Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-17 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session J-62-, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1987 1:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Town Council/Design Review Board Joint Meeting 2. Discussion of Enhanced Use of Dobson Ice Arena 3. Vail Associates' Request for Funding Participation in Weather Modification 4. Report on Vail Valley Foundation Trip to Crans-Montana, Switzerland 5. Information Update 6. Other VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1987 1:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 1:00 1. Town Council/Design Review Board Joint Meeting Action Requested of Council: Two items to discuss: 1) Public Art - comment on the staff's research and recommendations. 2) Primary/Secondary Connection - comment on the staff recommendations. Backqround Rationale: Public Art: The Town Council requested that the staff research public art to develop an appropriate review process and board to address public art in Vail. The staff has done research on how other communities handle public art. The report includes recommendations for review criteria, board responsibilities, and follow-up research. Primary/Secondary Connection: The issue of whether or not primary/secondary units should have a physical connection has become a recurring issue for the Design Review Board to review. The staff has studied the language of the guideline and has outlined several alternatives to the existing wording. 2:30 2. Discussion of Enhanced Use of Dobson Ice Arena Pat Dodson Eddie Shipstad Action Requested of Council: Participate in discussion with Pat and Eddie on the plans this year for increased use of the Dobson Ice Arena. Background Rationale: Since Eddie Shipstad has joined the Town on contract to manage the ice arena, the Council has not had a chance to hear his ideas and discuss those ideas with him. This will give the opportunity for Eddie to present some of the ideas and concepts he is planning to implement this year and receive feedback from the Council. 3:00 3. Vail Associates' Request for Funding Participation in Joe Macy Weather Modification Action Requested of Council: Joe Macy has informed us that he wants to request funding this year from the Council to participate with Vail Associates in the weather modification efforts that are beginning again. Backqround Rationale: The Town in the past has participated on a 50/50 basis with VA to fund weather modification efforts for increased snowfall on Vail Mountain. The budget figure in past years has been approximately $17,000 on the part of the Town as our share of the total $34-35,000 cost. No funds are budgeted in 1987. 3:30 4. Report on Vail Valley Foundation Trip to Crans-Montana, Paul Johnston Switzerland Ron Phillips 3:45 5. Information Update Ron Phillips 3:50 6. Other e 60 194F7 -A r i J / I ~ ~Y In j All 1 "Neeth more vaj,.oo rnr . n PUBLIC ART 1987 Prepared by: Town of Vail Community Development.Department February 17, 1987 .TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. GENERAL COMMENTS ON: 1) PUBLIC ART, 2) THE ROLE OF THE . . . . 2 COMMUNITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ART AND 3) ART REVIEW PROCESSES II. IDEAS ON THE ARTS BOARD, REVIEW PROCESS, AND SELECTION 6 .CRITERIA III. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING AND INITIATIVES FOR DEVELOPING . . . 12 PUBLIC ART IV. DIRECTIONS FOR VAIL IN RESPECT TO PUBLIC ART: WHAT ARE . . . 21 THE NEXT STEPS? In July of 1986, the Town Council asked the staff to work on setting up an ordinance that would outline an appropriate process and review criteria for public art. After thinking about how such an ordinance might be written, the staff felt that it would be much better to research what other communities are doing in respect to public art before actually writing the ordinance. An interim review proposal was approved in September of 1986 that stated that art on private land would be approved by the various Town departments and would not be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Public art would be put on hold until a system was set up for handling these types of projects. This report is a summary of general research on public art. The main objective of the research has been to: INVESTIGATE HOW OTHER COMMUNITIES REVIEW PUBLIC ART AND TO DEFINE AN APPROPRIATE PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF PUBLIC ART In the process of doing the research, staff contacted over 35 individuals who were involved with public art in some manner. These contacts had many different backgrounds such as museum curators, directors of art commissions, city planners, and directors of national arts organizations. The following cities have sent copies of their ordinances that outline board powers, membership, and review procedures: Cambridge, Mass. Santa Monica, CA. San Francisco, CA. Seattle, WA Denver, CO. Portland, OR. Los Angeles, CA. San Diego, CA. Brea, CA. Scottsdale, AR. Oklahoma City, OK. Boulder, CO. All of this information has been very helpful in compiling a preliminary summary of issues related to public art. The following report has been organized into the sections listed below: I. GENERAL COMMENTS ON: 1) PUBLIC ART, 2) THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ART AND (3) ART REVIEW PROCESSES II. IDEAS ON THE ARTS BOARD, REVIEW PROCESS, AND SELECTION CRITERIA III. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING AND INITIATIVES FOR DEVELOPING PUBLIC ART IV. DIRECTIONS FOR VAIL IN RESPECT TO PUBLIC ART: WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? I. GENERAL COMMENTS ON: 1) PUBLIC ART 2) THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ART 3) ART REVIEW PROCESSES I. GENERAL COMMENTS ON: (1) PUBLIC ART, (2) THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF OF PUBLIC ART AND (3) ART REVIEW PROCESSES After interviewing over 30 individuals concerning public art, it was evident that there were several primary principles to keep in mind when developing any type of public art program for a community. This section summarizes comments which relate to public art in general, review processes, and ways to handle community participation. The following quotations highlight some of the new and creative approaches to making public art a part of the community. A. WHAT IS PUBLIC ART? "There is no consensus leading to an exact definition of public art. Placement, accessibility, funding sources or intent, either singly or in tandem, tend to be the criteria which shape our understanding of those works of art we call public. Until very recently, public art and the monument were closely linked terms, with one essentially implying the other. The notion of public art, almost without exception, would call forth an image exemplified by a traditional stone or bronze statue of a hero or by a geometric, welded steel abstraction or a cast/bronze object set in isolation in the plaza or park. A number of artists increasingly have challenged these ideas and forms as inadequate or insufficient." Mr. Gary Garrels, MIT's 1983 Exhibition, "Beyond the Monument" "It (public art) is, in my definition, art that is not only made for a public place, but also has some kind of social function. In fact, what architecture or design and public art have in common is their social function or content." Artist Scott Burton from the article, Design Quarterly, Volume 1-2, "What is Public Art?" 1983 "The new art of public spaces is really an old art that has not until recently been of interest to American artists. In Europe, the great spirit lifting public squares and plazas evolved slowly, for the most part. The Piazza Navona, in Rome, dates from the second century AD, but it was not completed in its present form until the 17th century. History is less patient here. We have our New England village greens and our urban parks, but for millions of Americans the most familiar public spaces are the shopping malls that have contributed so much to the decay of our urban centers and lately, of our suburban centers as well. ...During the last 10 or 12 years, however, a number of American artists in different parts of the country have devoted themselves primarily to working in public spaces in highly original ways. Their projects include playgrounds, gardens, fountains, pedestrian paths, viewing platforms, traffic islands, bridges, outdoor and indoor rooms, and even public utilities such as electric power stations, along with an infinite variety of purely aesthetic structures.... These artists focus their attention on the particular context of a site ...it means working -2- within limits, and with all sorts of people whose main interests are not aesthetic ones - bureaucrats, safety engineers, union representatives, citizens' groups." New Yorker Magazine, "The Art World, Perception at All Levels" B. WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S ROLE IN PUBLIC ART? "The process of bridging the gap of understanding between the artist and the public through public education should be a part of every public art project It is an arrogance on the part of the artist, or the administrator working with the artist, to neglect to consult with the owners'--or users of a public space before introducing an element as intrusive as public art work. If anything distinguishes public art from the private, it is that the public has little choice but to be confronted by it." "We must accept the notion that controversy is both inevitable and an acceptable part of the public art process.... Most people involved in public art already accept this idea as gospel, but often they fail to take the next logical step, that public debate can be stimulated and channeled to reveal and clarify the insights of both artist and