Public Art Commission approves Ann Arbor art tax proposal
The Ann Arbor Public Art Commission Wednesday unanimously approved putting a 0.1 mill, four-year tax for public art in the city on the Nov. 6 ballot, the Ann Arbor Chronicle reported.
The proposal still needs City Council approval. Council is expected to tackle the issue when it meets Monday. Council member Christopher Taylor proposed the millage at council’s meeting Aug. 9.
The Percent for Art program funded the Dreiseitl water sculpture outside Ann Arbor City Hall.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
If approved, Taylor said in previous AnnArbor.com reports, the millage would create a new public art program replacing the city's Percent For Art Program, which has been controversial since its inception.
Taylor said the new tax would raise nearly $460,000 in the first year and cost the average Ann Arbor household $10.97 per year ($10.86 plus a 1 percent administrative fee) or 91 cents per month. That's based on a taxable value of $108,600.
The city’s Percent for Art program sets aside1 percent of the budget for city capital projects — up to a limit of $250,000 per project — for public art.
The program has been criticized because it has diverted more than $2 million away from various city funds, including the water and sewer utilities and the streets and parks millages.
It also leaves the city's Art Commission with its hands tied — able to spend those revenues only on permanent art installations that somehow relate to the source of the funds, such the $750,000 water sculpture in front of city hall that was paid for with water and sewer utility funds.
Comments
Classof2014
Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 7:21 p.m.
You don't say! The Public Art Commission ok's art tax?!? what do you know. (Sarcasm) THAT'S A BIG SURPRISE
Hot Sam
Sat, Aug 18, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.
For millenniums "public art" has been something commissioned and provided by the wealthy. Whether to honor someone or something this has been the case. The "wealthy" has at times been the church, the monarchy, or just folks that are rich. Why would they continue to do so when they can sucker the lowly public to provide it instead?
martini man
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.
Oh Boy !!!! I am sure the real working folks of Ann Arbor can't wait for the ART tax to kick in. The liberal elite along with the homeless could hang out at the art exhibits while the working folks ..well ..go to work and pay taxes to subsidize this great artistic crusade. Aint liberalism great ????
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.
You want me to pay $10/year for something that looks like that? Politicians should have the courage to put this to the voters DIRECTLY.
HB11
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
So, if this is voted down will the % for Art program expire as well? Or is it one or the other? I feel for the overtaxed citizens of AA.
JRW
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 3:10 a.m.
Good luck getting this passed. Fix the potholes, mow the grass in the city parks, remove snow on the streets in the winter. Hire more police and fire personnel. NO new millages for fluff.
Roger Kuhlman
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 1:22 a.m.
If people want to have public art they should make a voluntary contribution to have it. It is wrong to force everybody in Ann Arbor to support public art projects whether they want them or not.
Mark Tucker
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 11 p.m.
One reason to put the issue of public funding for public art to a public vote is to find out whether or not the citizens of Ann Arbor value public art (rather than just relying on anecdotal testimony or Annarbor.com polls). By voting we'll find out if the people in our community care enough to give a small amount of money each year to fund public art so that it remains free and accessible to all--or not. Another good reason for passing the public art millage is that it would open up the definition to allow more types of public art to be eligible for funding. As the creative director and founder of FestiFools I am obviously biased in hoping that this millage passes because it means that the potential for receiving funding for our brand of "non-permanent" public art would, at the very least, become legally plausible. If you believe that public art events like FestiFools are just a bunch of Foolishness, and therefore not worth supporting with taxpayer funds, please consider this: Those of us who work hard all year long to put together these unique creative experiences aren't just doing it for you--but we're doing it for your friends, families, co-workers and acquaintances as well. Don't they matter to you? When you do attend and enjoy free outdoor events (i.e.Top of the Park, Waterhill Music Festival, Art Fairs, etc.) you may not be aware of it but SOMEONE is paying to put on these events. If we want to keep these kinds of unique artistic offerings alive--and aren't these kinds of free events at the core of what helps make Ann Arbor such an interesting, entertaining, and wonderful place to live?--then why not consider using this millage to share the costs across the entire community rather than risk waking up one day to find that the things we love about this town, (and often take for granted), may no longer exist--simply because we were hoping someone else would pay for it .
gretta1
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 2:26 p.m.
