns with the city of Ann Arbor's fiscal year.]

TIF (tax increment financing) income is slightly below budget, he reported. There’s still some TIF revenue that’s expected to come in later in the year. That amount is anticipated to be about $4.5 million by the end of the year. Operating expenses are also lower than budgeted, he said, but it’s anticipated that they’ll ultimately be within 3% of what was budgeted. Not a lot of capital expenditures have been incurred so far. Most of construction work occurs during the summer and for much of the construction in the latter part of summer, the DDA hasn’t been billed yet. Overall that number is expected to be close to what was budgeted, Hewitt reported.

Parking revenues for the quarter exceeded budget slightly, and it’s anticipated that the DDA will be close to budgeted gross revenue of a bit over $19 million, Hewitt said. Parking operating expenses are “a little off,” he reported. The costs for the First and Washington structure were budgeted in the previous fiscal year, but the work did not take place in that year. That’s because the private contractor doing the project did not finish the work, and did not have a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck portion of that apartment project [City Apartments] during FY 2013. The certificate of occupancy was the trigger, Hewitt said, for releasing the money. A budget revision would be necessary later in the year, he said.

Direct parking expenses were slightly under budget thanks to Republic Parking manager Art Low, Hewitt said. Overall, the numbers are anticipated to being close to budget by the end of the fiscal year.

A lot of maintenance on the parking structures had been done this summer, Hewitt said, but not many bills have shown up yet. He did anticipate spending the budgeted amount of $2.2 or $2.3 million. The housing fund, Hewitt said, is about where he thought it would be. He offered to answer any questions.

Hewitt then reviewed the unaudited income and balance sheet statements for each of the funds. There’s a bit over $1 million in the housing fund, but Hewitt noted that most of that is committed to projects the board has already authorized. The TIF fund balance is $5.3 million, Hewitt said, and the parking fund balance is $3.3 million. The TIF fund is high because the DDA has received almost all the income for the whole year, but not yet incurred the expenses.

Parking Numbers

Roger Hewitt delivered the parking report. For the first quarter of the fiscal year, revenue is up about 8% and hourly patrons are up about 4% compared to the same quarter in the previous year, Hewitt said. In dollar terms, revenue for the first quarter was about $5 million.

Hewitt noted information about weather and the number of University of Michigan football games that might affect the parking activity. He also said there were fewer spaces in the system than a year ago. [7,804 in 2012 compared to 7,727 in 2013. The difference is primarily in the number of on-street spaces and the number of spaces available in the Fifth and William lot due to construction of the Blake Transit Center.]

Keith Orr got clarification that some of the reduction in on-street spaces is due to the use of meter bags.

Revenue per Space: Structures (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA.)

Ann Arbor Public Parking: Patrons (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA)

Ann Arbor Public Parking: Revenue (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA)

Hewitt reviewed a rough draft of a profit and loss statement on each parking structure for the past year. [.pdf of parking structure profit and loss statement FY 2013] He stressed that the information had not been audited. It illustrates that it is solid when considered as an entire system, he said. Newer structures don’t make money until the bonds that funded those structures are paid off, but they’re supported by revenues from other structures and on-street parking spaces, he explained.

As examples, Hewitt gave the Fourth and Washington and the Forest Avenue structures – both of them have lost money even though they have a high rate of occupancy. That’s because the bond payments on them are not yet paid off. Once the bonds are paid off, those structures are expected to become very profitable, he said. That compares to Liberty Square and Ann Ashley – with their bonds paid off, both are very profitable, Hewitt said. Liberty Square, Hewitt said, makes almost $1 million a year.

Russ Collins ventured that there would always be bond payments because there will always be capital maintenance. The expenses are consistent over time if the parking system is properly maintained, Collins said. Hewitt allowed that bond payments would be required if the system expands or needs major capital work.

Collins allowed that there’s a certain value in tracking the bond payments associated with a particular structure. But Collins didn’t want the public to think that at one point all the bonds would be paid off. It’s the DDA’s job to make sure there’s ongoing capital maintenance and investment, Collins said, to look after this capital asset.

Hewitt said that the structures at Maynard Street and Fourth and William aren’t profitable because both have a huge amount of money that has been spent over the years in major reconstruction and expansion. On Maynard, about 10 years ago roughly $11 million had been spent on major reconstruction. Older structures, even with enhanced maintenance, will need major structural improvements. So Hewitt concluded that Collins was right – that a point will not be reached where everything is paid off. It’s a system that needs both routine and major maintenance. He ventured that some of the DDA board members had been around long enough to know what happens when the parking structures are not properly maintained.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Bike Share

Keith Orr gave an update on the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) bike share program. CEC will need to request the use of some on-street parking spaces for the bike share stations, Orr reported. A report had been received from B-cycle, the vendor selected for the program, and details are still being worked out. The request will come at the November partnerships committee meeting, with board approval requested in December. He allowed the timeline had slipped a bit. The CEC is still on course for targeting Earth Day in 2014 (April 22) for launch. A name for the bike share program has not yet been decided, Orr said, but a contest to name the program is going on. [The deadline to submit a name is Nov. 15.]

Comm/Comm: Abandoned Bikes

Keith Orr noted that many complaints had been received over the years about abandoned bikes. The DDA has always tried to work with the city on the problem, and now a system has been worked out. A process had been created to identify and remove bikes. Orr described how about 50 junk bikes were removed in October with the help of Republic Parking. There’s now storage for “bikes with value” – so a recovery system is now in place. A “sweep” will likely be conducted on a quarterly basis, Orr said.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt announced the connector study getting closer to the end. [By way of background, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of locations for stations and stops. A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor.]

The following week a series of public meetings would be held, Hewitt reported. The possibilities had been narrowed down to six different alignments, he said, but they can be mixed and matched. Meetings on Nov. 14 are scheduled at 9:30 a.m. at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, at 1 p.m. at the downtown AADL and at 6 p.m. at the library’s Traverwood branch.

Mayor John Hieftje inquired if there had been any discussion of gondolas as a possible mode. Hewitt explained to Hieftje that the consultants were not enthusiastic about that option because of limited capacity. The needed capacity equated to that of a light-rail system, Hewitt said, and a system with gondolas wouldn’t have the needed capacity.

Comm/Comm: NHL Winter Classic

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, reminded the board that she’d mentioned the logistical planning that was going in to preparations for the Winter Classic – an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium.

Pollay said she’d been working with city staff and University of Michigan staff on the preparations. She indicated that the Ann Arbor city council would be asked on Nov. 18 to approve a plan to create transit and parking strategies similar to those that are typically in place for a home football game at Michigan Stadium.

The game is scheduled for New Year’s Day, she noted, when AAATA buses and University of Michigan blue buses aren’t running. The plan will involved charging for use of public parking on that day, when typically no charges would be applied. That will allow people to reserve parking in advance, Pollay said. The idea would be to have as many people park away from the stadium as possible. Arrangements are being made with Briarwood Mall to allow people to part there. Shuttles would be running from hotels, and there’d be downtown shuttles that would stop at parking garages.

The Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is also planning an event – called The Puck Drops Here – for New Year’s Eve, Pollay reported, which is expected to attract around 10,000 people to the downtown area. Michelle Chamuel, who placed second on the most recent season of The Voice, would be performing, Pollay said, well as DJs with a regional draw. Plans are coming together well, Pollay, said, but the city council needs to be comfortable with the logistics decisions.

John Mouat was curious to know how the community has reacted to the upcoming events. Mayor John Hieftje responded to Mouat by saying the downtown marketing task force had received an update from the Ann Arbor Area CVB, and the report was that a lot of people are responding positively, saying that they never really have anything to do on New Year’s Eve. Hieftje noted that Toronto has a population willing to travel, with 45,000 expected to arrive in Ann Arbor on buses. The game is a chance to showcase the city, Hieftje said – and an opportunity for Ann Arbor to really shine. If even 10% of those who attended the game wanted to come back, that would be a really good thing, he said.

Hieftje ventured that Canadians are generally more polite than Americans.

Board chair Sandi Smith asked if the city council needed to pass a resolution to allow for the DDA to charge for parking. Pollay indicated that the Nov. 18 resolution was not about asking permission, but rather just making sure that if there are concerns, those concerns are addressed.

Hieftje felt that the fans who are arriving for the game are paying a whole lot of money for tickets – and they won’t care if they have to pay a bit more for parking. It was important for the DDA to cover its costs, Hieftje said. Keith Orr noted that if the weather is bad for the game, which will be played outdoors at Michigan Stadium, then Jan. 2 would be the back-up date, and it would take place at 7 p.m.

In more detail, the resolution that the Ann Arbor city council will be asked to consider on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games would also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures would be effective three hours before the game until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which would be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council will also be asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council will be asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

The council would also be asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking would be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

Comm/Comm: IDA Conference

Joan Lowenstein reported that the most recent partnerships committee meeting had included a lot of time debriefing from the International Downtown Association Conference in New York City, which took place from Oct. 6-9. Lowenstein said that as usual, the conference was very valuable and attendees had learned a lot from people all over the country.

Ann Arbor DDA board members Joan Lowenstein and Bob Guenzel.

Some of the topics of sessions attended included nurturing downtown streets, the role of arts and culture, and ways to create metrics of success, Lowenstein said. Most of the attendees were members of business improvement districts (BIDs), she noted. Lowenstein described the possibility that the DDA could become a source of statistics. She said there’s evolving technology to capture pedestrian and vehicle traffic – besides hiring interns to stand on a street corner using counters. She ventured that maybe go!pass and Flocktag could be used to gather data.

Lowenstein also mentioned open space management as a topic. She said that New York City had 57 different BIDs throughout the city. Some of those worked with nonprofits to enliven public spaces. Lowenstein stressed that the spaces in New York City exist through the efforts of organizations. The partnerships committee meeting had included the idea of branding downtown as a whole and the possibility of creating a downtown marketing plan.

Sandi Smith talked a lot about metrics, Lowenstein reported. The DDA’s state of the downtown report is a solid base, she said, but there are ways to be more creative.

About the IDA conference, John Mouat said it was interesting to hear about shifting trends in how people shop. He also enjoyed a visit to the High Line – the elevated park on an abandoned rail line. He described how the High Line goes under a building, leading to a big display by Kindle that includes couches and coffee tables.

Smith responded by noting that the High Line is run by a conservancy, which rents out that space and helps fund other nice things, she said.

Comm/Comm: FOIA

During the Nov. 6 meeting, Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director of the DDA, reported to the board in her capacity as the DDA’s Freedom of Information Act coordinator. She described receiving a FOIA request from [Ann Arbor Chronicle editor] Dave Askins [this reporter] for which the DDA had produced records, but which included some redacted content.

An appeal had been submitted, Pollay reported, and as a result of that appeal, the DDA would produce a “clean copy” of the records as requested in the appeal. Board chair Sandi Smith then stated that it appeared that the DDA has been inundated with requests made under Michigan’s FOIA. She wanted the executive committee of the board to review the FOIA policy and consider refreshing the FOIA policy.

[The appeal concerned the redaction of items like the government email address of a state university employee, which had been inappropriately redacted by the DDA under the statute's exception for unwarranted intrusion into someone's private life.]

Comm/Comm: 5-Year Transit Update

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, addressed the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting. She updated board members about a series of public meetings that the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is holding to explain its five-year transit improvement program. Everything is contingent on additional funding, she said.

Comm/Comm: Conquer the Cold

In her remarks to the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting, getDowntown director Nancy Shore plugged the program’s Conquer the Cold commuter workshops and classes. She reported that 80 people had registered for classes this year. Fleeces would be given away for the first 200 people who sign up, she said.

Comm/Comm: Civic Tech Meetup

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti told the board about the Ann Arbor Civic Technology Meetup. It’s an effort he’s started to get citizens involved with technology and the city. The next meeting will take place at Menlo Innovations space on E. Liberty St. on Nov. 25 at 7 p.m. The topic of that meeting would be public data sources, he said.

As an example of using public data sources, Vielmetti reminded the board about an effort that had been made a few years ago to come up with a plan for mobile access to parking availability data. He’d modified that approach and had now developed something for his own use. He said he’d be happy to show everyone. It’s a way to show people which parking facilities are full and which are empty, he said.

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

Former DDA board member Dave DeVarti addressed the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting. He told them it was great to see some former colleagues who were still there.

Former DDA board member Dave DeVarti.

He wanted to put forward an idea he’d been thinking about for some time, he said, which he’d already mentioned to some people. He suggested that something might be done in the direction of affordable housing on the former Y lot. [The city-owned parcel is locate on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle a possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. At its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, the city council directed city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the property.]