public. This process, however, takes time." Mr. Jerry Allen, Director of Cultural Affairs for the City of Dallas, Texas, previously executive director of the King County Arts Commission in Washington state. He is also trained as a sculptor. Place Magazine, "Partners for Livable Places," Sept-Oct, 1986. "This is an exciting time for public art - a time when the process of selecting art and artists for public places is as important as bringing the art into those places. Artists are working collaboratively with communities, developers, architects, city agencies, and each other. We are thinking less of objects and more of people in public places. We have begun to reject the notion of public spaces as simple pedestals for monumental art works. Many artists now recognize the place itself as a vital component of public art; its shape, its size, its history and its use all are often being taken into consideration at the outset as an art work begins to evolve. Ms. Anita Contini, president and founder of Creative Time, Inc., a New York City artists/run organization launched in 1973, Insights/On Sites, "Alternative Sides and Uncommon Collaborators: The Story of Creative Time." "The most important difference is that these artists are attempting a dialogue with the public: Going to town meetings, sitting down with planning boards, entering into pragmatic situations. They are making an attempt to establish an accessible, visible language." Mary Miss, an artist from New York City. Her work has been shown at the Whitney Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, the Fogg Museum (Harvard University), Insights/On Sites "From Autocracy to Integration: Redefining the Objectives of Public Art." 1984 -3- "Keep the public informed and provide for input on the project so that people understand the artists and the concept for the work." Ms. Gail Goldmun, Public Art Coordinator for the Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities, phone interview, Nov 1986 C. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS FOR CREATING PUBLIC ART? Artist selection panels have accumulated an impressive amount of art and experience, and they are now generally aware of the differences between working in public spaces and in museum contexts. They are choosing more complicated sites and fewer traditional plazas and thus giving artist opportunities they usually have not had. Ultimately, much of the most challenging creative thinking occurs during the planning process and the dialogue that an artist initiates with the community." Stacy Paleologos Harris, Insights/On Sites, "Perspective on Art in Public Places" 1984 "For me, the issue of art had to be carefully worked out, because much art today I would call 'anti-public,' insofar as the artist feels that his or her main role is to make a statement that will somehow shock you or challenge your assumptions about civilized life. In doing so, the personal statement often overwhelms every possibility of enjoyment or use.... In my mind it was clear that architects were the ones who have always designed plazas. An architect has not only the formal training for working with spaces and construction materials, but also the historical perspective about the development of urban spaces. So when Richard Kahan, then chairman of Battery Park City Authority, first proposed that the design of the World Financial Center Plaza be a collaboration between myself and an artist, I told him frankly that I thought it was a terrible idea.... Although we have been through the mill several times and sometimes it feels as though every bone in our bodies have been crushed, the process has been worthwhile I know that we have all learned a lot from each other. The plaza will be better than a plaza I would have designed on my own." Cesar Pelli, architect, commenting on his collaboration on the World Financial Center project with sculptors Scott Burton and Siah Armajani, Insights/On Sites, "The Chemistry of Collaboration: An Architect's View," 1984 "Try to provide a process so that the selection committee project has clear criteria in order to try to avoid a lot of personal judgement in the review. Go for qualitv! Do not compromise for third rate art. The jury should definitely include experts for this reason - artists, curators, museum directors, etc." Mr. George Newbert, Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery, University of Nebraska, Phone interview, Dec. 1986. "Art guidelines should speak to the community and their sensibilities. The first charge of the task force studying public art should be to determine the general guidelines for the review process. -4- The majority of the representatives on your review committee should be from the arts community, but the committee must still be broad based and sensitive to the community." Mr. Greg Geissler, Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs, phone interview, December 1986 "First, get your task force together to study public art and then agree on goals and objectives for the arts board. After this work has been completed, write the ordinance for your board." Encourage the public to be vocal and advisory to the selection committee. Seattle appoints a special jury of one artist plus two art professionals to develop criteria for each project. The jury must also work with one to four advisors who are non-voting members. The advisors may be users of the space, representatives of the public works department, technicians, maintenance workers, etc. It is important to avoid having elected officials on the board, as often times there are conflicts of interest which bog down the review process." Ms. Diane Shamash, project manager for the Seattle Arts Commission, phone interview, December 1986 "Very general guidelines are reasonable for public art, but specific criteria must be developed to pertain to each site. General guidelines may address the areas of relevance to the site, material, scale, functional needs of the site, and quality. However, you cannot completely avoid controversy and you cannot legislate quality. Your art would be like gr-its, and you know what people do with grits." Mr. Mark Palley, City Planner in charge of working with developers on public projects, Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency, phone interview, January 1987 D. RECOMMENDATIONS These quotations reveal in people's own words the new directions that public art is taking throughout communities across the country. The most reoccurring comments indicate that: 1. There are many artists who are interested in working on public art projects that involve people in the design process. A collaborative effort is feasible and can be accomplished if the project is organized well. This is not to say that the effort is not time consuming and at some points arduous. 2. There are many types of review processes. Therefore, it is important for each community to develop a process that reflects the interests of their particular community. -5- II. IDEAS ON THE ARTS BOARD, REVIEW PROCESS, AND SELECTION CRITERIA 3. Artists should begin working on a project early on in the design stage to insure a work that is involved with the contexts of the site and the community. 4. Public art should involve the community. In fact, if the community is not involved in the project, the project usually has a minimal chance of being understood. Public education about the artist and the project is critical to the success of the endeavor. II: IDEAS ON THE ARTS BOARD, REVIEW PROCESS AND SELECTION CRITERIA A. THE ARTS BOARD In reviewing over 12 cities, it appears that there are many approaches that the Town of Vail could take in respect to setting up an Arts Board. Some communities have completely private boards, others have arts boards that work within the general framework of the city government and some cities have quasi public boards. According to the National Association of Local Arts Agency, 65% of all local arts boards are private non-profit. Below are diverse, brief descriptions of three public art boards: Seattle has an overall Arts Commission that addresses education, funding, art programming and public art to name a few of their areas of concern. Seattle has a subcommittee called Art in Public Places (AIPP) which convenes a selection panel that works on a particular project. Specific criteria for the project are developed by the panel and reviewed by the AIPP committee. This process works extremely well for larger cities such as Seattle. However, the staff feels that the Town of Vail has the opportunity to be more direct in the design of the review process while still providing many opportunities for public input. The Town of Vail also has the benefit of already having the Eagle Valley Arts Council within our community. The Eagle Valley Arts Council provides many of the functions that an overall arts commission pursues. For this reason, staff feels that it is important that the proposed arts commission focus on public art and not compete with the projects that the Eagle Valley Arts Council already sponsors. The City of Boulder has a system which uses both the Parks Board and Art in Public Places Commission to jointly review a public art project. The Parks Board is made up of seven members who determine the location, size and theme for the art project. The Art in Public Places Commission, made up of 5 members, selects the artist and takes care of the details of the review process. Three public hearings are held to allow for community input throughout the development of the project. One of these public hearings is a joint meeting with both the Parks and Arts boards. Projects are funded by lottery monies and 1% - 2% of permanent park funding is devoted to public art. In Silverthorne, community residents have developed a public art