I agree with you, Mr. Tucker, but I also feel the same was as bunnyabbot and veracity. I will probably vote for this millage but with trepidation. I'm not sure I trust those who determine how the funds are used. I think the festivals are great. I think some of the more permanent art structures are not. Ann Arbor seems to have some pretty grandiose ideas sometimes when in truth this is a small town that is home to an academic giant. Ann Arbor is wonderful but sometimes there are too many big fish in this small pond and those big fish don't seem to think much about what anyone else would want.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 6:05 a.m.
the issue isn't whether or not people "value" public art. The issue has been controversial due to how it has been handled and what it has brought in the way of "art". two orange metal trees and an overpriced non functioning, non appropriate size in ratio to the building it's in front of, non local artist water sculpture. $800,000, that could have been WAY better spent. For that amount you could laid yellow bricks all around city hall.
Veracity
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 3:59 a.m.
Unfortunately, Mark, if the millage does pass no one except the nine art commissioners will make spending decisions. Are you pleased with what the art commission has bought for Ann Arbor already? I am referring to the $770,000 Dreiseitl "Water Sculpture" in front of the Municipal Building and soon the $150,000 chandelier which will be hung from the ceiling of the same Municipal Building. Other projects being considered include art work for the stadium bridges and for the river cascades. Besides the argument that some do not find the artwork pleasing, the artwork is being poorly located since few pedestrians pass by them and the locations are not where citizens will congregate to contemplate the art.
LXIX
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 7:58 p.m.
ditto bunnyabbot. Sadly, the voters will emphatically vote NO. The City will keep its current program. Everybody will go home sated until the next round. Great works do add tremendous identity value to a town. Mackinaw "Bridge", St. Louis "Arch", Detroit "Spirit"...The converse is also true (Ann Arbor - little blinky sticks and big ugly blocks).
GB
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.
It will be a another NO vote from me!!! No more tax money for art!!! Those that want more art should write a personal check to support the cause...... FIRST, fix the roads, higher more fire and police persons, clean up the road way from over grown plant life. And if then there is money left on the books replace the street light that fell on to our street several months ago. Need more suggestions... there are plenty more to give.
golfer
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.
ok great to see it on the ballot. now we should do this in two parts. one tax for and one to not give any more money for art. let them live with the mill they have. put the money to crosswalks lights so people will not get killed.
Guinea Pig in a Tophat
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.
I like Chelsea's way of handling art. A local artist showcases a piece of their art - there are a few small sculptures along Main St. - and it goes up for a year. After the year's up, another piece of art replaces it. The pieces of art are available for purchase to boot. Great way to showcase local talent and add some art to the area, no extra taxes needed!
Tom Wieder
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.
The ballot proposal, which is a City Charter amendment, as presented by Chris Taylor, provides that, if the Charter millage is approved, no other city funds will be used for public art while the millage is in effect, which would not be permanent, but only from 2013 to 2016. The exception to this is money already collected and set aside for public art and any funds received by the city in the form of grants, gifts, bequest or other donations. In short, if the millage were to pass, the percent-for-art program, would cease and no other new public dollars could be used for public art for the next four years.
Veracity
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 3:48 a.m.
Tom - I believe you meant to write "... and no other new public dollars could be used for public art for the next four years EXCEPT FOR MONEY COLLECTED BY THE MILLLAGE."
arborani
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 5:28 p.m.
I'd be interested to know how much in the kitty, at this date, constitutes (1) "money already collected and set aside" and (2) "funds received . . . in the form of grants, gifts, bequest (sic) . . ." etc.
RUKiddingMe
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.
A2.com, please tell us what happens if this is voted down; will the Percent for Art program remain as is? Is someone not telling you what will happen? If so, why aren't they telling you?
golfer
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
why should they it is a secret that we do not know about. hide hide and more hide. that is the ann arbor way.
Tom Wieder
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.
It this is voted down, the Percent for Art program continues, unless Council repeals it. If it passes, the Percent-for-Art program essentially ends, as the proposal limits city public art expenditures to the money raised by the new millage.