DeVarti proposed that the Ann Arbor DDA could ante up the money that’s owed on the city’s loan and remove the need to repay the debt as a consideration. That would give the city a range of options, he said, which would provide some leverage to encourage the development of affordable housing at that site or something else, or the land could be used in other ways. He would be willing to work on a committee to try to flesh out some ideas, he said.

Comm/Comm: Ambassador Program

For several years, the Ann Arbor DDA has had an interest in maintaining some kind of additional patrol presence in the downtown. In the mid-2000s, the DDA entered into a contract with the city of Ann Arbor with the implicit hope that the city would maintain the dedicated downtown beat cops. (That contract was structured at that time to pay the city $1 million a year for 10 years, with the city able to request up to $2 million a year for a maximum of $10 million.)

That hope was not realized, and the DDA has since discussed the idea of providing additional funding for police or for ambassadors. The idea of “ambassadors” was explored in the context of subsequent re-negotiations of the contract between the city and the DDA under which the DDA operates the parking system. The DDA wanted to be assigned responsibility for parking enforcement (a function performed by the city’s community standards officers) and imagined that activity to be performed in an ambassador-like fashion.

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council approved a resolution encouraging the DDA to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district.

During communications time at the start of the DDA board’s Nov. 6 meeting, Roger Hewitt reported that he, John Splitt, Keith Orr and DDA executive director Susan Pollay had made a field trip to Grand Rapids and met with Grand Rapids DDA director Kris Larson about that city’s ambassador program.

Hewitt said the group had received a lot of information about the Grand Rapids downtown ambassador program. The ambassadors provide directions to help locate businesses and services, call for medical assistance, provide information on parking, provide social service information for people in need, identify and report hazards and contact police. What had caught everyone’s attention, Hewitt said, was that they’d observed an ambassador holding an umbrella over a woman putting money in a parking meter. Hewitt said he thought it was an idea worth pursuing, and that the DDA’s operations committee should take a look at.

Splitt confirmed that he was along for the ride and said he was very impressed by the ambassador program in Grand Rapids. He thought the Ann Arbor DDA should take a serious look at implementing it here. Orr called it a very informative trip. He noted that besides the ambassador program, the trip had included a look at the structural relationship between the Grand Rapids DDA and the city. There was an umbrella organization that did the visioning for a variety of organizations, Orr said, including the DDA. He said it was interesting to see that structure and the success that had resulted from that approach.

Sandi Smith asked if the ambassadors work with Grand Rapids police department. Yes, Orr confirmed, there’s a direct contact between ambassadors and the police, but ambassadors are not deputized in any way. They act as “eyes and ears” for the police department, Orr said. They’re trained differently, with a social services component, so that situations can be diffused, before they become “police situations.”

Hewitt added that the ambassadors are “not assistant cops or anything.” Orr noted that Grand Rapids hires a company that specializes in this type of thing [Block by Block]. Ambassadors are there to help, but not to enforce the law and not to perform police functions.

Smith confirmed with Hewitt that he’d bring a proposal forward through the operations committee. Mouat indicated support for the idea that if someone is having a problem and they contact a social services organization, it goes directly to someone who can help solve the problem without having to involve the police.

Orr followed up on Mouat’s observation by saying it was important to select the right person with the “right beat.” In a geographic area where there were a lot of social services agencies, the ambassador is actually a social worker – because he was able to help people find the services they needed instead of treating it as a police problem. Orr noted that while the ambassadors are not deputized, they do wear uniforms so there’s a perception of added security and that the area is being patrolled.

Russ Collins said he was not on trip to Grand Rapids, but reported that he was aware of an ambassador program in Schenectady, New York that works with Schenectady’s equivalent of Ann Arbor’s Delonis Center, a shelter for the homeless. He said that the Schenectady program provided a transitional employment opportunity.

Comm/Comm: Ashley Terrace On-Street Parking

Theodore Marentis addressed the board during public commentary at the start of the meeting on behalf of the 111 N. Ashley Condominium Association. He’s vice president of the board of that group. He described the building as located across from the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. He wanted to talk to the board about one or perhaps half a space of on-street parking. He said there’s a parking shortage due to the higher density of the building – with its 100 units of residential space.

It’s hard for people to drop off kids or things they’ve purchased while out shopping during the day or in the evenings, Marentis said. That’s because they don’t have control of the space right by the entrance to the building. They’d be content if even half of the space could be given over to the building for its control. Marentis suggested some system of a windshield card that could control use of the space, and pointed to the residential parking permit areas located to the north of the building as an example of the regulation of on-street parking that already exists in the area. His board had sent him to address the DDA, and he told the board that the condo association was open to discussion.

Present: Al McWilliams, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council Action on Public Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council Action on Public Art: Outreach

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

The resolved clause states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding for Justice Center Artwork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support for Task Forces

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

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

From Kotarski’s email:

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

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

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

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

Connie Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goal D: Pursue private funding for public art.

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

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

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

Project Updates

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Working with UM Students

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Terms

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

Cathy Gendron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Online Map of Public Art

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

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

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

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

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Malverne Winborne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art Millage

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

The current program, created by the city council in 2007, requires that 1% of the budget for any capital improvement project be set aside for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per project. To date, the program has generated just over $2 million. So far, two projects have been completed, or nearly so: the Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall, and metal tree sculptures in West Park. Several other projects are in the works.

The arts community is generally supportive of a millage for funding art in public places, as it would provide more flexibility than the current capital funding. Because of constraints related to the funding mechanism, projects paid for with Percent for Art funds must be permanent and located on public property. The artwork can’t be temporary – so performances or artist-in-residency programs can’t be supported under the current program. The projects must also have some link to the funding source. For example, art paid for out of street millage revenues must be part of a street project, or incorporate street or transportation “themes.” This lack of flexibility has been a frequent criticism of the program. Questions also have been raised about the legality of diverting funds from dedicated millage or public utility funds in order to pay for public art.

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

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

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

Public Art Millage: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art Millage: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: There was no formal action on this item.

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

Strategic Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Planning: Quadrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 7: Keep the information flowing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: There was no formal vote on this project.

Dreiseitl Sculpture Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dreiseitl Sculpture Update: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Projects: Forest Plaza, Ellsworth Roundabout

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

New Projects: Forest Plaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Projects: Ellsworth Roundabout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to accept the roundabout project.

Misc. Communications

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

Misc. Communications: Minutes

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

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

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

Misc. Communications: Percent for Art Funds

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

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

Misc. Communications: Countywide Art Plan

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

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

Polich also noted that there’s still interest among other partners in moving forward with a master plan, and funds have been committed to that effort. Those partners are Washtenaw County government ($25,000); ArtServe Michigan ($5,000); the city of Ann Arbor/Ann Arbor public art commission ($5,000); the Cultural Alliance of Southeast Michigan ($5,000); the University of Michigan’s ArtsEngine program ($92,825); and the Huron River Watershed Council ($10,000).

Misc. Communications: Project Updates

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

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

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

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

Absent: Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

Lynn Davidge, left, talks with Sheila Rice before the start of the Aug. 20, 2012 Ann Arbor District Library board meeting. Davidge is the only non-incumbent running for a library board seat in the Nov. 6 general election. Incumbents on the ballot are Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal. (Photos by the writer.)

Ellie Serras, chair of the Our New Downtown Library campaign committee, spoke during public commentary to brief the board on actions of that group. It was formed earlier this year to support a $65 million, 30-year bond proposal that the board voted to put on the Nov. 6 ballot. Serras described the committee’s outreach efforts, including its website, Twitter account (@OurNewLibrary), Facebook group, promotional mailing, yard signs, and meetings with individuals and groups in the community.

Committee members are committed to this project and they want everyone to know how important it is, she said. ”It’s a life changer.”

In the context of the proposed building project, AADL director Josie Parker told the board that library staff are being asked about the relevancy of public libraries, so she thought it was appropriate to address that question at a formal board meeting by looking at changes that public libraries are facing. Associate director Eli Neiburger described how the library is responding to changes in the publishing industry regarding digital content. Currently, publishers are fairly restrictive in allowing public libraries to access digital content for patrons. So the Ann Arbor library has started negotiating licensing deals directly with creators – including filmmakers of the 2009 “Grown in Detroit” documentary, and the author of the graphic novel “Poopy Claws” – to allow AADL patrons to access those works through online streaming and limitless downloads, respectively.

Associate director Celeste Choate described the library’s non-media, non-traditional collections, which include art prints, energy meter readers, Science to Go kits, telescopes and electronic musical “tools.” The full list of collections is on the “Unusual Stuff to Borrow” page of AADL’s website. Additional collections are in the works, including art tools and kits for science experiments.

Though Neiburger described storage needs for digital media as trivial – he could keep 200,000 copies of “Poopy Claws” on his cell phone, if he were so inclined – the needs for non-traditional physical items are more challenging. The library’s tracking/circulation software is well-suited to adapt, because that system doesn’t care about size, he said. “But the shelf sure does.” It was an implicit reference to some of the arguments put forward in the board’s decision to pursue a new downtown building.

Also during the Aug. 20 meeting, Choate reported on a recent satisfaction survey for patrons of the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is operated by AADL and serves over 400 people. The library received high marks from those who responded to the survey, she said. [.pdf of survey results]

Public Commentary: Millage Campaign Update

Ellie Serras, chair of the Our New Downtown Library campaign committee, told the board that the group officially launched in July, the day after the board voted to put the bond resolution on the Nov. 6 ballot. [By way of background, other campaign committee members include Mike Allemang, (treasurer), Sally Allen, Janis Bobrin, Leah Gunn, Debbie Herbert, Norman Herbert, Pat McDonald, Paul Morel, Omari Rush, Paul Saginaw, Ingrid Sheldon and Robin Wax.]

Screenshot of Our New Library website – ournewlibrary.com – for the campaign to pass the Nov. 6 $65 million bond proposal to fund a new downtown library.

Since then, Serras said, the group has been working to get the word out, asking voters to reaffirm their investment in this community and its intellectual sustainability. They’ve developed several outreach strategies, including a website, Twitter account (@OurNewLibrary) and Facebook group. The website so far averages about 20 visits per day, but the important thing is the duration of the visits, she said – about 4 minutes, which she said means people are reading what’s on the site. They have about 100 Facebook fans and 29 Twitter followers. It’s unlikely they’ll get a large number of followers, she said, but what’s important is the quality of those followers. The majority of @OurNewLibrary’s followers themselves have between 200 to 3,000 followers each, which creates a bigger reach, she pointed out.

Last week a letter was mailed to about 1,000 voters asking for their support. Yard signs will be distributed in the next few weeks. There are ongoing meetings with individuals, businesses, and associations. Contributions to the campaign are good so far, she said, illustrating how important the library is to the community. Serras said the committee members feel privileged to work on this effort, because it’s a quality of life issue. It’s for the good of every citizen, who expects the library to be the community’s center for learning, culture and information. The committee is sharing the hard facts about the library’s critical role and relevancy, she said.

The campaign is dedicated to the people who account for the 600,000 visits to the library each year, she said, to the individuals who use the library’s computers and Internet access, who need job training, meeting space, services for the visually impaired and physically disabled – to everyone who uses the library for their own individual reasons, adding up to the common good for all, she said. Serras encouraged board members and others to learn how to use Facebook if they didn’t already know how, to get a yard sign, host a coffee, and help the campaign as much as they can. She said AADL director Josie Parker’s calendar will be filling up with meetings to talk about the bond proposal. The committee is committed to this project and they want everyone to know how important it is, she said: “It’s a life changer.”

The board and staff gave Serras a round of applause.

For additional background on the bond proposal, see Chronicle coverage: “Library Bond Moves Toward Nov. 6 Ballot” and “AADL Board: What’s Your Library Vision?” The AADL also posted a six-page fact sheet on its website with details about the proposal, and has additional information online, including a way for patrons to post comments on the library director’s blog.

Public Library Trends

AADL director Josie Parker told the board that library staff are being asked about the relevancy of public libraries, and she thought it was appropriate to address that question at a formal board meeting. The presentation was made by Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, and Celeste Choate, AADL associate director of services, collections and access. Parker said they didn’t have time at the meeting to be comprehensive, but would touch on a couple of major points regarding the library’s collections.

Public Library Trends: Digital Content

Eli Neiburger’s talk covered some of the same ground as a presentation he’d made to the board in February 2012. He noted that the AADL currently provides access to eBooks through a proprietary service called Overdrive, which allows the library to buy temporary licenses for eBooks that can then be used one at a time by patrons. There are certain technical requirements to use Overdrive, he said, and a lot of people don’t make it through that process of updating software and making other modification before they can use the service.

Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, preps for his presentation on digital publishing trends for public libraries.

In general, the publishing industry wants a distribution method to guarantee that its electronic offerings won’t be widely distributed among users without payment. That’s counter to how computers work – with the ability to easily share files – so libraries are experimenting with other approaches, Neiburger said.

The challenge is to develop licensing models that embrace and deliver on the potential of digital media, as opposed to using technology to emulate how physical objects are bought and circulated. People are accustomed to the immediacy of buying an eBook, so it’s frustrating when they’re told there’s a waiting list to download an eBook from the library. That’s not a good situation, he said.

Neiburger described a matrix to illustrate the current options and potential future of digital media and publishing in relation to public libraries. The X axis showed a range of market types – from closed markets like Overdrive on one end, to open markets like eBay and the Internet on the other. The Y axis ranged from the publishing industry dying back on one end, to a thriving industry on the other. He noted that it’s unlikely publishing would die off completely, likening it to candles that were once critical as a light source but that now are used primarily for ritual or ambiance.

Neiburger described four quadrants of possibilities along these axes.

• DRM (Digital Rights Management) Dystopia (Closed markets/publishing thrives): Publishers keep tight control over content, prices stay high, publishing deals are handled through intermediaries, and there are fights over what can be offered exclusively on certain devices used for reading the digital content. In this scenario, libraries take what they can get. They’d pay more for less content, and would need to find a way to offer supplemental value.
• Platform Wars (Closed markets/publishing “dies back”): Companies like Apple and Amazon lock up rights to digital content, there’s a huge range of quality, and content creators can sign exclusivity deals for their work to be distributed only over certain devices. There would be little interest in working with public libraries, so libraries would have to find a new way, such as focusing on creating new content or historical archives.
• Neo Renaissance (Open markets/publishing thrives): This scenario would be good for libraries, Neiburger said. Price points would be low, devices would be irrelevant, and libraries could buy digital content. Their infrastructure needs would be tied to storing and distributing that content.
• Free Culture Society (Open markets/publishing “dies back”): The dominant price would be free, devices would be irrelevant, publishing deals would no longer be the model, and the role of libraries would be to store and distribute content. That role would drive a library’s infrastructure needs.

Neiburger then gave some examples of how AADL is experimenting with licensing for digital content. One of its first attempts was by striking an agreement with Magnatune, a digital music publisher. In early 2011, AADL negotiated a deal with the firm for about 12,000 songs – or the equivalent of about 1,200 albums. The library bought a license for each of its cardholders at $15 per cardholder – about $10,000 annually – so that anyone can download tracks with no waiting. Magnatune’s standard charge for the service to individuals would be $15 a month. It’s akin to annual subscriptions for databases, paying a flat fee for unlimited use. Though Magnatune doesn’t offer current “hot” performers, it provides a broad collection with a wide variety of genres, including classical, world music blues, hip hop, and alt rock.

Since launching Magnatune in April of 2011, there have been about 62,500 downloads by AADL patrons, Neiburger reported. That works out to a cost per use of about 25 cents per track. He noted that as a rule of thumb for public libraries, anything less than $1 per use is considered a good deal.

Another example of AADL’s alternative approach to licensing digital content is the 2009 “Grown in Detroit” documentary, produced by Dutch filmmakers. The DVD cost $175 and at one point the library had a wait list of 60 people. So AADL approached the film’s creators, who were willing to negotiate a deal to allow library patrons to view the documentary through online streaming video. The library paid a flat fee, and anyone with an AADL card can view it. Since May of 2012, about 300 people have viewed it, Neiburger said – many more than would have had access to a DVD version.

The final example is an eBook version of the graphic novel “Poopy Claws,” about a boy and his cat, Stinky, who doesn’t use the litter box. The library negotiated a digital content license for four years, at a price set by the author for unlimited downloads by AADL patrons – $400.

Neiburger said the next target is audio books. In general, creators know that distributing their work doesn’t erode, but rather builds, their audience, he noted. For “Poopy Claws,” people who read it online might then want to buy the physical copy, or other items like T-shirts, for example.

Nancy Kaplan asked whether the library had enough space to accommodate its needs for digital content. Neiburger said the storage space that’s needed is trivial – he could keep 200,000 copies of “Poopy Claws” on his cell phone. Digital space is extremely compact, he added, and the cost of adding a file is negligible.

Jan Barney Newman asked how much Magnatune paid the musicians who are part of their collection. Neiburger said the company pays musicians 50% of the revenues it receives based on usage.

Segueing to the next part of the presentation, Neiburger noted that the library has built a very efficient system for circulating its traditional collection of materials. But circulation, shelving and building design are set up to house and circulate objects of a certain size. As that changes, one challenge is where and how to store non-traditional collections. The library’s tracking/circulation software is well-suited for it, because that system doesn’t care about size, he said, “but the shelf sure does.”

Public Library Trends: Non-Traditional Collections

Celeste Choate – AADL associate director of services, collections and access – talked to the board about the library’s non-media, non-traditional collections. She had given a briefing on that same topic at the board’s Jan. 16, 2012 meeting.

The collections include  art prints; meter readers to gauge the energy efficiency of home appliances and electronics,; and Science to Go kits that focus on specific themes – prehistoric mammals, for example. The Science to Go kits contain materials that include books, DVDs, Fandex educational cards, and objects like a replica of a fossilized wooly mammoth molar. The full list of collections is on the “Unusual Stuff to Borrow” page of AADL’s website.

A collection of cases holding electronic musical tools at the AADL’s downtown building.

Earlier this year, the library began circulating telescopes, Choate said, in partnership with the University Lowbrow Astronomers. There are seven telescopes now, but because of their popularity, the library has ordered 15 more. So far there have been no problems with the items being broken or not returned, she said.

The most recent collection is electronic musical “tools” – 22 different types are available, including a concertina, Hapi drum, and theremin. Right now, Choate said, this collection doesn’t allow holds or renewals. The items are displayed next to the circulation desk of the downtown library, where patrons can see what’s available. Eventually, the collection will be rolled out to other branches.

They’ve been circulating for about three weeks, and have been well received, Choate said – one patron who’s a musician used a tool on one of his recordings. The aim was to buy items that would stand up well over time, and that weren’t available elsewhere.

Some of the items were passed out to board members, and Eli Neiburger demonstrated how they worked. Josie Parker added that they could be toys, but they’re not. Her son recently returned from Scotland and was determined to learn the bagpipes, she said. So she checked out a set of macpipes for him, which are used by professional bagpipers to practice fingering.

Barbara Murphy wondered if there are plans for more traditional musical instruments. Neiburger said the Hapi drum is a bit like a steel drum, but in general the idea is to offer instruments that local businesses don’t provide, so that the library isn’t competing.

Choate reported that two other collections are in the works: (1) art tools, like a mural projector or yarn ball winder; and (2) science tools, as a complement to the Science to Go kits, which would allow parents and kids to conduct science experiments. She said the library is open to suggestions for other collections as well.

Update: Library for  the Blind & Physically Disabled

Celeste Choate also gave the board an update on a recent satisfaction survey for patrons of the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which is operated by AADL. Such a survey is required by the National Library Service to be conducted every three years, and is very labor intensive, she said. Staff called or contacted in other ways every patron, to be sure they’re getting the service they want.

Of the WLBPD’s 446 active patrons, 37% (137 people) responded to the survey, which is a high response rate, Choate said. The responses were received by mail, email, or through talking with library staff. Of the respondents, 87% rated their experience as either excellent or good, and 97% would recommend the services to friends or family members.  [.pdf of survey results]

Choate described the results as really great news, and thanked the staff for their work – specifically, outreach and neighborhood services manager Terry Soave, and library technicians Tonia Bickford and Katie Chynoweth.

Finance Report

Ken Nieman, AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations, gave a very brief financial update to the board. [.pdf of financial report] He noted that the three line items currently over budget are expected to come back in line. Those items are: employment costs (because merit increases were paid in July); communications (for an annual internet fee paid in July); and library programming/grant expenses (large purchases for the summer reading program were made in July).

He joked about having to follow the public commentary by Ellie Serras, who had received applause from the board. Jan Barney Newman said they’d applaud him too – and they did.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: Monday, Sept. 24 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski at AAPAC's July 25, 2012 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

At Kotarski’s suggestion, commissioners considered three items related to AAPAC meetings: (1) adding a second opportunity for public commentary; (2) changing its meeting times; and (3) alternating the locations of its meetings. Kotarski also raised the possibility of recording the proceedings to be broadcast on Community Television Network (CTN).

The additional public commentary – offering speakers a second three-minute slot at the end of each meeting – was ultimately approved. Less enthusiasm was expressed for pushing back meeting times to later in the day. AAPAC meetings currently start at 4:30 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday of each month, and are held in the basement conference room at city hall. Kotarski proposed moving the meetings to different locations throughout the city, such as schools or other public sites, to make it easier for more people to attend. Commissioners had reservations about that idea too, nor was there much support voiced for a suggestion to record the meetings for broadcast by CTN. Kotarski plans to bring a specific proposal on these items to an upcoming meeting.

Another proposal by Kotarski – to include support for local sourcing as part of AAPAC’s strategic plan – was rejected by other commissioners. Some commissioners felt the idea didn’t fit into a strategic plan, because it was not an action item. Others questioned whether local sourcing of art projects was within AAPAC’s purview, because the commission doesn’t have authority over the city’s purchasing policies. They’ve also been advised that they can’t put geographic constraints on their selection of artists, and felt this would apply to sourcing, too.

Ultimately a four-year strategic plan was approved without Kotarski’s revision. The plan’s goals, in summary form, are: (1) increasing the number of public art pieces throughout the city; (2) diversifying the public engagement and participation in selecting public art; (3) increasing the public’s support and appreciation for public art through PR efforts; and (5) pursuing private funding for public art. More detailed objectives are provided for each of the goals.

Kotarski also was unsuccessful in convincing other commissioners to support an endorsement policy for non-city-funded art projects. AAPAC passed a resolution stating that the commission would not make endorsements – and Kotarski cast the lone dissenting vote. In a separate item, Kotarski joined his colleagues in a unanimous vote to establish an SOQ (statement of qualifications) process that creates an artist registry/database. The intent is to streamline the selection of artists for future projects.

During the July 25 meeting, commissioners were updated on several ongoing projects, including a follow-up on concerns raised last month about the Dreiseitl installation in front of city hall, artwork at a planned rain garden at Kingsley & First, and the status of security checkpoints allowing access to a hanging sculpture in the Justice Center lobby.

There were no updates for some projects because those projects are still being reviewed by the city attorney’s office. Several commissioners expressed frustration at the length of time these reviews are taking. One commissioner wondered what tools AAPAC can use to influence the process, perhaps by appealing to another level within the city administration. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin agreed to draft a letter on the issue, and to discuss it with city councilmember Tony Derezinski, who serves on the commission but has not attended its June or July monthly meetings.

Action was deferred on proposed projects for public art at two locations: (1) a plaza next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University; and (2) a future roundabout at Ellsworth and South State. Commissioners wanted more time to visit those sites. They also debated whether to postpone action until task forces are formed to represent four quadrants of the city – it’s part of a new approach they’re planning to take to help guide the selection of projects and ensure that all parts of the city are represented.

The commission is likely to get more advance notice of possible projects, as Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – will now be attending meetings of the capital improvements plan (CIP) team. The CIP is relevant to the art commission because funding for the Percent for Art program comes from the city’s capital projects –  with 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, being set aside for public art. The CIP also indicates which major projects are on the horizon that might incorporate public art. By identifying such projects, AAPAC can start planning the public art component as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

Dreiseitl Follow-up

At AAPAC’s June 2012 meeting, commissioners had discussed the status of the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall – in particular, the issue of why it’s been dry for long periods. The discussion had stemmed from a written update by public art administrator Aaron Seagraves. The update explained why the water feature had malfunctioned and had noted that the water flow was intended to mimic the rainfall in the area. This information about the water sculpture reflecting the rain cycle was new to many commissioners – including some who had been serving on AAPAC when the project was approved. One of AAPAC’s newest commissioners, John Kotarski, advocated for a follow-up about how the project had evolved.