board that is completely separate from the town government. The concept for public art was initiated due to the completion of a new town hall -6- for the community. In August of 1985, a group of 12 to 15 locals • answered an ad in the paper asking if anyone in the community was interested in setting up a task force to develop two public art pieces for the town hall. The organization was established as a non-profit entity. The group received some assistance from the Colorado Council on the Arts in setting up the organization. The first project was to provide one piece of public art inside the town hall atrium. A second project will be an outdoor piece. They chose an interior piece first, as it would most likely be less controversial and would be less expensive. Funds included a $4,000 contribution from the town and $7,000 from a fund raiser dinner and silent auction. (The budget for the project was $7,000.) The Silverthorne Board is working with two arts consultants from the community: Marty Hibberd and Terry McGrath. The consultants sent out a Request for Proposal to artists which outlined the subject of the project, process, and funding. A stipulation was that 1% of the sale of the piece must go to an ongoing fund for future public art. Seven hundred artists received the RFP. Forty-seven artists responded to the request. Each artist was asked to submit 6 to 8 slides of their work. The arts committee was able to narrow the number of artists to 4. They then presented the finalists' work to the town council, who selected two artists. The two finalists were then asked to make a mock-up of their piece. They were paid $250 to do the model. At this time, the final decision has not been made. According to Karen Countryman, an active member of the arts group, and Silverthorne planner, the more informal approach has worked very well for Silverthorne. Due to the fact that most of the=money for the group's efforts has come from individual contributions, she feels that their project has more credibility within the community. It was felt by the group that there were probably enough review boards within the Town of Silverthorne, and that it would be better to keep this board separate from the town governemnt. It was also mentioned that the negative side of this approach is that the project could die out at any time due to the fact that most of the effort was based on volunteer support. However, to date the organization has been very successful, as they have provided the $7,000 for the first project and are working on the funding for the second outside sculpture. -7- B. RECOMMENDATIONS Perhaps it is a forgone conclusion, but the staff recommends that the board definitely be a part of the Town government system rather than a private board. Reasons for this opinion are that the Town has the support staff to work with a board, an important ingredient to the success of a public art program. In addition, sometimes grant agencies provide funds in installments so that the organization receives the funds after the money has been spent. It is usually difficult for a private board to have enough of a cash flow during periods between between funding allocations. Staffing and the potential to work within the Town budgeting framework are reasons for creating a board within the Town government. It is also very positive that Vail's Town government is the impetus for developing a public arts board. Often times when a beginning of an organization comes from within the Town government, the board has a support framework that can help to sustain it through the rough times of the board's development. Two alternatives are listed below that incorporate the board into the Town government framework. The first approach would be to set up an arts commission for the purpose of reviewing and promoting public art in the community. The arts commission would be made up of 5 to 7 members with backgrounds in the areas of art, art education, architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, city government, and local community expertise. A specific selection process and review criteria for projects would be the responsibility of the Board. The arts commission..w.o.u.l.d make a final decision on the artist. The Town Council would be-4 nvolved-in the project to the extent that a portion of the funds would be allocated from the Town budget to develop the project and would also serve as the appeal board for the final decision. A second alternative would be to have an overall arts commission that would promote public art and organize the general format for the development of each public art project. The arts commission would appoint a selection panel having expertise specific to each public art project. The selection panel would further clarify the criteria for the artist and also work closely with the users of the space, Town departments, and any other designers such as architects or landscape architects who would be involved with the project. Choosing the artist would be the panel's responsibility. A recommendation would be made by the panel to the arts commission which would have final approval of the project. Once again, the Town Council's involvement in the project would be to allocate funds for the proposal and serve as the appeal board. Both alternatives would require that the Arts Commission and/or Selection Panel take an active role in educating the community about the project. It is also important that the Board and/or Panel become familiar with community concerns related to the project. -8- 1ST ALTERNATIVE TOWN COUNCIL 1. Allocates funds to projects and approves project concept by allowing funds to be released 2. Serves as appeal board for arts commission 3. Appoints Arts Commission ARTS COMMISSION 1. Does fund raising 2. Designs project and develops project criteria 3. Selects artists 4. Educates community on art and provides input on project. 2ND ALTERNATIVE TOWN COUNCIL 1. Allocates funds to projects and approves project concept by allowing funds to be released 2. Serves as appeal board for arts commission 3. Appoints Arts Commission ARTS COMMISSION 1. Does fund raising 2. Designs project and develops general project criteria 3. Makes final selection of artist or artists 4. Appoints Selection Panel SELECTION PANEL 1. Develops specific project criteria AD HOC within general project framework criteria 2. Selects artist or artists 3. Makes recommendations on artist or artists to Arts Commission 4. Educates community on art and provides input on project -9- C. THE PROGRAM'S REVIEW CRITERIA The next important part in the process of setting up an arts commission is to develop a list of general criteria which should be addressed with each art project. In many of the staff's interviews, it became clear that it is helpful to have broad guidelines for public art, but that once a project is ready to be pursued, specific criteria should be created by the Arts Commission or selection panel that are pertinent to the project. The following list is a summary of various criteria taken from different cities. Cities which were used as references included Denver; Tacoma, Washington; Virginia Beach, Virginia; San Francisco; and Brea, California. The following criteria would be used to select visual art works and the second set of criteria would be used for the consideration of artwork placement: RECOMMENDATIONS Criteria for Selectinq Visual Artworks 1. QUALITY. The consideration of highest priority is the inherent quality of the work itself. 2. STYLE AND NATURE. Works of art which are compatible in scale, material, form, and content with their surroundings, and which form an overall relationship with the total program for that site shall be considered. Particular attention shall be given to the social context of the work and the manner in which it may interact with people. 3. MEDIA. All forms of visual art may be considered. Works may be either moveable or permanently attached. 4. PERMANENCE. Due consideration shall be given to the structural and surface soundness, and to inherent resistance to theft, vandalism, weathering, and excessive maintenance or repair costs. 5. ELEMENTS OF DESIGN. Selection of art should proceed with an awareness and sensitivity to some of the special functions of public art such as its ability to perform in an architectural environment as: 1. Focal points 2. Modifiers or definers of specific spaces 3. Establishers of identity 6. PUBLIC LIABILITY. Each work shall be examined for unsafe conditions or factors that may bear upon public liability. 7. DIVERSITY. The overall program shall strive for diversity in style, scale, media and artists. There shall be encouragement of exploratory types of work as well as established art forms. 8. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY. Each work shall be examined for its feasibility and convincing evidence of the artist's ability to successfully complete the work as proposed. -10- 9. DUPLICATION. To assure that the artwork will not be duplicated, the artist will be asked to warrant that the work is unique and an edition of one unless stated to the contrary in the contract. 10. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. The arts commission is clearly committed to equal opportunity in the purchase and commission of artworks. Every project will be reviewed with this in mind before the project proceeds to a commitment for art or artists. Criteria for Consideration of Artwork Placement Prior to selecting a site for an artwork, whether purchased or commissioned, the Arts Commission and/or selection panel shall take into consideration the following factors: 1. Public visibility 2. Public safety 3. Interior and exterior traffic patterns 4. Relationship of proposed artwork to existing or future architectural features and to natural features 5. Adjacent users and interaction of users with proposed artwork 6. Future development plans for area 7. Overall program goal or concept 8. Landscape design 9. Relationship of proposed artwork to existing artworks within the site vicinity 10. Environmental impact 11. Public accessibility to the artwork 12. Social context of artwork (intended use of the work, if any) Staff believes that these two sets of criteria provide a very general framework for reviewing an artwork. Staff would encourage further criteria to be developed when a specific project site has been chosen. The more defined the criteria are for a project, the easier it is to communicate to the artist and public what the project is about. It will also be critical to develop a review process that has built in checks and balances to avoid problems in the process. Staff would like to study further Seattle and Cambridge to further refine the proposed process. Annabelle Hebert, Director of the Cambridge Arts Council, states that the most important thing to do if negative comments are made about a project is to address those comments directly. In most cases, the staff should respond on a case b.v case basis to complaints. The first difficult step is to determine if the concern is reasonable and if it is, what should = be done. The next step is to follow throuqh with an appropriate action based on discussions with the artist, concerned citizen, board and others related to the issue. It is hard to legislate an exact and appropriate procedure for handling complaints of this nature. However, the idea of having checks and balances in the review process should help to minimize these problems as much as possible. -11- III. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING AND INITIATIVES FOR DEVELOPING PUBLIC ART -III. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING INITIATIVES FOR DEVELOPING PUBLIC ART Equally relevant to setting up an effective arts board and project review criteria, is the creation of an effective approach for fund raising. There are many ways to approach fund raising such as public grants and foundation contributions as well as working with the private sector to promote public art. This section of the report outlines some of the major funding sources and approaches in the public and private sectors. The overview merely scratches the surface as far as funding opportunities that may be available to our community. A. PUBLIC FUNDING 1. National Endowment for the Arts The first organization that comes to mind when thinking of public funding for the arts is the National Endowment for the Arts. Created in 1967, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has contributed funding to over 450 public projects at the local and state levels. The number of projects, types of communities and states that have received funding are very diverse. The Town of Vail received a NEA grant for the controversial Oldenberg sculpture in 1979. This Federal agency's staff is given its direction and policy development from its own constituents; and funding programs are reevaluated on a yearly basis to better address the needs of the arts fields, as expressed by an ever changing group of artist advisors. NEA has a myriad of programs that the Town of 'Vail may be interested in applying for. The visual arts division of the NEA has three broad categories of funding which all have possibilities for Town of Vail participation. These include: a. Visual artists' organizations funds "Grants in this category support organizations which encourage individual artistic development, experimentation, and dialogue between visual artists and the public. Support is available for a variety of on-going visual arts programs, including exhibitions, access to working facilities, and service activities." b. Visual artists' forums "Grants in this category support projects of national or regional significance that promote discussion regarding the visual arts. Funding is available for a variety of projects which enable visual artists, critics, curators, and other visual arts professionals to communicate with peers and the public about visual arts ideas and issues or allow them to create and present new work in a context which stimulates discussion about contemporary art." C. Art in Public Places Funds "Grants in this category are designed to make the best contemporary art accessible in public places and to provide new challenges and opportunities for living American artists of exceptional talent and achievement. The most successful public art projects have been those -12- involving the artists in the initial planning and design stages. Priority will be given to projects of national or regional significance in which the artist has an integral role in all stages of the project. The program encourages the payment of professional fees to artists for their design proposals and other planning activities associated with the project.,, NEA also has a Design Arts Program which is run by the Partners for Livable Places division. These projects are incredibly diverse as can be seen in the examples below: a. New York City, Visual Artists, Inc., $15,000. To develop a plan for a traffic island in New York as a work of art. An interdisciplinary team will produce a plan and model of the proposed work. The New York Department of Transportation is a partner in the project. b. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, $4,600. To hire a designer/artist collaborative team to make recommendations for a master plan for urban design in public art in downtown Cedar Rapids. This plan will affect downtown and outlying spaces, plazas, parks, streets and city transportation systems. C. Cathedral of St. John The Divine in New York City, $50,000. A sculpture/fountain project. Please note that this is the project that Mr. Deane Knox is working with for the Children's Sculpture Exchange. Within the last year, a new pilot NEA program called"Collaborations in Art/Design was created. The emphasis of this program is to combine the planning efforts of design professionals and visual artists, from the very earliest stages in the design work for a variety of public spaces. The hope is that this approach will make a significant difference in the quality of the resulting spaces. The NEA has documented that a major difficulty for organizations undertaking a collaborative project is funding the increased costs of design, particularly in the conceptual and schematic phases. This grant program provides matching funding for the planning and design phases of a number of exemplary collaborative projects. Six grants were awarded in round one of the program. The projects included: Concord, Ca. $28,500 To support an open state-wide competition to develop a landscape design and art work for Todos Santos Plaza, a two acre site that has been the focus of Concord life since the community's founding 120 years ago. Creative Time, New York, NY $35,375 To support the planning phase of a collaborative effort to transform Hunter's Point, a 92 acre land fill site on the East River in Queens, NY into a public waterfront park. -13- • Seattle Arts Commission Seattle, WA $80,000 To support a collaboration between artists and designers for the development of a new $160 million civic center complex for the city. Sausolito, CA. $11,000 To support the collaboration of artist David Ireland and architect Mark Mack on the design for two rooms in the Headlands Art Center's headquarters. Wellesley College Museum Wellesley, MA $15,000 To support a collaboration between sculptor Michael Singer and architect Micheal McKinnell on a new work on a location on a public, wooded pathway through the college campus. An exhibition of models and drawings produced during the collaboration and a small catalog will document the project's efforts. Massachusetts Dept of Environmental Management Boston, MA. $20,000 To support a collaboration among artists Alice Adams and Carlos Dorrien and a landscape architect for the design of a riverside promenade and a creation of an art master plan for the historic core of Lawrence, MA. A Local's Test Program was sponsored in 1984 by the NEA to stimulate local governments and arts agencies to find additional arts funding, through taxes and private contributions. Grants ranging from $150,000 to $400,000 were awarded to six states that are required to match the funds 3 to 1, and to five cities and counties required to match funds 2 to 1. Denver was chosen to participate in the program. NEA will give "Denver $50,000 a year for three years with the city to be required to provide $100,000 each year. Denver's City Council approved a $100,000 appropriation for the first year of the grant and Pena has said he will try to obtain similar appropriations for the remaining two years. Mayor Pena said Denver will also be seeking private contributions to bring the total local participation to at least $370,000 during the three year period." (Rocky Mountain News, December 6, 1983) This type of program concept may be applied to Vail on a smaller scale so that public/private partnerships are encouraged in funding. 2. Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities Another major funding source is the Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities. In 1967, the Colorado General Assembly established the Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities as the state's art agency. Funding for the organization comes from the Colorado General Assembly and the National Endowment for the Arts. The Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities (CCAH) provides grants and technical assistance to arts organizations, individual artists and nonprofit community-based organizations. All grants from CCAH must be matched. Probably -14- the most likely funding program that would be effective in Vail is the Community • Funds and Individual Artist Programs. The Individual Artist Programs offers grants to artists working in the visual and media arts. Colorado's Percent for Art legislation is administered through this division. The Community Programs Fund provides considerable assistance for developmental activities on the local level. This division provides levels of technical assistance to local arts councils and communities. The Council provided advice and consultation to the citizens of five communities who established arts councils in 1985 through 1986. The Council awarded 24 grants to local councils statewide. This program may be very helpful in developing the arts board as far as technical assistance. 3. National Assembly of Local Arts Aqencies The National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies (NALAA) provides a great deal of technical assistance to local arts agencies in a community. This group is also very interested in providing financial support in coordination and stimulation of the arts at the community level. This group has already proved helpful in providing general information as to how to set up an arts organization and also has special reports on fund raising initiatives that will be useful for the arts board in the future. 4. Percent For Art Many communities across the country have developed Percent for Art programs to provide funding for the development of public art. This concept is based on the idea that one percent of all public projects' construction costs be devoted to public art for that particular project. The first local Percent For Art program was in Philadelphia in 1959. Presently, more than three dozen cities, approximately 20 states, and at least five urban counties have Percent For Art programs. (PAS Memo, May 1985) The concept has also been applied to PRIVATE development so that one percent of the total costs for private development would be allocated to providing public art within the project. Some communities only require private developers to contribute one percent of their total construction costs to art. A small number of communities now require both public and private one percent programs, such as San Francisco, California. As an example, Seattle's current art budget of approximately $1.5 million represents one of the largest municipal arts budgets in the country. Seattle's program operates in the following way: "Seattle's One Percent for Art ordinance was adopted in June 1973. The ordinance is typical of many other percent for art ordinances in its requirement that 1 percent of funds appropriated for municipal construction projects be earmarked for the selection, acquisition, and installation of art in city-owned public places. The fifteen member Seattle Arts Commission (SAC), established as a city agency in 1971, is charged with administering the ordinance. The Commission has formed an Art in Public Places committee and appointed a professional staff to carry out this assignment. -15- Members of the commission are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. Appointees serve two-year, unpaid terms and represent various backgrounds. Past appointees to the commission have included educators, collectors, artists, and other individuals committed to the arts. The SAC'S Art in Public Places committee also oversees the development and update of the municipal art plan. This plan is required by provisions in the 1973 ordinance and provides a framework for integrating art work into planned municipal construction and rehabilitation projects. Only those projects that are accessible to the public will have art incorporated onto the actual construction site. Where projects are inappropriate for public improvements, the funds are set aside for art at other sites in the city." (PAS Memo, May 1985) The city of Brea, California has one of the largest outdoor public sculpture collections in the country. Over 50 major art pieces from nationally and internationally known artists are included in the collection. In 1975, the city created a provision that tied public art to private development activity. The program is administered by the city planning division. "The program requires that developers of all new residential, commercial, and industrial projects (valued at over $500,000) acquire and install a public work of art. Developers of projects valued at between $500,001 and $999,999 are required to earmark 1% of total valuation of the project for art to be included on the site. New developments valued at $1 million or more must allocate a minimum of $10,000 plus $2,000 for each additional million dollars of value (including the first million dollars). A project valued at $1 million, for example, would require a minimum art allocation of $12,000; A $2 million project, $14,000; and-a--$-10 million project, $30,000. Developers are informed of the existence of the public art program when they submit an application for a development permit to the planning division. At that time they are given a copy of the policy manual, an art proposal application and a list of design guidelines. Developers must then complete and submit the public art proposal to the planning division for review. A representation of the proposed art work must accompany the application." (PAS Memo, May 1985) San Francisco's new downtown plan now requires that one percent of each project's total construction costs be allocated to public art. The one percent art guidelines are applied to both public and private projects. "The legal ordinance states that acceptable categories and location of art work will be regulated, but appearance will not; aesthetic judgement is left up to the project's sponsor." Landscape Architecture Magazine, Nov/Dec 1986 Percent for Art by Mary Margaret Jones. The Downtown Plan was passed in 1985 and since has been the target of a great deal of public controversy. In addition to the one percent for public art requirement, the plan also has requirements for open space, architectural guidelines, child care facilities, transportation management programs, and local employment programs, sunlight, access requirements, wind current studies, etc. -16- The Downtown Plan is being reviewed again for its applicability to city development. One of the results of the review process has been that the One Percent for Art committee has concluded that a review board is a sound idea for public art. Before adopting any percent for art program, the staff recommends that a great deal of study go into the effects of the ordinance on development costs, the feasibility of reviewing such proposals, and the staff required to manage such a program. At this time, the staff would not recommend the Town undertake this approach to funding. It is felt that to pursue a one percent funding approach is premature until the Board and process are organized and perhaps several projects finished. The staff would also prefer to gain more expertise in public art before this type of program is launched.- There is a possibility that a one percent program could be studied when the staff researches impact fees. However, it is true that percent for art programs provide a strong base of funding for public art in a community which is very positive. This may be an appropriate funding method once the arts commission has established itself within the community. Please see the two summaries of Percent for Arts programs located in the addendum to this report. B. PRIVATE INITIATIVES FOR DEVELOPING PUBLIC ART 1. Private Sponsorship of Public Art The private sector is also another resource which can be used to promote public art in the community. Besides just offering money to support a project, many communities are focussing on public/private projects and'also promotional efforts to develop public art. The North San Antonio Chamber of Commerce uses two ways to increase public art throughout the community. The first is to recognize developers who incorporate art into their projects. According to David Hemion, director of the Public Arts Committee for the Chamber, encouragement for public art comes through RECOGNITION. A developer art award has been created to honor developers who have included public art in their projects. He stated that "Recognition. is the cornerstone of this program." (Phone interview, December 1986) The Chamber also sponsors a rotating sculpture program. The Chamber develops a funding package for the art piece which usually involves some developer contributions. The Chamber provides in-kind contributions for site improvements and the installation of the piece. The sculpture is basically on loan when it is placed in a public area. If, by chance the sculpture sells, a small percent of the cost of the piece goes into an endowment fund for future proposals. One of the first efforts of this type was to locate a sculpture at the San Antonio airport. The art piece will be only temporary. This piece was sponsored by a local bank which was recognized for its sponsorship throughout the period that the art piece was on loan. This approach also allowed the developer to see how people reacted to the piece. In general, the project was very successful. Another similar program is sponsored by the Downtown Development Authority of Grand Junction. Director of the Downtown Development Authority, Gary Ferguson, stated that the program has been ongoing for three years. The outdoor sculpture exhibition is called "Art on the Corner." Through this project, downtown Grand Junction becomes an outdoor sculpture exhibit area. This project is a collaborative effort among local artists and private sector sponsors as well as the development authority. -17- The Grand Junction program works like this: The private sector sponsors