RUKiddingMe
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.
I would think the current Percent For Art program is also criticized for how it wastes money and makes poor decisions; regardless of whether it comes from illegally skimming off other taxes meant for actual upkeep of the city, once they have the money they: 1) Sit on it for a long time without doing anything 2) Increase the staff responsible for spending it (so it goes to salaries of new positions) 3) Once they DO spend it, they spend a LOT of it ($750,000) on something that went WAY over schedule, STILL doesn't work right, and was poorly planned from the beginning 4) Lie about spending it (e.g. putting art in the Justice Center is not public art), then spend even MORE to excuse the lying (spending up to $66,000 moving around where you have to get patted down and scanned for metal objects, on the ridiculous assumption that now it's really public art; because for some reason, the lobby of the justic center will be destination spot for people OTHER than those just going to pay their taxes, tickets, bills, or to be judged for crimes).
Tom Whitaker
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
@John Kotarski: While I don't disagree with your point about temporary art being good for business, at current issue in Ann Arbor is who is making the initial "investment" and whether or not those investors' money is currently being invested legally. Personally, I don't believe it is the government's job to pour taxpayer money into economic development schemes. Both the NYC and Grand Rapids projects you cite were/are privately funded by donors who gave their money freely and specifically for that purpose. The money was not collected for one purpose, then transferred to another purpose without their prior knowledge or consent. Instead of an art millage or Percent for Art, how about simply creating a Public Art Director position in city hall with the responsibility for grant writing, fundraising, and marketing public art projects in the city? The person holding the position would be responsible for covering the cost of their own salary and benefits through their own efforts. I believe Ann Arbor should be at least as capable of raising private funds for art as Grand Rapids.
Arboriginal
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 9:17 p.m.
Sounds like a great plan Tom!
golfer
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 5:23 p.m.
private funds ok. tax money not. if you want art lay out the money. i for one do not think the money is well spent. they have over a million now. let them spend it. no more increases. then ask for the voters to let it run on it own. donations.
Albert Howard
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:31 p.m.
Question: Would you vote for a public art tax in Ann Arbor? Answer: No way.
John Kotarski
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.
Actually, the data to support the economic impact of temporary art is quite strong. Temporary art has a strong Return on Investment. The reason is because temporary art is temporary. Viewers have a limited time to view the art. Christo's "Gates" in New York lasted 14 days, cost $21M but created $254M in economic activity – 1100% ROI. http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2005a%2Fpr078-05.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1 The Grand Rapids Art Prize in 2011 cost less than $1M but created $15M in economic activity – 1400% ROI. http://www.experiencegr.com/includes/docs/EcnImpct_ArtPrize2011_AEG122011.pdf If one just looks at return on investment - temporary art wins hands down. Temporary art is good for business.
a2grateful
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.
One must certainly admire the tenacity of our civic leaders in their desire to exhibit good taste: modern-design architecture at city hall, a similar-design for the new bus station, fantastic flowing fountains, hidden (treasure) chandeliers in city hall, etc. . . I've not seen such a longing for good taste since "Charlie the Tuna," starred in a similar role for "Starkist." Charlie spent about 20 years trying to learn good taste, and then attempting to convince others of his newfangled knowledge and class. Alas. It was all for naught. The commercial always ended the same: "Sorry, Charlie. StarKist wants tuna that tastes good, not tuna with good taste." And so it goes at city hall. Sorry, civic leaders. Ann Arbor wants excellent basic services, not more extravagant waste. (You already provide that with single-stream recycling collection.) Enough folly! Please refocus your priorities. . .
bunnyabbot
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:07 p.m.
Do away with the current Program FIRST. Then tuck tail and ask the voters to decide. also, ask for less than 0.1 mil specify it is for PERMANANT public art and not for "parties, shows or traveling works", lesson "administrative" costs, finally admit that the current program was a huge mistake and that the stupid fountain was a colossally bad purchase all around.
Arboriginal
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
The NO votes have it, so it's as good as guaranteed to happen!
sigdiamond
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:20 p.m.