The June discussion had concluded with commissioners agreeing to send questions to the Dreiseitl project team. At the July 25 meeting, Seagraves provided another written report with answers about the sculpture. Among other things, the report included an email exchange between Dreiseitl and Ken Clein, a project manager with Quinn Evans Architects who oversaw the Dreiseitl installation. [.pdf of full report]

One of the questions that commissioners had posed related to Dreiseitl’s original intent for the work – did he intend for there to be periods when the water didn’t flow? The following is extracted from the email exchange between Clein and Dreiseitl on that issue:

July 12, 2012 email excerpt from Ken Clein to Herbert Dreiseitl:

“There seems to be some confusion regarding your intention for the water supply. Currently only filtered rainwater is used and many have been surprised when it has run dry due to lack of rain this year. The City would like a brief statement from you regarding your intentions for the water supply to set the record straight. Apparently they had the impression that it would run all season (which with normal rain fall would probably be true). The City may ask us to devise a source of potable water as a back-up. If you have any misgivings about this, please express those as well.”

July 12, 2012 from Dreiseitl to Clein: 

“I think if there is no rain it is OK for me to use potable water. It is even more relevant to celebrate the beauty of water in a sensitive way just in dry weather conditions.”

That response resulted in a follow-up email from Clein later that day:

“To me there is something poetic about letting the sculpture reflect the natural cycles, but I too understand that the City and residents would like to see the water running all summer. Your original concept for the sculpture was to rely on the rain. Is that correct?”

Dreiseitl’s response:

“yes you are right we were thinking the sculpture is reflecting the seasons. Rainy days – water on the sculpture. No water for a long time – no water in the system.”

At the July 25 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin said she felt the responses to AAPAC’s questions – responses that also included comments from former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker and Matt Kulhanek, the city’s fleet and facilities manager – had answered the questions thoughtfully and completely.

Chamberlin indicated it was interesting that the people involved early in the project did not envision that the sculpture would have water flowing the entire time. [The Chronicle's attended all AAPAC meetings during the selection of Dreiseitl for this project, and covered Dreiseitl's presentation to city council and the public prior to the council's approval. In reviewing Chronicle coverage of those early discussions, a seasonal aspect that was highlighted related to the water flow during wintertime – when it was anticipated that the water feature would not operate because of freezing temperatures.]

Kotarski had several questions and comments related to the written report. He noted that Clein referred to AAPAC meetings, which are open to the public, as the means for getting public input on the Dreiseitl project. Though there is opportunity for public participation at these meetings, Kotarski said, that doesn’t translate into involvement. He thought AAPAC should try harder to engage the public.

Kotarski also suggested doing this kind of debriefing after every project. He was disappointed that only three of the 16 people who were directly involved in the Dreiseitl project had responded to AAPAC’s questions.

He then turned his comments to the functioning of the “water fountain.” At that, Theresa Reid corrected him, saying it’s a sculpture, not a fountain. Calling it a fountain is a misnomer, she said.

Kotarski expressed concern that it hadn’t been built as Dreiseitl had designed it. He contended that it appeared the sculpture did not capture water from the roofs of the Justice Center and city hall. Seagraves clarified that the rainwater from the roofs of city hall and the adjacent Justice Center is collected into two tanks, which can hold a total of 2,300 gallons of water. Water from those tanks is used for the Dreiseitl work. A separate cistern also collects water from the roofs. [Seagraves also initially referred to the work as a fountain, and was corrected by Malverne Winborne.]

Kotarski said he’d gone out and looked at the site, and it’s not clear to him how the water from the roofs flows into the underground tanks. He wondered how that could be verified.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 city councilmember who was attending the meeting, volunteered to explain. She stated that spouts from the police/courts building – which she noted was called the Justice Center, but said she preferred not to use that name – direct water into a holding tank on the west side of the site. Spouts on city hall direct water into a tank under the front plaza. That’s how the water is collected for use in the Dreiseitl piece, she said.

Connie Brown suggested that Seagraves invite an architect or someone else familiar with the project to attend an AAPAC meeting and explain how it works, so that commissioners aren’t speculating.

Commissioners also briefly discussed the text for a proposed sign to be located next to the Dreiseitl piece, which explains how it works in relation to the building and rain garden. [.pdf of text for the sign] There was general agreement that the text provided a good explanation.

Bob Miller returned to Kotarski’s suggestion about regular debriefings. He wondered if Seagraves could put together a debriefing survey for each project. Winborne urged the commission to keep it simple – he warned against “analysis paralysis” and suggested using the same questions that had been asked of the Dreiseitl piece. Other commissioners concurred. Those questions are:

• Who were the major decision-makers on this project?
• What went well with the process? Conversely, what were the lessons learned? (from the key stakeholders’ perspectives)
• What was the role of the commission on this project?
• How was public input folded into this project?

In addition, one set of questions was asked that was specific to the Dreiseitl project: Did the design take into account periods of little or no rain? If not, then what steps are being taking to address this issue?

Outcome: This was not a voting item, but commissioners directed Seagraves to invite someone from the Dreiseitl project to a future AAPAC meeting to explain how the sculpture relates to the site’s stormwater management.

Strategic Plan

The commission discussed a four-year strategic plan, which identifies several major goals to pursue through 2016. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin had drafted the plan based on previous commission discussions – including a February 2012 retreat. Each goal was fleshed out with more detailed objectives. [.pdf of draft strategic plan]

Although commissioners discussed and edited the document during the July 25 meeting, no substantive changes were made. These are the draft goals, which were modified slightly during the meeting:

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

Another goal from the draft – to develop an art-on-loan program by fiscal 2015 – was eliminated and instead incorporated as an objective in one of the other goals.

One potential major change was brought up by John Kotarski. He wanted to add a goal related to AAPAC’s commitment to local sourcing. Dreiseitl is an example of that, he said – although Herbert Dreiseitl is German, much of the fabricating and installation work was done locally. It was an important goal, he said, and one that would reflect concerns raised by the community. It supports the goal of building a sustainable local arts community, he said.

Several commissioners expressed concerns about adding that goal to the strategic plan. Malverne Winborne felt it was outside of the commission’s purview. AAPAC projects must adhere to city policies, he said. Cathy Gendron noted that AAPAC had been told they can’t put geographic limitations on the selection of artists – that could apply to other aspects of a project, too.

Wiltrud Simbuerger observed that even if AAPAC doesn’t have authority to make those sourcing decisions, commissioners do have to answer questions from the community. So they need to have an answer ready when someone asks about local sourcing. She supporting including it in a mission statement, saying that AAPAC wants to improve the city’s commitment to local sourcing.

Theresa Reid said that was a good point, but she didn’t think it belonged in AAPAC’s strategic plan – because there’s no action they can take.

After further debate, Kotarski conceded that ”I think I’ve beat the horse totally dead. Thank you all for your indulgence.” There was no change made to the strategic plan regarding local sourcing.

Chamberlin agreed to work on a final version that incorporates changes suggested during Wednesday’s meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the strategic plan through 2016.

Meeting-Related Logistics

Commissioners considered three items related to its meetings: (1) adding a second opportunity for public commentary; (2) changing its meeting times; and (3) alternating the locations of its meetings. Also raised was the possibility of recording the proceedings to be broadcast on Community Television Network (CTN).

AAPAC meetings are currently held in the basement conference room at city hall, starting at 4:30 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday of each month. They are not recorded by CTN.

Meeting-Related Logistics: Public Commentary

An action item on the agenda asked commissioners to add a second three-minute public commentary slot at the end of its meetings. Previously, members of the public could formally address AAPAC only at the beginning of each meeting.

The issue of adding another public commentary slot was raised at AAPAC’s June 27, 2012 meeting by commissioner John Kotarski. The intent would be for people to have the opportunity to give feedback before a decision by AAPAC, then provide feedback after that decision is made, he said. Before AAPAC made a decision about public commentary, the commission last month directed Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to research the public commentary practices of other city of Ann Arbor commissions and boards. The majority of those entities include two slots for public commentary. Most of them limit speaking turns to three minutes per speaker.

Bob Miller noted that before he was appointed to AAPAC, he attended several of the commission’s meetings and had wanted more opportunities to participate during those meetings.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to add a second public commentary slot to their monthly meetings.

At Wednesday’s meeting, one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during public commentary. He urged commissioners to advocate for art projects that emphasize political, social and justice-oriented themes, as well as artwork that has an obvious connection to people.

Meeting-Related Logistics: Time, Location, CTN

Kotarski also proposed changing both the time and location of AAPAC’s monthly meetings. When he had spoken to people at the recent art fairs Townie Party, one concern he’d heard was that people didn’t feel that AAPAC is accessible. One difficulty was the meeting time – it’s difficult for many people to attend meetings in the late afternoon. He had subsequently reviewed the meeting times for other city boards and commissions, and noted that many of them start after 5 p.m. A later meeting time would make it easier for more people to attend AAPAC meetings, Kotarski said – especially people who work until 5 p.m.

He also wanted to move the meetings to different locations throughout the city, such as schools or other public sites. It ties into AAPAC’s decision to take a quadrant approach to selecting public art locations. By meeting in each of the quadrants, rather than city hall, it will give commissioners a better feel for different parts of the city, Kotarski said, and make it easier for people in those quadrants to participate in AAPAC’s meetings.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Bob Miller.

Wiltrud Simbuerger wondered if meeting elsewhere would be possible. She noted that in the past, AAPAC had been told that it needed to meet in a city-owned location. [When The Chronicle began covering AAPAC in 2008, the meetings were held in the conference room of JJR, a private business. One of the commissioners at the time worked there. Later, the meetings were moved to a City Center office that the city leased, and then were moved to the city hall following its recent renovation.]

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that there’s a designated list of meeting places that are acceptable for the city’s boards and commissions. He later clarified for The Chronicle that those locations include city-owned facilities, the Washtenaw County administration building, the Ann Arbor District Library and public schools.

Bob Miller said he agreed about the meeting time, but had reservations about changing the location. If they start moving the meetings, then the complaint will be that it’s hard to know where they’re meeting. He thought that sticking to one place is best, and city hall is where people expect to find groups like AAPAC.

Theresa Reid had the opposite view. She liked the idea of different locations, but didn’t feel she could meet at a later time. She has children and a job that requires work at night. She also noted that their meetings typically run until 7 p.m., and they’ve just added a new slot for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Kotarski then proposed recording the meetings for Community Television Network (CTN), as another way to make AAPAC’s work more accessible. The idea generally did not appear to be enthusiastically received, although Miller supported it.

Reid noted that AAPAC planned to set up task forces for each quadrant. She felt those task forces would do much of the outreach work to address Kotarski’s concerns about accessibility. Kotarski replied that the commission could take baby steps, but he wants to move them in the direction of becoming more accessible.

Miller thought the suggestions needed more thought. Kotarski offered to come up with some specific options and present those at the August meeting.

Outcome: This was a non-voting item. Kotarski is expected to make a more formal proposal at AAPAC’s August meeting.

AAPAC Endorsements

The possibility of an endorsement policy had been on AAPAC’s June 2012 agenda, but was tabled so that commissioners could have more time to think it through. The issue had initially been raised at AAPAC’s April 25, 2012 meeting, when Dave Konkle and Tim Jones had asked the commission to consider endorsing a large Whirlydoodle installation they hope to build. Jones had invented the devices as miniature wind generators, with LED lights that vary in color depending on wind speed.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had prepared a report for AAPAC’s July 25 meeting, outlining possible advantages and disadvantages to an endorsement policy. Advantages included publicly encouraging other public art projects and expanding the influence of AAPAC. That approach would increase awareness of public art in the city. An endorsement policy also would fit under the city’s public art ordinance requirements to promote awareness and initiate public/private networking.

Downsides cited in Seagraves’ report include the fact that not endorsing a public art project could be to the detriment of that project. Creating criteria for an endorsement policy would be a distraction from AAPAC’s primary responsibilities, and the ordinance is unclear about the issue of endorsements.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Connie Rizzolo Brown.

On July 25, Theresa Reid began the discussion by immediately making a motion – to pass a resolution stating that AAPAC would not make endorsements of other non-city art projects. She said she’d been totally persuaded by the downsides that Seagraves had cited.

Some commissioners objected to the word “endorsement.” Connie Brown preferred something less formal, saying she would support encouraging or sharing information about other art projects, but not endorsing them. Cathy Gendron noted that endorsements boil down to a subjective judgment.

John Kotarski argued strongly for developing an endorsement policy. He said such a policy would speak to four of the nine AAPAC duties outlined in the public art ordinance. [.pdf of public art ordinance] It would promote art in the community. It recognizes the fact that AAPAC has the power to persuade, he said, and would incentivize non-city projects. He noted that the reason AAPAC had been approached for an endorsement was because the commission is relevant. “If we weren’t relevant, they wouldn’t care what we did,” he said, referring to Jones and Konkle.