a piece as their contribution. The business is allowed to locate their name on the plaque. Local artists put their pieces on loan for the project. The public contribution is that the city carries the insurance for the project. A local sculptor actually chooses the pieces. The exhibition is also promoted by an Art on the Corner brochure that describes the pieces and includes a general map of the exhibit area. At this time, the program does not have any specific criteria for selection. Ferguson said that essentially what they try to do is to use good judgement in selecting pieces. Even with reasonable judgement, some controversy still does arise. However, at this time they are not disappointed with the impacts of the "Arts on the Corner" program. One piece was actually stolen and one vandalized, but these have been the only negative aspects of the entire program that Ferguson mentioned. He stated that the publicity and reception for sponsors of the pieces was also a very important part of the program. Next year the Development Authority is considering expanding the scope of exhibit areas to include private business buildings such as lobby areas that could be used for exhibits. They are also in the process of working with some of the local galleries to create an insurance pool to cover the art pieces. Fort Collins initiated a program to provide an Art in Public Places coordinator to private developers who wish to include public art in their projects. The coordinator assists the developer in choosing an appropriate art piece. The program was started in 1984, as the city wanted to see more art in the community but did not want to set up a percent for art program. At this time, one piece of public art has been contributed by a developer. Mi.ke..Breimhorst, Art in Public Places coordinator, felt that it was necessary-to-have more of a concerted effort to get developers interested in providing the art. The city is now considering going to a percent for art program. 2. Public Art as a Marketing Tool The arts can also be seen as a marketing tool for a community. The Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities completed a survey of the non-profit arts industry in January, 1986. The survey documented the development of the arts economy between 1982 and 1984. It determined that the total "impact of the arts industry in Colorado was $148.9 Million in 1984. In 1982, that figure was $118.7 Million. In 1982 dollars, that represents a 7% increase. These projections do not include the impact of spending by arts audiences. If these were considered, the figure could be five times as great." (Economic Impact of the Arts in Colorado, 1986, CCAH) The Center for Public/Private Cooperation, a research institute associated with the Public Administrative Program at the University of Colorado/Denver, also did a specific study on the increasingly important role of the arts in Colorado's economy, especially in respect to tourism. The study looks at Aspen, Creede, Telluride, Denver, and Colorado Springs as far as the economic impact of their arts programs. This report, as well as the CCAH survey should be studied in more detail. Perhaps the information would be helpful in encouraging private sector groups in Vail to become more actively involved in supporting public art. -18- 3. The Value of Local Resident Support The community's individuals are probably one of the greatest resources for developing public art projects and support for the arts in general. As an example, the Town of Crested Butte is pursuing the idea of building a Center for the Arts. Local John McCormack teamed up with Brooks Jones, a consultant who recently won a grant to help small communities build arts centers, to plan and promote the project. This effort originated from the local residents of Crested Butte and will depend a great deal on their support to make the project a reality. (Denver Post, December 7, 1986) In Aspen, a new director for the Aspen Art Museum, Annette DeMeo Carlozzi was recently hired. She was previously the senior art curator for the Laguna Gloria Art Museum in Austin, Texas. "Coming from Texas, where the museums work together to promote contemporary art, I'm interested in using networking to help strengthen the artistic community in Colorado, and to build a broader audience for Aspen's museums. I want people to come from Denver to the Aspen Art Museum." (Denver Post, December 7, 1986, "Fine Arts" Carlozzi's efforts to draw visitors to Aspen are already evident though a new arts show which recently opened. "Carlozzi and David Floria, museum curator, have developed a show entitled, "Pop Art, Minimal Art, etc.: Artists in Residence in Aspen 1965-70." The show includes 19 internationally known artists, such as Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg, and Christo, all of whom have worked in Aspen studios. (Denver Post, December 7, 1986) Created in honor of Aspen's 40th Anniversary of the "renaissance of the city," this show illustrates the efforts of locals to promote the arts within the community. By honoring international artists associated with Aspen, a high quality exhibition has been created that will draw visitors to the area which strengthens the local economy and moreover the reputation of Aspen as a reknown arts community. The staff feels that there are many opportunities within the private sector to encourage participation in public art. These few descriptions of private programs are offered to indicate only some of the possibilities that are available to increase private support of public art. C. RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends the following approaches as far as funding public art: 1. When the public art board is established, it should be set up so that it meets the requirements of grant agencies as much as possible. This should not be that difficult to do, as many of the purposes of these organizations are very broad. However, the arts board should ensure that the purpose of the board is not in conflict with any of these agencies. -19- • 2. There are many fund raising opportunities that are available to the Town of Vail. Some project ideas that seem feasible given public and private funding are: a. A general art plan for Vail Village and Lionshead. (NEA Design Arts Fund) b. An approach to a particular site that would focus on the theme of Vail being an international ski community or Vail's historic place in the ski industry as well as in Colorado. (NEA, private funds) C. A joint project with the Eagle Valley Arts Council to promote an artist-in-residency project which would also allow this artist to complete a work for the community while actually working in the community. (NEA Design Arts Fund, Art In Public Places Fund) d. Vail Resort Association, the Vail Symposium board and the public art board could combine their efforts to develop a visual arts forum which could be part of an upcoming Symposium. (NEA, Visual Artists Forum Fund) e. The Town Council could consider including a collaborative artist and landscape architect or architect into one of its public projects that are presently being proposed to the community. The Congress Hall, pool.fac..i.lity or visitors' center have the potential to be projects-which could easily incorporate a collaborative approach into the project. The entry to east Vail also has potential for this type of collaborative project. (NEA Collaboration in Arts/Design Fund) f. Technical assistance in developing the concept of the Arts Board and a development plan for the Board. (CCAH: Community Programs Fund) 3. The Colorado Council of the Arts and Humanities survey (January 1986) and the Center for Public/Private Sector Cooperations report entitled "Economic Impact of the Arts in the State of Colorado" (August 1983) should be studied by the Arts Forum and used to convince the private sector that public art does have an economic return for the community as well as value for the contribution it makes to the cultural life of the Town. 4. It is important to make that first project a success. It is recommended that the first project be small and successful instead of splashy and risky. A board's credibility is very important to establish to pave the road for success in future fund raising efforts. -20- IV. DIRECTIONS FOR VAIL IN RESPECT TO PUBLIC ART: WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? IV. DIRECTIONS FOR VAIL IN RESPECT TO PUBLIC ART: WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? A. RECOMMENDATIONS Simply stated, public art should involve the public in its creation. This is a simple concept, but one that may be implemented in a variety of ways. The staff believes that the next step that should be taken is that an Arts Forum be established as an informal group of citizens who will work with the staff on further refining the formation of an Arts Council for public art. A reasonable question is, why should another task force be created to study an issue when the staff could easily come with recommendations in an efficient way? In answer to this question, it is felt that for this project to be truly successful, communication with the community will need to occur so that the Arts Council is based on our community's interest. In information gathering from interviews and written reports, people continually made the recommendation that public input on how the Board is set up is critical to the Board's future success in the community. It is true that this approach opens up the possibility of politics and selfish interests entering into objective research. However, perhaps without addressing some of those concerns at the preliminary stages of developing the concept for the Board, these negative interests will come up during the first arts project. Staff would prefer to address these