Surely you're not suggesting that the legion of non-residents and other various homebound notochords who populate this site don't represent the pulse of the community, are you?
mixmaster
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
I'd support a millage about half that size. It's not necessary to spend all the money every year. Save up for larger projects.
gofigure
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
"Public Art Commission approves Ann Arbor art tax proposal". Of course they did. "...new tax would raise nearly $460,000 in the first year and cost the average Ann Arbor household $10.97 per year ($10.86 plus a 1 percent administrative fee) or 91 cents per month. That's based on a taxable value of $108,600." So, at the very least $1 a month per household will be going to some administrative person. To do what???
CynicA2
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.
Plus they get to keep what they've already skimmed and laundered - wonder what that amounts to? Bet it's over 500K. What a racket this art mafia has going! Would make the Godfather blush.
Tom Wieder
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.
It isn't $1 a month for "some administrative person." It's $1 (actually a little less) for the entire program, of which 1% (less than 1 cent per month from each household) is the administrative fee.
Brad
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
"Plus a 1% administrative fee". So that's $46K/year For what? To make a label for the new "bucket"?
Brad
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.
@oxy - pesky decimal points!
CynicA2
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 6:17 p.m.
Skimming the skim - what a great idea! Everybody gets to wet their beak.
Basic Bob
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.
All of your property tax is subject to the 1% fee. Check your property tax statement on the city website, you will find all the taxes added up, then the 1% fee at the bottom. I would guess it goes to the treasurer.
oyxclean
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.
1% of $460,000 is $4600, not $46,000 :)
arborani
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
So the Public Art Commission approves of a millage for public art. I am shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED.
Mick52
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.
Really what a stretch, eh?
Ron Granger
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
They want more flexibility with how they spend this money, but they are already regularly breaking the rules of the percent for art charter on the per-project amounts, and on the public access requirement. Those rules are not why the "art" in front of the governmental palace is awful when evaluated by just about any metric you'd care to imagine.
Ron Granger
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:09 p.m.
I do not support the ballot measure because it allows the funds to be spent on parties and temporary art. I don't want my art dollars going to art fair, etc. Art should be something lasting, not temporary. So it's a big No-Way from me, despite supporting the current Percent for Art program.
xmo
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.
Why do "Progressives" always want to spend "OUR TAX MONEY" on projects that they want? This should be funded by the private sector not the Public Sector! I love art but this is crazy!
Veracity
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 3:31 a.m.
XMO- I am a progressive and agree that public art should be funded by the private sector. Furthermore, I do not appreciate nine members of the art commission deciding what art I like and where I want it to be. The Dreiseitl "Water Sculpture" does not meet my qualification for fine art nor will the expensive chandelier that is planned for the Municipal Building. I cringe to think of what the art commission will contract to have installed near the stadium bridges and the river cascades. Because I have no confidence in the art commission and its process of art selection I intend to vote against the art millage if it gets on the November ballot. I hope that City Council includes language with the millage that will terminate the 1%-for-art fund if the millage fails. After all the millage vote will be a referendum on the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission and the 1%-for-art fund as well.
Brad
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:03 p.m.
Now the third article about this with zero explanation of what will happen to the current "1%" ordinance if the proposed millage is defeated. Seems like a question that a journalist might ask.
Veracity
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 3:19 a.m.
However, if the millage is rejected, then the 1%-for-art fund should be eliminated as the vote represents a referendum by voters to do away with all public tax dollars support for public art projects. But I doubt that such language will be included in the millage because of the strong vested interest that Hiejtje, Tiell, Derezinski and others have in the 1%-for-art program. Perhaps City Council can include such language when it considers approving the millage at its next meeting.
Tom Wieder
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.
The ballot proposal is a City Charter amendment. As presented by Chris Taylor, it provides that, if the millage is approved, no other city funds will be used for public art while the millage is in effect, which would not be permanent, but only from 2013 to 2016. The exception to this is money already collected and set aside for public art and any funds received by the city in the form of grants, gifts, bequests or other donations. In short, if the millage were to pass, the 1%-for-art program would cease and no other new public dollars could be used for public art for the next four years.
arborani
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.
Amen to that.