Reid noted that there are other ways to publicize non-city projects, including AAPAC’s website. Gendron also pointed to AAPAC’s Facebook page, and noted that not all commissioners take advantage of that or even have Facebook accounts.

Kotarski countered that by not making endorsements, AAPAC’s ability to function as a major public voice in the community is diminished.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners approved a resolution stating that AAPAC would not make endorsements. John Kotarski dissented.

Administrator’s Report

In his monthly written report, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – covered several topics and gave updates on projects. This section focuses on administrative issues that were raised in his report.

Administrator’s Report: Legal Staff Delays

There were no updates for some projects because those projects are being reviewed by the city attorney’s office. Several commissioners expressed frustration at the length of time these reviews are taking.

Wiltrud Simbuerger wondered how long it will take for the East Stadium bridges project to move forward – will the RFP (request for proposals) be in legal review for a year? She wondered what tools AAPAC can use to influence the process, perhaps by appealing to another level within the city administration.

In addition to the East Stadium bridges RFP, other projects being reviewed by the city attorney’s staff include a statement of qualifications (SOQ) to develop a pool of muralists, and an SOQ for an art project at Argo Cascades. Bob Miller also noted that he hadn’t received a response on questions he’d posed to legal staff about an art-on-loan program he’s developing.

Theresa Reid said the delays make AAPAC look bad. Miller indicated that Abigail Elias – the assistant city attorney handling these projects – had been expected to attend AAPAC’s July meeting. Why hadn’t she come?

Seagraves said Elias had other commitments and wasn’t able to attend, but she might come to the commission’s August meeting. He had talked with her and reported that Elias told him these projects are at the top of her list. Simbuerger replied: ”How often has she said this?”

Cathy Gendron observed that AAPAC had the same issue for the Fuller Road Station RFP, although that art component was ultimately halted after the University of Michigan withdrew from the proposed parking structure and transit center.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin offered to draft a letter about the situation and talk to Tony Derezinski, the Ward 2 city councilmember who also serves on AAPAC – although he didn’t attend the June or July meetings.

Administrator’s Report: CIP

Seagraves reported that he’ll now be attending meetings of the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) team. The CIP is a list of major capital projects planned by the city – those that are funded as well as those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. The city code requires that the CIP be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

The CIP is relevant to the art commission because funding for the Percent for Art program comes from the city’s capital projects – 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, is set aside for public art. The CIP also indicates what major projects are on the horizon that might incorporate public art. By identifying such projects, AAPAC can start planning the public art component as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

Seagraves asked for direction in prioritizing capital projects that might incorporate public art. He suggested that AAPAC’s strategic plan could be used in that regard, to prioritize projects and locations. That could be done in the fall and winter, for AAPAC to consider including in its annual plan, which must be presented to the city council by April 1.

Commissioners discussed how to coordinate this information with a new approach they’re planning to take – forming task forces for four quadrants of the city, to help guide the selection of projects and ensure that all parts of the city are represented.

Seagraves also noted that a line item for public art could be included in the CIP. He said he’s also discussed the possibility of using the CIP evaluation criteria as a way to help select projects or locations. [For background on the CIP process and evaluation metrics, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Approves Capital Plan." More information is also on the city's CIP website.]

John Kotarski asked if Seagraves was recommending this approach. Marsha Chamberlin, the commission’s chair, noted that AAPAC has tried to develop a ratings document in the past, most recently in an effort spearheaded by Malverne Winborne, who serves as vice chair. She said that she and Winborne would work with Seagraves to develop a proposal for AAPAC to consider.

Administrator’s Report: CIP – FY 2013 Budget

Seagraves also presented a list of anticipated revenues for the Percent for Art program in fiscal 2013, which began on July 1, 2012. Based on planned capital projects, new Percent for Art funding in FY 2013 will total $320,837. That includes funding from the following sources: water fund ($55,797); stormwater fund ($20,608); street millage ($112,700); sewer fund ($93,610); parks millage ($11,647); and administration ($26,475).

The $320,837 in FY 2013 revenues is in addition to current funds in the Percent for Art program. At AAPAC’s June 2012 meeting, a written budget report indicated that the Percent for Art program had $1,367,148 in available funds through the end of FY 2012. Of that, $851,233 has been earmarked by AAPAC for future projects, including artwork for East Stadium bridges ($400,000), Argo Cascades ($150,000); and the Justice Center ($147,468).

Project Updates

In addition to items reported elsewhere in this article, two project updates received attention during AAPAC’s July 25 meeting: (1) the Kingsley rain garden, and (2) security in the Justice Center lobby, where a sculpture commissioned by the city will be located.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

In November 2011, AAPAC had approved an art project as part of a rain garden that the city is building at the corner of Kingsley and First. The previous month – at AAPAC’s Oct. 26 meeting – Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum (CDF) and Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, had talked to commissioners about possible public art in the rain garden.

The city bought 215 and 219 W. Kingsley – land that’s located in a floodplain. A boarded-up house is located on the corner lot; the adjacent lot is vacant. The city received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish the house and stabilize the site.

From left: Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator; Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum; and Aaron Seagraves, the city's public art administrator. They met with residents on July 26 at the site of a future Kingsley & First rain garden. Hancock is showing FEMA maps that indicate a change in floodplain boundaries.

The city has awarded CDF the contract for the project, which will include building a rain garden on the site. CDF was also involved in the new municipal center project and the Dreiseitl sculpture.

The overall project cost is about $280,000 – and the city will pay for 25% of that, or about $70,000, with the rest funded by FEMA. Because the city’s portion will come from the city’s stormwater fund, the public art component can use pooled Percent for Art funds captured from stormwater projects. A balance of about $27,000 is available in stormwater Percent for Art funds. AAPAC approved the use that amount, with the final budget to be recommended by the project’s task force.

On July 25, Aaron Seagraves showed commissioners a four-question survey he’d developed to solicit public input on the project. [.pdf of rain garden survey] He said he planned to distribute the surveys at a July 26 public meeting about the rain garden project.

At that July 26 event, Hancock, Judd and Seagraves met with about a dozen residents at the First & Kingsley site to review plans for the property. The house will be demolished as soon as the relevant permit is received. Beal Construction has the contract for that work. Demolition will likely take place in early August, according to Beal’s Jim Mason, who attended the July 26 forum.

Hancock said that after the house is gone, the site will initially be regraded to leave a slight depression – about 6-12 inches over a large portion of the site – that will allow it to collect stormwater during heavy rains. This will be only an initial step until the rain garden is completed, which will likely take place in the spring. Judd said the area will include a path and bench, and “engineered soil” through which water will slowly drain. The intent is to eliminate flashing, he said – the sudden flooding caused by heavy rains.

Regarding the public art portion of the project, Seagraves said the intent is to integrate it into the overall rain garden design, ensuring that it won’t interfere with the stormwater management. Two artists from METAL, a nearby design and fabrication shop, will be among those helping select the artist, and a request for proposals (RFP) will be issued later this year.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden – Commission Discussion

At AAPAC’s July 25 meeting, John Kotarski said he’d been reading online comments on an AnnArbor.com article that was based on the city’s press release about the planned July 26 Kingsley & First public forum. Among other things, people were complaining about how they couldn’t reach the art commissioners, he said. He felt that Seagraves or commissioners should monitor those comments, and he encouraged Seagraves to respond to factual misrepresentations.

Other commissioners felt that people will inevitably complain, and that there are already ways that AAPAC can be reached – contact information is on the commission’s website and Facebook page. Kotarski felt that commissioners should be aware of the comments, and that Seagraves should take the initiative to respond so that AAPAC can have a voice in the online discussion. The fact that there are constraints on the selection of artists – but that AAPAC supports local sourcing – should be explained, he said. The commission shouldn’t pick a fight, he added, but they have a narrative that’s not being articulated.

Theresa Reid felt that Kotarski’s concerns were valid, but that individual commissioners should respond or alert Seagraves as necessary. There is contact information available for commissioners, she noted, and the situation is already being addressed. When Kotarski pressed for more discussion of a local sourcing policy, Marsha Chamberlin noted that given their full agenda, it was a discussion that should be deferred to a future meeting.

Project Updates: Justice Center

In his written report, Aaron Seagraves had noted that Ed Carpenter, the artist selected for the sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center, is working with engineers to develop a design that would allow for ceiling access, needed for maintenance. [The $150,000 sculpture, called Radius, will be suspended from the ceiling in the southwest corner of the building's lobby.] The artist expects to have a completed working plan to share in August or September, according to Seagraves’ report.

At the July 25 meeting, John Kotarski asked what the status was for possible changes in the lobby’s security checkpoint. Seagraves replied that it wasn’t in AAPAC’s purview, so he didn’t have an update on it.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 city councilmember who was attending the meeting, reported that she and other councilmembers – Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – had met with city staff recently to discuss the issue. She said mayor John Hieftje has firmly stated his preference to move the checkpoint closer to the elevators, which are located at the opposite end of the building. [The checkpoint now is located at the building's public entrance, off of the Huron Street plaza adjacent to city hall.]

There’s a general acknowledgement that the artwork would be better viewed from inside the lobby, she said, and there are councilmembers who would like to use the lobby for receptions and gatherings. It’s an attractive place, she said. But the question of how to handle the security checkpoint is different from the public art piece, Briere noted. When the council approved the artwork, they asked city staff to look into the cost of possibly moving the checkpoint. No decision on that has been reached.

For more details on options for the security checkpoint, see Chronicle coverage: “Access, Security and Art at Justice Center.”

New Projects: Forest Avenue Plaza, Ellsworth Roundabout

Action on proposals for two new projects had been tabled at AAPAC’s June 2012 meeting – because the commission ran out of time. The proposals are for public art at: (1) Forest Avenue Plaza, next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University; and (2) a future roundabout at Ellsworth and South State.

Forest Avenue Plaza, facing west. On the left is the Forest Avenue parking structure. Pizza House is visible at the end of the alley, across Church Street. The plaza abuts the back entrance of Pinball Pete's and the U.S. post office.

Both projects are being proposed by city staff, as part of broader initiatives. The Forest Avenue Plaza proposal was submitted by Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, and Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The city has held two public meetings to seek input on improving the small plaza, and has about $40,000 in funding for the project. The city would like additional public art funding – suggested at between $10,000 to $20,000 – for artwork to be placed in the plaza.

Regarding the second item, the roundabout at State and Ellsworth is a major capital project at one of the busiest intersections south of town, with construction planned for the summer of 2013. There’s some interest from one of the local Rotary clubs in partnering with the city to add public art and landscaping to the roundabout.

At the July 25 meeting, Theresa Reid proposed holding off on these projects until task forces for each city quadrant are formed. Then, those task forces could take over management of the projects. But because the task forces won’t likely be in place until October, some commissioners felt that was too long to wait.

After further discussion, it emerged that several commissioners hadn’t visited the two sites for the proposed projects. Bob Miller suggested waiting until next month to take action, and to allow time for commissioners to make site visits.

Outcome: No formal vote was taken. The items will be addressed again at AAPAC’s August meeting. 

General Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) Process

At last month’s AAPAC meeting, commissioners approved a statement of qualifications (SOQ) that will be issued by the city to create a pool of muralists for future projects. [.pdf of mural SOQ] The objective, as stated in the SOQ, is to “find professional muralists and other artists whose work meets a set of standards and to pre-qualify them for City of Ann Arbor mural projects to be contracted in 2012 to 2014.” [That SOQ is currently being reviewed by the city's legal staff.]

Commissioners were also interested in creating a pool of pre-qualified artists for more general projects. They directed Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to check with the city’s procurement staff to see if this would be possible.

In his written report for the July 25 meeting, Seagraves stated that when releasing an SOQ for a specific project, the city can include a form to be completed that would solicit information about a broader range of the artist’s qualifications. This form could request that applicants give permission to be included in an ongoing pre-qualified pool. The SOQ could be released annually – or at any scheduled period – and there would be no need for an artist to reapply if they granted their permission for continual inclusion in this pre-qualified pool. This could form the basis of an artist registry. Seagraves indicated that he would work with the city’s procurement staff to develop a qualifications form, and would present it to AAPAC for approval.

Marsha Chamberlin said Seagraves had clarified everything in his written report, and she supported the process. After a brief discussion, commissioners voted on the proposal.

Outcome: AAPAC unanimously voted to establish an SOQ process that creates an artist registry/database for projects in the next three years. Seagraves will develop a qualifications form for AAPAC to review.