types of concerns at this point if they actually do exist. Staff prefers to take a more positive view of community participation in this type of project. Our belief is that the Vail community has many outstanding citizens who have a very unselfish interest in committing their time to helping the staff focus on how an Arts Board could best function in Vail. Please note that the Arts Forum would not be the actual board that would be in charge of reviewing public art. In the future, some of these members may actually serve on the Board, but in no way is the staff stating that these volunteers should be automatically on the Board once it is established. The following outline summarizes the Arts Forum's recommended membership as well as work that would be addressed by the Forum with the help of the planning staff: 1. Arts Forum Participants: a. Artist: Helen Ginsburg/Sculptor who lives in Vail and Englewood b. Design Review Board member: To be determined by the Board C. Eagle Valley Arts Council: Beverly Trout d. Four members who have design background, a personal interest in the arts or who are arts professionals: Tom Briner, Arne Hansen, Pam Hopkins, Peggy Osterfoss, John Perkins, Fitzhugh Scott. (These names are not listed in order of priority.) Staff is requesting that the Town Council choose four people from the six listed above in group d. The Arts Forum will provide a good cross section of community people who are interested in the arts. All of these people have been contacted and would be interested in working on the project. In fact, there appears to be a great deal of community interest in serving on this type of a project. -21- 2. Suggested Work Program The planning staff will serve as staff to the Arts Forum. The Arts Forum will be asked to aid in research efforts and to offer their own ideas concerning issues that will be raised through the research. Further research and education will be needed in order for the staff, Arts Forum and Town Council to make a well thought out decision on how the board and review cirteria should be set up. Below is a suggested work program: Timeline 1987 Task* Group Responsible March to June A. Research trends in Planning Staff public art, review Arts Forum criteria, board member- ship, appeal procedures, funding alternatives June - July B. Pursue community education Planning Staff on public art Arts Forum July - August C. Develop a public art Planning Staff ordinance Arts Forum September D. Select members for the Town Council Arts Board October-December E. Develop work program Planning Staff for Arts Board Arts Forum This is the direction that the staff feels will be most useful in creating a public art program. * Staff is requesting that the Arts Forum have a small budget to cover costs for books/periodicals/reports, long distance phone calls, several speakers, films, posters and travel. If the Town Council approves of the staff recommendation to create an Arts Forum, we will come up with a specific dollar amount for the budget for the project. -22- t New York City Percent For Art Survey Results Survey Conducted Spring, 1985 Results Compiled Spring, 1986 All public art programs shown here were presented with a written survey form whose questions appear opposite the answer grid. Programs not responding to the written form were interviewed over the telephone. Survey Response Key'' 1. When did your program originate? , 2. What type of program is yours? f = federal s = state n = county c = city 14. Do you educate the community before the installation? % = percent p = private 15. Do you educate the community after the installation? 3. How many projects do you review yearly? 4. How are the artists selected? oc = open competition lc = limited competition ds = direct selection 5. How do you use your art allocation? c = commission p = purchase r = restoration 6. What percent of your artists is. local? 7. Are regional or national artists seriously considered? 8. How many function art projects have your funded? 9. How many of your projects are conceived and executed by a design team (artist and architect working together)? 10. Is the artist on your design team the same one whose work is commissioned/purchased? 11.. Is the community-at-large represented on your selection panel? 12. Who are the local voting members of your selection panel? ap = arts professionals a = artists b = business people o = other residents all = all the above 13. Does the selection committee visit the construction site? # Programs shown underlined are grant making agen ies only. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10•. 11 12 13 14 15 Alaska 1975 s/% 30-40 oc/lc c/p 60% yes none none no yes all yes yes Imes Anchorage c/n I 15 oc/sc/ c/p 1H,;; yes 2 of 5 none all yes no no Arizona 1979 s , 6 100% no yes all yes Glendale 1983 c/p irreg. ds c/p 100% yes 5 no yes a yes no oc/lc/ orne- l Arkansas 1985 s/% ds c/p yes yes times California s/% 5 oc/lc c/p/r .97% yes 3 of 7 1 maybe no ap/a yes yes no Marin County 1979 n 7-11 oc/1c c 2% yes yes p/a/o stimes yes Palo Alto c 2 oc/lc c/p/r 75% yes yes ap/a/o yes no*** no*** I, Sacramento 1979 c/n/% 3 36 oc/lc/ some- - ds c/p/r 60% yes 1 of 8 2 maybe yes*" ap/a yes times yes San Francisco 1969 c/% 10-20 lc/ds c/p 75% yes 4 of 1 yes ap/a/o yes no"* no some- Santa Barbara Coun n/% 2 oc/ds c/p/r 100% yes 1 of 6 1 yes times all yes yes yes Colorado 1977 s/% 2-4 oc c/p 71% yes 1 of 7 yes ap/a/b yes yes yes Connecticut 1978 s/% 20 ocdslc c./p 50% yes 3 of 2 yes all yes no' no*" Florida s/% 12 oc/lc some- Florida 20% ves ves all yes no times Broward County 1979 n/% 4 oc c/o 75% ves yes all ves ves ves Dade County 1973 n/% 20 ds ~/p 35% yes no ves ves ves oc/lc/ some- some- Miami 1973 c/% 3-5 ds c/p 70% yes 1 of 19 yes ap/b/o yes times times oc/lc/ 3eorQia, Atlanta 1978 c/% 20 ds c/p 95% yes - 1 yes yes all. yes oc/lc/ , gawaii 1967 s/% 65 ds c/p/r 95% yes yes yes no yes Honolulu 1984 c/n/% 2-4 ds c/p/r 95% yesa„s-, 1 yes yes ap/b/o yes yes yes 10-20 oc/lc/ Illinois 1980 s/% ds c/p 100% no yes ap/b/a yes no no Chicago 1978 c/% ds c/p/r 50% yes no**" all yes some- some- times times See page entitled Detailed Responses for additional information Programs shown underlined are grant making agencies only. 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Iowa 11978, s/% 15 oc/lc c/p yes I yes ap/a oc/lc New Orleans, LA 1984 c/% ds c/1) 50% yes yes oc/lc some- Maine 1979 s/% 9-40 ds c/D most times ves all ves ves Maryland s 1-2 oc c 1 in 6 ves no no vpc Baltimore 1964 c/% 15-20 ds c 83% yes no no no Massachusetts 1984 s/% 5 oc c/o ves ves all vps avhp vas Cambridge 1980 c/% 34 oc/lc c/p/r 60% yes .6 3 ves yes all yes yes yes " " oc/ic/ Arts-on-the-Line 1980 f/% 33 ds/inv t. c 70% yes 6 of 3 15 yes no yes yes yes_ oc/lc/ Michigan., Grand Rapid c/p varies ds c/p/r, most yes yes all ves no yes Missouri, Kansas City 1981 c/% oc c most no Pr gram i active becaus there's no Instruction going on. bldg. Montana 1985 s/% 0-10 oc/lc c/p yes yes users yes yes yes Nebraska 1979 s/% 5 oc/ds c100% no ves no no C/ P/ bldg. New Hampshire 1980 s/~ 4-6 ocdsc/ art bark 99% no 1 of 9 yes users yes yes yes nother oficc New Jersey 1978 s/% 8 6c/lc c/p/r 66/4 yes yes ves ap/a Cape May County 1984 n/% 2-3 oc c/p 60% yes 2 no no no yes oc/lc/ Jew Mexico, Albuquerqu 1979 c/% 6 ds c/n 757. ves 3 ves ves all. ves no no direct too soo to 1~,, Ynrlr; N,-w York 198? r/% 19 purcha, e c/p/ 80% yes some no yes know North Carolina s 11 oc/lc/ ds c/p yes 2 no yes all yes sometimes oc/ic/ Ohio*** 1970 ds c/r 60% yes yes all yes yes Oklahoma, Lawton c 0-7 oc c/p 50% yes'`'11 yes all yes Pennsylvania no law 2 is solely a grant making a ency making ew 'hilly Redev. Autho 1959 f/s/n/ 15-25 lc/ds c/r 70% yes guide ines yes all yes yes yes ***See page entitled Detailed Responses for additional inrormation. Programs shown underlined are grant making agencies only. i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 X14; 15 Phillv-Fairmount Pkl 1965 c/p 3-4 'lc/ds c/p/r yes 5 no yes yes no Pittsburgh 1980 c/% 3-4 ds c/p 100% no no yes none .hode Island 1985 l % lyet Ioc l c yes I 1 yes 1 all yes no la N 11* 11C/P ds/lc/ youth Carolina Iw s/% I I 80% yes l I I I I I' ( some imes Iennessee Ino lad p 1 2 1oc 1 c/p 1 75% 1 no 1 1 I l no I 1. yes I yes ltah, Salt Lake City 11978 I c/% 12-3 [oc/ds I c/p/rl 100% l no I I I I no 1 I 13 1 no I no lashington 11974 I s/% i 30 1 I c/p i 85% i yes I I I I i Bellevue I I c/% I 2 I,odc/slc/I p I 95% ~es in uture 1++ 14 I yes I yes all 1 yes 1 no 1 no Mountlake Terrace 1976 c/% l 0-1 I sc I 70~ reeyion} 1 I I I yes all yes no- I no Seattle 11973 + c/% I 20 12c/ds I c/p I 75% yes I I I yes no I I yes I Tacoma I 1 c/% 10-4 loc/lc I c/p 1 most i yes I I I yes lap/a/bl yes l yes I yes King County 1973 n/% 15 1,2-c/lc/ ds I I 97% I yes I I I' yes yes lap/a I yes I I !isconsin 11980 I s/% 10 Ioc c/p i 800 l yes I32df I I yes lasers 1 yes I yes 1 yes lashington, D.C.