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

View of the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl, looking down from the sixth floor of city hall on June 27. There was no water running on this particular day. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioned by the city from German artist Herbert Dreiseitl and dedicated in October of 2011, the work was designed to use rainwater collected from the roofs of city hall and the adjacent Justice Center. But water has flowed through the fountain only sporadically. The original water pumps clogged and malfunctioned, and are being replaced with a new pump. Yet even when that new pump is functioning, the two tanks, which can hold a total of 2,300 gallons of water are currently dry, and no water is available at this point to run through the sculpture.

Saying that people have asked him why the fountain isn’t working, commissioner John Kotarski asked whether Dreiseitl intended the sculpture to reflect the seasonal rain cycle. Kotarski said he previously hadn’t heard that narrative applied to the sculpture, until it was mentioned in the report by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. Kotarski was appointed to AAPAC well after the sculpture was approved.

Cathy Gendron, who was serving on AAPAC when the project was recommended for approval in 2009, said her expectation had been that water would be a standard part of the piece. She wondered whether something had changed during the engineering process. She noted that it was the first project undertaken by the commission after its formation as part of the city’s Percent for Art program. [It is also the city's largest public art expenditure to date, costing over $750,000.]

Kotarski praised the project, calling Dreiseitl a world-renowned sculptor and noting that Ann Arbor now has something in its public art collection that other cities would love to have. But he called for a full report of the project ”with all of its glory and all of its warts,” so that AAPAC could find out and learn from what has happened.

Commissioners agreed to compile a list of questions to be forwarded to the project’s design team. There was no formal action taken regarding the kind of report that Kotarski requested.

Later in the meeting, commissioners did take action on two items related to AAPAC’s mural program: (1) approval of the final design for a mixed-media mural at Allmendinger Park; and (2) approval of a statement of qualifications (SOQ) to seek potential artists for future murals.

Also at the June 27 meeting, AAPAC vice chair Malverne Winborne made a strategic planning proposal that he had first floated at the commission’s retreat in February. The idea is to approach a plan for public art by looking at quadrants of the city, to help guide the selection of projects and ensure that all parts of the city are represented. Commissioners were supportive of the general concept, but ultimately tabled the item for further discussion at their July 25 meeting.

Two other items were tabled until that July meeting: (1) a discussion on a possible endorsement policy for privately funded art projects; and (2) action on two new proposed public art projects, at the Forest Avenue Plaza in the South University area, and at the future roundabout at South State and Ellsworth.

Commissioners also discussed plans for AAPAC’s participation in the July 16 Townie Street Party. The event is hosted by the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair as a kickoff to the annual art fairs, which run this year from July 18-21. AAPAC has a table in the “Creative Connections” tent. Hannah Nathans, a University of Michigan student intern with the city, has painted a five-foot-tall poster evoking a well-known mural on East Liberty Street by Richard Wolk. It’s intended to be an interactive feature – people can poke their faces through cut-out holes and get their pictures taken.

Dreiseitl Sculpture: When the Water Runs Dry

As part of the June 27 AAPAC meeting packet, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – included an update on the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl, which is not yet completed. From the written report:

Administrator met with the sculpture design team and Project Manager on May 24th to address the completion of sculpture water feature. The design team was charged with the completion of the entire water feature. Water feature was fully functioning for about two weeks in June. Then, the micro-water pumps providing water to the “glass pearls” at the top of the sculpture clogged and malfunctioned. The water feature will be redesigned to eliminate the chance of further clogging. A larger single water pump will replace the micro-pumps – the new pump is on order.

Due to the rate of evaporation that has been observed, and the water tank capacity, it is very likely the water feature will not be flowing following extended dry, hot conditions. The flow of the water feature will mimic the rainfall in the area, as rainwater is the only source of water for the feature. To increase the supply of water to the sculpture, a supply connection between the sculpture’s water tanks and the much larger rain garden cistern is being investigated by city staff. The sculpture was not designed to intake rainwater from the cistern.

During the June 27 meeting, John Kotarski – who joined AAPAC this January – told commissioners that he had some questions about the Dreiseitl fountain, and that other people had been asking him questions, too.

Responding to Kotarski, Seagraves explained that stormwater is collected from the roofs of both the city hall and the new Justice Center building, and stored in two water tanks that hold a total of 2,300 gallons. That water is filtered and pumped through the Dreiseitl fountain.

Public art commissioner John Kotarski.

Kotarski asked whether the artist intended for the fountain to be dry during the warmest summer months. Seagraves replied that it’s certainly designed to be that way, but he didn’t know the artist’s intent. [Seagraves was hired about a year ago, after the project was well underway.]

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin said that question had never addressed, as far as she knew. Cathy Gendron, another commissioner who was serving on AAPAC when the project was approved in October of 2009, said she also didn’t know. She had emailed former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker about it, but hadn’t yet received a reply. [Parker was also chair of the task force that recommended selection of Dreiseitl for the project. It had then been recommended for approval by AAPAC, and ultimately was authorized by city council.]

Bob Miller asked about leaks in the tanks – because he’d heard that was a problem. Seagraves reported that no leaks have been found. He confirmed for Miller that evaporation might account for the fact that there’s no water at this point.

It’s one thing if the narrative of mimicking the seasonal rain cycle is intentional, Kotarski said. But he’d never heard that narrative before. Chamberlin said she didn’t think the commission had known to ask that question – it hadn’t been raised.

Theresa Reid asked Kotarski: In what spirit are his questions being raised now? Kotarski replied that people are asking him questions like “What’s wrong with the fountain?” and Why isn’t there any water?” He said he’s not sure it makes a lot of sense to people.

Kotarski then praised the project. Dreiseitl is a world-renowned sculptor, he said, and Ann Arbor now has something in its public art collection that other cities would love to have. It’s the best example of local sourcing for a major piece of art that he’s ever seen, with a lot of Michigan artists involved and a lot of money spent in Michigan. [The fabrication of the sculpture was handled by a Michigan firm, and Quinn Evans Architects – project managers for the new Justice Center building and city hall renovations – also oversaw the design and construction of the Dreiseitl work.] All of that is very good, Kotarski said.

But there are some troubling aspects that he’d like to get cleared up. “I’m wondering if it would be possible to do an investigation and report on this,” he said.

Chamberlin replied that she and Gendron shared his interest, and they’d pursue it with Parker. However, she said she chafed a little at the word “investigation.” No one had tried to be deceptive, she noted.

Kotarski said he simply wondered whether best practices were followed, or whether they could have done better. Malverne Winborne, who also joined AAPAC after the Dreiseitl project had been approved, framed it this way: As part of the commission’s learning process, what could be improved? Gendron noted that Dreiseitl had been the commission’s first project – and the largest one to date – since the Percent for Art program was established.

Kotarski stressed that he wasn’t trying to lay blame. But he does think there needs to be a written report that looks at what happened, good and bad. The sculpture is a conceptual work about the preciousness of water, he said – it’s not just decorative. But they need to be truthful about all aspects of the project, he added.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Cathy Gendron.

Winborne suggested that commissioners identify specific questions that they would like to have answered. He volunteered to collect those questions and forward them to Seagraves and the design team.

Gendron said she’d like to know if the artwork is actually designed to be dry during part of the summer. If so, the city should find out what its options are to remediate or change the piece. When the project was presented to AAPAC, she said, it never occurred to her that the fountain would be dry part of the summer. She assumed a water sculpture would have water. Perhaps something transitioned during the engineering process, she said.

It had been a highly technical project, Chamberlin observed, so it’s possible that the engineering changed at some point in the process. But there are documents from early on in the development of the project that should clarify the original intent, she said.

Reid noted that if the water sculpture is dry in the summer and doesn’t run water in the winter because of the freezing temperatures, “that’s a little disappointing.”

Kotarski reiterated his view that it’s a great project, and there’s an opportunity to look at it ”with all of its glory and all of its warts.” Such a report would show that AAPAC is learning. It would be a mistake not to do that, he said.

By way of background, Dreiseitl had made a presentation to Ann Arbor city council in July of 2009, prior to the project’s approval. From The Chronicle’s report of that presentation:

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

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

There were references to the sculpture’s water element throughout that presentation. For example: ”Some wanted to know if it would be possible to climb the large vertical piece. The answer seemed to be no, as Dreiseitl explained it would be too steep and the water cascading down it would complicate things (although he joked that a practiced rock climber might be able to scale it).”

The water element is also key to the project’s funding. The Percent for Art ordinance designates 1% of each city government capital project be set aside for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project. The ordinance also stipulates two ways that public art funds can be used. Art can be funded if it’s integrated into or stands on the site of some capital improvement project – but the Dreiseitl work isn’t funded that way. Another way to fund art with Percent for Art money is with “pooled” money from capital projects with locations that don’t lend themselves to siting art. But art that’s funded that way must relate in some fashion to its funding source. The Dreiseitl sculpture had a $750,000 budget created from pooled funds from other capital improvement projects: drinking water ($210,000), sanitary sewer ($510,000) and stormwater ($30,000) funds.

Outcome: This was not an action item, so there was no vote taken. Next steps involve commissioners sending questions about the Dreiseitl project to Malverne Winborne, AAPAC’s vice chair, who will then forward those questions to the project’s design team.

Mural Program

Two agenda items related to AAPAC’s mural program: (1) approval of the final design for a mixed-media mural at Allmendinger Park; and (2) approval of a statement of qualifications (SOQ) to seek potential artists for future murals.

Mural Program: Allmendinger Park

AAPAC originally selected Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels of TreeTown Murals for the Allmendinger Park mural at its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting. It’s the first mural in a pilot program that was spearheaded by former AAPAC member Jeff Meyers and approved by the commission in November 2010, with the intent of creating at least two murals per year in the city.

Illustration by Mary Thiefels of her proposed mural at Allmendinger Park, provided in AAPAC’s June 27, 2012 meeting packet.

The final design has been changed from Thiefels’ original proposal, based on feedback from a mural task force, and is more abstract than the original. [.pdf of final mural design]

Thiefels’ project includes working with students at Slauson Middle School and incorporating their work into her design – more than 60 students created self-portraits that will be part of the mosaics on pillars of the building at Allmendinger Park. The mosaics will also feature other found objects relevant to the community – examples include keys, pottery shards, animal bones, and fossils – and pieces of colored glass. Commissioners will take part, too. They had received a letter from Meg Crawley, a member of the mural task force, asking for their own donation of objects for the mural.

An initial $10,000 budget for the mural later had been increased to $12,000, with $7,200 of that amount to be paid for with a grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

The commission’s annual art plan for fiscal year 2013 – which begins July 1, 2012 – allocates an additional $40,000 to fund two more murals. No locations or artists have been selected for those projects.

At the June 27 meeting, there was minimal discussion about the Allmendinger mural. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin described the vote as a formality, noting that commissioners had previously approved the budget and overall concept. This final design had been vetted by the mural task force, she said, and Thiefels has already signed a contract for the work with the city.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the final design for the Allmendinger Park mural. It does not require city council approval.

Mural Program: Creating a “Pool” of Muralists

In a separate item, commissioners were asked to approve a statement of qualifications (SOQ) that will be issued by the city. [.pdf of mural SOQ] The objective, as stated in the SOQ, is to “find professional muralists and other artists whose work meets a set of standards and to pre-qualify them for City of Ann Arbor mural projects to be contracted in 2012 to 2014.”

General expectations cited in the SOQ include: (1) work experience in mural artwork, or other media of a similar type; (2) proficiency in 2-D or surface mounted media and art fabrication; (3) the ability to work together with oversight bodies, project managers and city staff; and (4) the ability to work on location and complete an artwork installation in a timely manner.

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

The idea is to pre-select a pool of potential muralists, to expedite the process for choosing an artist for mural projects in the next two years. Requests for proposals (RFPs) for specific mural projects would be sent only to a subset of the artists in the pre-selected pool.

Some commissioners advocated soliciting artists more frequently than a two-year period, and suggested having a “rolling registry” for artists. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin cautioned that this could delay the selection process – the intent is to shorten the timeline. She noted that each time an SOQ is issued, it needs to be vetted by the city attorney’s office, and that can take several months. The city attorney’s office also vets each request for proposals (RFP), which will be required for each specific mural project.

Malverne Winborne supported the proposed SOQ. As an argument against having a rolling registry or more frequent SOQs, he noted that it takes staff and commission time to process responses, and their resources are limited. ”We have to merge the creative process with public financing,” he said.

After additional discussion, Cathy Gendron proposed directing Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – to investigate refreshing the pool annually with the same SOQ. Seagraves said he’d have to check with the city’s procurement staff to see if it’s possible to issue the same SOQ without running it through the city attorney’s office again.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the initial SOQ, and directed Seagraves to investigate the possibility of refreshing the pool of artists annually, using the same SOQ.

Strategic Planning

At AAPAC’s four-hour planning retreat in late February, Malverne Winborne had suggested dividing the city into zones or quadrants, to help guide the selection of projects and ensure that all parts of the city are represented.

Winborne made a more formal proposal on June 27. He proposed using the four quadrants that are designated in the city’s master plan “land use elements” section: west, central, south and northeast. [.pdf of quadrant map] There are nine commissioners, including Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on Ann Arbor city council. Excluding Derezinski, the other eight commissioners would be “champions” of a quadrant – two per quadrant.

Public art commissioner Malverne Winborne.

He also proposed that the Percent for Art budget be divided so that funding would be available for projects in each quadrant.

In the past, AAPAC has appeared to be doing projects out of convenience, Winborne said. This would be a way to make sure that each section of the city is represented, in terms of public art.

Specifically, he proposed two goals: (1) in the next three years, each city quadrant shall have, at a minimum, one new public artwork; and (2) one new public art program will be developed that will result in public art in each of the city areas; or one artist will be selected to produce a public art design, or public art series, that can be produced in each of the city quadrants. [.pdf of full proposal]

Bob Miller wondered how this approach would impact the availability of funds for larger projects – that was a concern for him. Winborne suggested that AAPAC should remain flexible, but that the quadrant approach could serve as the general guideline for developing projects. The important thing would be that AAPAC didn’t override the guidelines too often, he said, or it would defeat the purpose of having an egalitarian approach.

Cathy Gendron pointed out that this strategy would entail saying “no” to the city – she noted that most proposals are driven by city staff and relate to specific capital projects, like the Justice Center, East Stadium bridges, and Argo Cascades.

Marsha Chamberlin told commissioners that she, Winborne and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had discussed this proposal for over an hour before the AAPAC meeting. She said the major issues that it addresses are: (1) making sure the public art program is implemented citywide; (2) ensuring that Percent for Art funds are spent; and (3) ensuring that neighborhoods are represented. Commissioners who are assigned to specific quadrants can develop relationships with neighborhood associations and other organizations, to get input on priorities for those areas, she said.

John Kotarski called it a brilliant idea, but he wondered why funding had to be allocated specifically for each quadrant. He liked the idea of commissioners having to pitch projects for their quadrants – it would force them all to be engaged in bringing forward the best ideas.

Chamberlin noted that allocating funds for each quadrant would ensure that each area gets funding. Winborne added that if residents know that money is available, it sends them a message that they “can play too,” he said.

Miller said he’d like to get input from other commissioners who weren’t at the June 25 meeting, including Derezinski. He moved to table the proposal and bring it back for discussion at AAPAC’s meeting in July.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to table the quadrant proposal. They will reconsider it at AAPAC’s July 25 meeting.

Endorsement Policy

At AAPAC’s April 25, 2012 meeting, Dave Konkle and Tim Jones had spoken during public commentary regarding a large Whirlydoodle installation they hope to build. Jones had invented the devices as miniature wind generators, with LED lights that vary in color depending on wind speed. About two dozen are currently placed around the downtown area. A large-scale installation would help people to visualize wind currents and prompt a discussion about alternative energy, he said.

Public art commissioner Theresa Reid.

Konkle is the city’s former energy coordinator who now does consulting work for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as energy programs director. On April 25, he told commissioners that a display of 1,000 Whirlydoodles – possible at the former landfill at Platt and Carpenter – would result in Ann Arbor having more wind generators than any other city in the world, and would bring the city national attention. The two men asked AAPAC to endorse the proposal, but commissioners did not act on it or discuss it in depth at that meeting.

The issue of whether AAPAC should develop an endorsement policy was an agenda item at the June 27 meeting. Theresa Reid said she felt it would be more trouble than it was worth for AAPAC, and she made a motion stating that AAPAC’s policy would be not to endorse or otherwise recommend private projects.

John Kotarski noted that the city’s public art ordinance recommends the promotion of private projects, and suggests that AAPAC seek donations or encourage the private sector to support public art. From the ordinance [.pdf of Ann Arbor's public art ordinance]:

1:837. ­ Oversight body.
(1) The oversight body shall be the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission as established by Section 1:238 of Chapter 8.
(2) The oversight body shall:
…
(E) Raise funds above and beyond the funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project or that are in a pooled public art fund, interact with donors of funds or art works on behalf of the City, and foster public/private partnerships to support public art;
…
(I) Provide advice to and assist both potential donors of art and other governmental entities regarding possible public locations for placement of art when such art cannot be placed on any City property or incorporated into a capital project of the City.

Rather than rejecting the idea of endorsements immediately, Kotarski said he’d feel more comfortable thinking through the ramifications of endorsements and making a policy that’s consistent with the ordinance. It might be that they end up deciding not to make endorsements, but he wanted to think it through more thoroughly.

Other commissioners expressed agreement, and Reid withdrew her motion. She made another motion to table the discussion until AAPAC’s July 25 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to table discussion of an endorsement policy until their July meeting.

Townie Street Party

Part of the June 27 meeting was spent discussing plans for AAPAC’s participation in the July 16, 2012 Townie Street Party.

This poster, standing about five feet high, was painted by Hannah Nathans, a University of Michigan undergraduate who’s working as an intern with the city. It’s based on a mural by Richard Wolk on East Liberty near State Street. The poster will be part of the Ann Arbor public art commission’s booth at the July 16 Townie Street Party.

The event is hosted by the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair as a kickoff to the annual art fairs, which run this year from July 18-21. AAPAC has a booth in the “Creative Connections” tent. Hannah Nathans, a University of Michigan student intern with the city, has painted a five-foot-tall poster evoking a well-known mural on East Liberty Street by Richard Wolk. The poster is intended to be an interactive feature – people can poke their faces through cut-out holes and get their pictures taken. [Wolk's original mural was painted for David's Books, formerly located at South State and Liberty. The mural features stylized portraits of Woody Allen, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Hesse, Franz Kafka, and Anaïs Nin.]

John Kotarski, who serves on AAPAC’s PR committee, noted that they had a $250 budget for the Townie Street Party, and he suggested using a portion of that to pay Nathans for her work. There was discussion about whether this would be allowed under terms of her internship. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair who is also president of the Ann Arbor Art Center, said her understanding is that it’s not allowed – based on the art center’s experience using UM interns, who receive college credit for their work.

Cathy Gendron, who chairs the PR committee, was concerned about setting a precedent with other volunteers who contribute significant time and effort. She wondered if there would be another more appropriate way to thank Nathans.

Malverne Winborne suggested holding a volunteer appreciation event in the future. Other commissioners seemed enthusiastic about that general approach.

Kotarski also noted that he had proposed asking people at the Townie Street Party to sign a petition in support of public art, but that Gendron had felt it would be too confrontational. Chamberlin said she appreciated the intent, but noted that they had run into problems previously when a commissioner sent out emails urging friends to take action.

A commissioner is a public official, Chamberlin said, and needs to take a balanced approach. A petition has a kind of political implication to it. Kotarski said he felt it would be like signing a birthday card, or putting a button on that says “I support public art.”

Commissioners discussed other alternatives, such as collecting email addresses for people to receive newsletters from AAPAC.

Outcome: There was no action item on this issue.

New Projects

Project intake forms – the first formal step in the process to seek funding – have been submitted for two proposed public art projects: (1) at Forest Avenue Plaza, next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University; and (2) at a future roundabout at Ellsworth and South State.

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

The roundabout is a major capital project at one of the busiest intersections south of town, with construction planned for the summer of 2013. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, told commissioners that there’s some interest from one of the local Rotary clubs in partnering with the city to add public art and landscaping to the roundabout.

These items came up on the agenda near the end of AAPAC’s June 27 meeting. Theresa Reid felt there weren’t a sufficient number of commissioners present to have a meaningful discussion. [At this point, only five of the nine commissioners were present.] She also felt that new projects should also be discussed in the context of the proposed quadrant approach to selecting public art locations. She moved to table action on the items.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to table the proposed new projects at Forest Avenue Plaza and the Ellsworth/State roundabout.

Communications, Updates

Several items were brought up during the meeting in the category of updates or general communications from commissioners and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Communications, Updates: DIA Inside|Out Program

John Kotarski reported his communications with Kathryn Dimond, community relations manager at the Detroit Institute of Arts. By way of background, a DIA representative had met with AAPAC in October 2011 regarding a partnership with Ann Arbor for the institute’s Inside|Out program. The program involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks. The original proposal was for Ann Arbor to participate this year, but it’s now likely to happen in 2013.

Kotarski said he had proposed getting schools involved in helping select the artwork that would be installed locally. At the June 27 meeting, he told commissioners DIA officials liked that idea, but wanted to coordinate it themselves, possibly with an online contest on the DIA website.

A community is selected to participate in the program during one of two three-month periods each year: From April through June, or from July through September. Kotarski said he had suggested the July through September timeframe. Other commissioners felt that wouldn’t be the best period for students to be involved, since they’d be out of school most of that time. Kotarski said he’d contact Dimond again and convey a preference for the April through June period instead.

Bob Miller wondered what it would take for Ann Arbor to start its own version of this program. Kotarski expressed enthusiasm for that idea, and commissioners indicated they would take it up at a future meeting.

Communications, Updates: Public Commentary, Minutes

At the beginning of the June 27 meeting, commissioners discussed some housekeeping items. Theresa Reid suggested that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, take less detailed minutes “for [his] own sanity.” She indicated that a greater level of detail can lead to more conflict, with commissioners potentially disputing what’s recorded.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin said Seagraves has been getting varied advice about the level of detail that’s needed. It would certainly make it easier if only motions and votes were recorded, she said.

Raising a separate issue, John Kotarski said he’d like to add a slot on the agenda for public commentary at the end of each meeting, in addition to the time that’s available at the beginning of the meeting. That would be consistent with the practice of the city council and other commissions, he said. It’s the chair’s prerogative, he said, but he didn’t think it would take that much more time in the meeting. [Kotarski is correct – the city council and most city commissions offer opportunities for public commentary at the start and end of each meeting. The standard time per individual is three minutes.]

The intent is for people to have the opportunity to give input prior to a decision by AAPAC, then to provide feedback after that decision is made, he said. Bob Miller suggested that Seagraves find out what other commissions do in terms of time limits and other rules, then report back to AAPAC.

No one from the public attended the June 27 AAPAC meeting.

Communications, Updates: State Street Corridor

Aaron Seagraves asked if any of the commissioners wanted to be part of the city’s State Street corridor study. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets Closer Look"]

Marsha Chamberlin wondered what the role of a commissioner would be. Seagraves indicated it would be to provide input as the group develops recommendations for improving the corridor. Responding to other questions, he said he wasn’t sure of the project’s timeframe, or how it fits into the city’s North Main corridor task force.

Bob Miller indicated that he’d be willing to get involved with the State Street project.

Communications, Updates: Other Projects

In the written report from Aaron Seagraves, updates were given on several ongoing projects:

• Justice Center: The contract with artist Ed Carpenter is complete, and Carpenter will be working on a final design. [Chronicle coverage: "City Council OKs Justice Center Art"]
• Argo Cascades: A task force has completed review of a draft statement of qualifications (SOQ), which was sent to the city attorney’s office for legal review on May 25. [Chronicle coverage: "Art Commission OKs Argo Cascades Project"]
• East Stadium bridges: Seagraves is working to request the completion of legal review for the artist request for proposals. AAPAC had approved the RFP and a $400,000 project budget in April. [Chronicle coverage: "RFP for E. Stadium Bridges Art Approved"]
• Kingsley & First rain garden: The project’s task force met in early May. A public forum will be planned after the building on the property is demolished, likely at the end of July or later. Input from that forum will be used in developing the SOQ draft. [Chronicle coverage: "W. Kingsley House Finally To Be Demolished"]

The status of additional projects was provided in a two-page “project tracker” spreadsheet, but not discussed at the meeting.

Communications, Updates: Budget

Also provided in written form, but not discussed, was a summary of funds available in the Percent for Art program. [.pdf of budget summary]

Of the $1,367,148 in available funds, $851,233 has been earmarked by AAPAC for future projects, including artwork for East Stadium bridges ($400,000), Argo Cascades ($150,000); and the Justice Center ($147,468).

That leaves $515,914 for additional projects. The majority of that amount is in “pooled” funds from sewer projects ($358,345) and the streets millage ($129,251).

Commissioners present: Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Connie Rizzolo Brown, Tony Derezinski, Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

Draft of a schematic showing the Ann Arbor public art commission's process, from ideas through implementation. Other steps include decision-making, task force work, artist proposals, and selection. The flow chart is being designed by Hannah Nathans, a University of Michigan undergraduate who's working as an intern with the city. (Photos by the writer.)

Ideas included public art at the planned South State and Ellsworth roundabout, projects in underserved neighborhoods, the traffic island at the Washtenaw split with East Stadium, the dog park at Ellsworth and Platt, the non-motorized path along Washtenaw Avenue, and the skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park. About $500,000 is available in unallocated Percent for Art funds, with an estimated $200,000 to $300,000 coming in to the program annually from upcoming capital projects.

The discussion led some commissioners to speculate on the possibility of changing the composition of AAPAC to increase the number of commissioners, so that more people would be available to handle the work. Another possibility  they discussed was making the public art administrator’s job a full-time position. Currently, the public art administrator’s job is defined as 20 hours per week, with additional hours added for management of specific projects. After some discussion, it seems unlikely that commissioners will pursue either of those options at this time.

The commission handled two action items during the May 23 meeting. Connie Rizzolo Brown was recommended to represent AAPAC on a new city task force for the North Main/Huron River corridor. The task force had been established by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting with 10 members, then expanded at the council’s May 21 meeting to include four additional members. The council vote to add an AAPAC representative had passed on a 6-5 split, with some councilmembers concerned that the group was getting too large.

At their May 23 meeting, art commissioners also voted to fully fund the mural project at Allmendinger Park for $12,000. Previously, an initial $10,000 budget later had been increased to $12,000, with $7,200 of that amount to be paid for with a grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. But the city council first must formally accept the grant, and that’s not expected to happen until its June 18 meeting. Meanwhile, Percent for Art funds will be allocated to the project so that a contract can be executed with artist Mary Thiefels. The foundation grant will eventually reimburse the program for this project.

Also discussed at Wednesday’s meeting were the upcoming Golden Paintbrush awards, which will likely be presented at the city council’s June 18 meeting. The awards recognize local contributions to public art. This year, former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker will be among those artists honored.

North Main/Huron River Task Force

At the Ann Arbor city council’s May 21 meeting, councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) lobbied successfully to add a member of the city’s public art commission to a task force that had been created by council to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River. Derezinski is also a member of AAPAC.

The task force was established by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting, with 10 members in the following areas: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

At its May 21 meeting, the two sponsors of the resolution that created the task force – Ward 1 councilmembers Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith – proposed adding three additional representatives: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, and a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association.

Derezinski then proposed an amendment to add an AAPAC member to the task force, too. After some discussion – and concerns that the task force was growing too large – the AAPAC addition was passed by council on a 6-5 vote.

At AAPAC’s May 23 meeting, Derezinski told commissioners that “basically, we need someone at the table.”

Connie Rizzolo Brown, pictured here at AAPAC's April 2012 meeting, volunteered to be the commission's representative on a North Main/Huron River corridor task force.

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now (by July 31, 2013) that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than the due date for the main main report is a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline for the task force to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin noted that several commissioners had expressed interest in being on the task force. Cathy Gendron, who’s been talking with developer Bill Martin about a possible public/private partnership along the North Main corridor, said she probably shouldn’t do it since her term ends later this year and she’s not seeking reappointment. Gendron has served on AAPAC since its formation in 2008.

Connie Rizzolo Brown, who has served on AAPAC since early 2009, noted that her term also ends in December 2012, but she wanted to volunteer for the task force. She is a principal of Rizzolo Brown Studio, an Ann Arbor architectural design firm. Chamberlin noted that Brown – who leads AAPAC’s projects committee – has been interested in gateway projects for a long time.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend that Connie Rizzolo Brown be nominated for a position on a task force to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River. That recommendation will be forwarded to mayor John Hieftje. Appointments are expected to be made at the council’s June 4 meeting.

Funding for Allmendinger Mural

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, brought forward an item asking the commission to allocate full funding to the Allmendinger mural project from the Percent for Art program. AAPAC selected Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels of TreeTown Murals for the project at its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting. An initial $10,000 budget later had been increased to $12,000, with $7,200 of that amount to be paid for with a grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

However, the foundation grant must first be formally accepted by the Ann Arbor city council, and that hasn’t happened yet, Seagraves said. It is expected to be on the council’s June 18 agenda. In order to move ahead with the project and execute a contract with Thiefels, Seagraves asked commissioners to approve full funding of the project from Percent for Art funds, with the understanding that $7,200 of the funding would be reimbursed with the community foundation grant after it’s accepted by the council.

Wiltrud Simbuerger, who leads the mural task force, said Thiefels has already started working on the project, even without a contract. Marsha Chamberlin noted that AAPAC had been contacted by the community foundation regarding the grant about a year ago – it’s taken a long time to process.

Thiefel’s project includes working with local schools and incorporating ideas from students into her design – creating  mosaics at the top and bottom of pillars on the building at Allmendinger Park. This is the first mural in a pilot program that AAPAC hopes will eventually create several murals in city neighborhoods. The commission’s annual art plan for fiscal year 2013 – which begins July 1, 2012 – allocates an additional $40,000 to fund two more murals. No locations or artists have been selected for those projects.

Outcome: Commissioners approved funding for the Allmendinger mural, with planned reimbursement from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation grant.

Communications: Golden Paintbrush Awards, Townie Party

During her report from the public relations committee, Cathy Gendron gave an update on plans for the Golden Paintbrush awards. The annual awards are presented at a city council meeting and recognize local contributions to public art. Though all of the winners have not been publicly announced, AAPAC’s discussion made it clear that one of the awards will be given to Margaret Parker, AAPAC’s former chair who left the commission when her term ended last year.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, indicated that he hadn’t yet been able to confirm that the awards were on the June 4 city council agenda. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, told commissioners that Seagraves wouldn’t be able to attend the June 4 meeting because he’ll be out of town – he’s getting married on June 2. Commissioners discussed moving the awards to the June 18 meeting, to accommodate his schedule. He said he’d check with the award winners to see if they can attend on the 18th, and also if it’s possible to place the presentation on the city council agenda for that meeting.

After the city council presentation, a reception for the Golden Paintbrush winners is planned in the atrium of city hall, at 301 E. Huron. Commissioners discussed inviting others who’ve been instrumental in public art activities, including members of various AAPAC task forces.

Gendron also noted that the PR committee is preparing for this year’s Townie Street Party, held on Monday, July 16 at Ingalls Mall. It’s an annual event hosted by the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair prior to the art fairs, which this year run from July 18-21. Gendron hoped that other commissioners would help shoot video at the party, talking to people about why public art is important.

Bob Miller noted that he’d been recruited to AAPAC as the result of meeting commissioner Malverne Winborne at last year’s Townie Street Party.

Communications: Update from City Council

In addition to the discussion about the North Main corridor task force, Tony Derezinski told commissioners that the May 21 city council meeting had included a proposed budget amendment that would have “tickled” the public art commission’s work. But that amendment was defeated, he said. [For a close look at budget deliberations on this and other amendments, see Chronicle coverage: "Debate Details: Ann Arbor FY 2013 Budget."]

The budget amendment, brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), would have eliminated $307,299 in transfers to public art. It was rejected on a 2-9 vote, with support only from Kunselman and Lumm. It stipulated that the transfers from various city funds into the public art fund would not take place, “notwithstanding city code” – a reference to the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital improvement projects, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project, be set aside for public art. The amendment would have prevented the transfer of $60,649 out of the drinking water fund, $22,400 out of the stormwater fund, $101,750 out of the sewer fund, and $122,500 out of the street millage fund.

The council had re-debated its public art ordinance most recently at its May 7, 2012 meeting, in the context of a sculpture for the Justice Center lobby, which was ultimately approved.

At AAPAC’s May 23 meeting, Derezinski said he’d told his fellow councilmembers that this amendment was part of a continued way of “nibbling us by ducks” – alluding to other previous attempts to scale back the Percent for Art program. He said he would have used the expression “death by a thousand cuts,” but felt that was too bloody for the council.

Strategic Planning

Commissioners spent much of their May 23 meeting talking about strategic planning, picking up on a four-hour retreat they had held in April. [See Chronicle coverage: "Shaping Ann Arbor's Public Art Landscape."] They had originally intended to schedule a second retreat, but opted instead for tackling the topic at a regular meeting.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin began by saying that although the commission has previously talked about developing a master plan, she felt that the term “strategic plan” was more appropriate and was a better way to capture what AAPAC was trying to do. She brought a draft of a strategic plan, as a way to start the discussion. [.pdf draft strategic plan]

Wiltrud Simbuerger proposed thinking of the strategic plan in terms of a plan of action. That might include allocating a certain percentage of funds to particular types of projects – gateway projects, or public art in neighborhoods, for example. Another approach would be to allocate percentages of funding to large, medium or small projects, as defined by budget size. She’d also like to see a mix of long-term and short-term projects, and for AAPAC to be proactive in their work, not just responsive to proposals that are submitted by others.

Cathy Gendron expressed some concern about whether the allocation of funds to a certain type of project would dictate its size. Does that tie AAPAC’s hands? Simbuerger said the intent would be to guide AAPAC’s work generally, but that they could stray from those general strategies based on community input or when opportunities arise.

Bob Miller asked about the funding outlook – what are the projects for Percent for Art revenues next year? Theresa Reid pointed to the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), saying there are more than $1 billion worth of projects in that. She said AAPAC should be made aware of things like the CIP, which could directly impact their work. [While it's true that the most recent CIP – for the fiscal years 2013-2018 – identifies $1.13 billion in projects over that period, funding for a large portion of those projects has not been identified. To some extent, the CIP is considered a "wish list" of projects that city staff believe are needed. (.pdf of FY2013-2018 CIP)]

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said that in general, he’d estimate the Percent for Art program would bring in between $200,000 to $300,000 annually. [The program currently has about $500,000 in funds that have not yet been allocated to specific projects. About $629,000 in additional funds are set aside for projects that are underway, as summarized in the annual plan that AAPAC approved at its March 2012 meeting. (.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan)]

Gendron cautioned that commissioners need to keep in mind the constraints of the funding sources. [A percent of the budget for each city capital project – up to $250,000 per project – goes toward public art. But money earmarked for the Percent for Art program must be used for public art that somehow relates to the original funding source. For example, the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall was paid for in part using Percent for Art funds from stormwater capital projects, because the city contends that the sculpture is "related to the purposes" of the stormwater fund.]

Commissioners spent a portion of the session brainstorming about projects they’d like to get started in the next three years. Suggestions included public art at the planned South State and Ellsworth roundabout, projects in underserved neighborhoods, the traffic island at the Washtenaw/East Stadium split, the dog park at Ellsworth and Platt, the non-motorized path along Washtenaw Avenue, and the skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park.

Also discussed was the typology of projects that AAPAC would like to pursue. Ideas included projects that are interactive, creative and connective with the community. Connie Rizzolo Brown cautioned that the commission shouldn’t be too specific in its direction, however. Development of specific projects should be the purview of task forces that are created for that purpose, and for the artists who are selected, she said.

Reid suggested that over the next month, commissioners should circulate more ideas via email to discuss at their June meeting. She also said she worried about capacity. With only nine commissioners and a part-time administrator, how much work could they shoulder? There was some discussion about the process of adding commissioners – it would require the city council to amend the Percent for Art ordinance, which sets forth the number of AAPAC members. Brown ventured that councilmembers might not be inclined to do that. [Tony Derezinski, who serves on both AAPAC and city council, had left the meeting early and was not part of the discussion at this point.]

Chamberlin noted that although the position of public art administrator is only a 20-hour-per-week job, Seagraves can also work additional hours as project manager for specific art projects. A project manager’s hours are funded from the Percent for Art dollars allocated to those projects. For example, Seagraves will be the project manager for the art installation at the Justice Center, which was approved by city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting.

Miller asked whether it would be possible to make the public art administrator’s job a regular 40-hour-per-week position. Chamberlin said it would take a lot of politicking and lobbying of city council, and it’s not likely something AAPAC should pursue at this point. However, as more projects are completed and councilmembers view the program as successful, she said, the council could probably see a rationale for making it a full-time job. Miller noted that if the administrator works more hours, AAPAC can get more accomplished.

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

Absent: John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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