(G:S.Ab 1963 1 f/% 125-30 l oc c 1 20% 1 yes 1 250E l i yes II yes 1 yes Ihopte.o Jvomine I 1983 I s*** I 16 I oc l c/p I 90% l yes I I I ( yes l all l yes I no l no ' I I I I' I I I I I ~ I .I I i I I I' I I I I I I I . I I I II I I I• I I I .I ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I ~ I I I I .I I I ~ See page entitled Detailed Responses for additional information. Programs shown underlined are grant making agencies only. Detailed Responses Question #2. What type of program is yours? Inter-Arts of Marin has recently completed a survey of public art programs which addresses this question in detail. For a copy of the Inter-Arts survey, contact: Susan Pontious, Executive Director Inter-Arts of Marin 1000 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. San Anselmo, CA 94960 (415) 457-9744 Question #3. How many projects do you review yearly? Palo Alto, California' has no percent ordinance but receives a $15,000 annual sum for art work. Ohio, a grant making agency only, also has no law but gets a $30,000 annual budget. Kansas City, Missouri,.would be active except that there is no construction going on now. South Carolina has no,percent law, only a resolution. They also are looking for new forms of partnerships in order to assure that more artists' work is seen. Wyoming received a one-time only appropriation in 1984. Question V. Are regional or national artists seriously considered? Anchorage, Alaska gives two-thirds of its commissions to local artists, but only one-third its money. The larger commissions go to regional or national artists. This is. also true of Atlanta, Georgia where 95% of its commissions are local. Honolulu, Hawaii hopes to give more consideration~to regional and national artists in the future. NOTE: The 2nd edition of the Inter-Arts of Marin;survey.(mentioned above) also has details about specific programs. Question #9. How many of vour projects are conceived and executed by a design team? Dade County, Florida is especially interested in beginning more of these projects. Virtually all respondents indicated either a curiosity or a determination to learn more about design teams and how to make them work effectively. Question #11. Is the community-at-large represented on vour selection panel? In Sacramento, California this occurs only where neighborhood ordinances require it. In Chicago, the community has only an advisory voice. Question #12. Who are the local voting members of your selection panel? The federal Art in Architecture program of the G.S.A. uses art collectors, arts professionals, artists, architects, and representatives from the National Endowment for the Arts and the General Services Administration. i Q~iestions #14. arid #15. Do you educate the cornmuni.ty before and/or after installation? Palo Alto, California,; San Vranci.sc.:o; rind Connect:ic.ut all indicated that they hope to begin. Maintenance of Public Art Maintenace is not so much a problem as repair is although both need attention in many programs. The following shows how responsibility is shouldered for maintenace: User Agency Art Program Alaska, Anchorage California, Sacramento Arizona Florida, Dade County Arkansas (they say this is a problem) Hawaii California, Marin County New Mexico (this is changing) California, Sacramento County New Jersey Colorado (but this is changing) I New Hampshire ("a difficult problem") Florida (they hope for improvements) Ohio (check writing responsibility only) Florida, Miami Georgia, Atlanta Illinois Illinois, Chicago Iowa Both User and Art Program Maryland, Baltimore Massachusetts, Cambridge (with problems) Connecticut Hawaii, Honolulu Massachusetts Maryla Michigan, Grand Rapids. Maryland Missouri, Kansas City Pennsylvania, Fairmount Park/Philadelphia Nebraska Washington, Bellevue ; New York Washington, King County New York , Seattle Washington Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh (with problems) Rhode Island (individual cities) South Carolina Washington, Mountlake Terrace Washington, Tacoma Wisconsin Only one program, Sacramento, California, indicated that it rejects commissions of high maintenance pieces althought it is likely that other programs do the same. Sacramento does, however, allow such commissions if the artist can devise a solution to the maintenance problem. Honolulu stated what many know but are reluctant to articulate, that maintenance and repair problems need to be addressed more fully when the program budget is determined. Because of a reluctance to.pull money away from the commission/purchase itself or because of fear that the maintenace and repair costs will send the budget out of the range of acceptibility, many programs ignore the question of follow-up expenses. Ohio, a grant-making agency only, expects to see a maintenance plan spelled out in grant proposals it receives. Some states take bids for repairs (New Jersey, New Mexico) whilie allowing the artist first option on the work. A three-fold solution was most frequently mentioned: include repair and maintenance costs in the original budget for the art work, make regular inspections, and give detailed training to those responsible for making repairs. Programs Not Surveyed Cities Counties Beverly Hills, CA Alameda County, CA Dayton, OH Atlantic County, NJ Edmonds, WA Tacoma-Pierce County, WA Kent, WA Los Angeles, CA Milwaukee, WI State Santa Barbara, CA Delaware - working on ordinance Santa Monica, CA Louisiana - currently drafting a bill Spokane, WA Michigan Toledo, OH Oregon Tulsa, OK Texas - no ordinance, grant-making only Walnut Creek, CA Oklahoma City, OK Renton, WA National Wanatchee, WA Insular Arts Council of Guam New Haven, CT National Endowment for the Arts Veterans Administration: Art in Architecture Program # Either we were unaware of these programs at the time of the survey or, in some instances, we were not able to get information from them. ATTACFnENT 6 ' 1 n Q ~1 V rl~s _ SUr1'IARY OF SELECTED LOCALITIES WITH Q PERCENT-FOR-ARTS PROGRAMS • Percent Allocated Number of 1 Includes Cities/ Up to Up to Private Counties 0.55 15 15 1.55 25 24 Construction? 1 Anchorage, Alaska X 2 Albuquerque, New Mexico X 3 Atlanta, Georgia X 4 Baltimore, Maryland X 5 Bellevue, Washington X 6 Boston, Massachusetts X* 7 Brea, California X Yes 8 Broward County, Florida X 9 Cambridge, Massachusetts X 10 Charlotte, North Carolina X 11 Chicago, Illinois X 12 Dade County, Florida X 13 Davis, California X 14 Edmonds. Washington X 15 Eugene, Oregon X 16 Everett, Washington X 17 Kansas City, Missouri X 18 Kinq County, Washington X 19 Los Angeles, California Amount varies per project 20 Madison, Wisconsin X* 21 Miami Beach, Miami, Florida X* 22 Milwaukee, Wisconsin X* 23 Mountlake Terrace, Washington X 24 Multnomah County, Oregon X 25 New Orleans, Louisiana X 26 New York, New York X* 27 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma X 28 Palo Alto, California X Program discontinued due to Proposition 13. 29 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania X' 30 Pierce County, Washington _ X 31 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania _ X 32 Portland, Oregon X 33 Renton, Washington X 34 Rockville, Maryland X 35 Sacramento, California X Yes 36 arra n o County, California X 37 Salt Lake City, Utah X* 38 San Francisco, California X 39 Santa Barbara, California X 40 Santa Fe, New Mexico X 41 Santa Rosa, California X 42 Seattle, Washington X 43 Spokane, Washington X 44 Tacoma, Washington X 45 Tampa/Hillsborough Cnty., Florida Yes 46 Toledo, Ohio X 47 Tulsa, Oklahoma X 48 Wenatchee, Washington X 49 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania X X Yes Total 1 4 39 3 1 1 4 Notes and Additional Sources: National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies (NALAA) literature; Kreisberg, Luisa. Local Government and the Arts. American Council on the Arts. New York, 1979; and the respective cities' art commissions. - All percentages are mandatory except where noted by an In these cases, % funds are permissive or optional. - According to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, at least 40 cities have adopted percent-for-art ordinances (generally 15). There is a general concensus that where the arts budget is discretionary (i.e. based on permissive laws), less funds are appropriated for artwork than when a Percentage formula is used as required by mandatory laws. At least five urban counties have adopted percent-for-art ordinances, according to the American Planr. Association in its monthly publication, "PAS Memo," May 1985. rTO: Town Council and Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 17, 1987 ..SUBJECT: Primary/Secondary Connection .-.This past fall the Town Council heard an appeal of a Design -Review Board Decision to-deny a proposed primary/secondary development. The Design Review Board denial cited the section of the Design Review Guidelines regarding the requirement for physical..connection,of units of a duplex or primary/secondary ..structure...-This specific proposal was one of several submittals to the Design Review Board which had raised issue with this ..;particul-ar _secti:on_ of the Guidelines. The Design Review Board has expressed concern over the interpretative nature of this section of the Design Review Guidelines and indicated to`the staff .that a more definitive wording of this section would enable the Board and applicants to better understand this section of the _ -.-Design Review ..Guidelines. The existing wording concerning the primary/secondary connection in the Design Review Guidelines reads as follows: Section 18.54.050 C. 13. Duplex and primary/secondary residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics necessitates a site design .:.which includes.:a physical-separation of the two dwelling units and/or garages into separate structures, the Design Review Board may approve the design. Such a design may be approved only when the separate structures are visually -,.7-attached -by..:-.means ::o.f.,_the use-_of,__imilar.-,and compatible _,._::architectural__design,. colors, __and. materials and/or physically :.-.connected within :fences., . wa1-1s., -decks -or..-, similar --arch i-t-ectural- features. _ At the Council- -appeal. heari-ng., -_discus.sion between the`. Council members and the Design Review Board members present focussed on the intent of this section of the Design Review Guidelines and also on the difficulty of consistently interpretating some of the specific wording of this section. A majority of both the Council and Design Review Board felt that a clarification of both the intent and definition of the wording of this section was needed. The staff has discussed the concerns of the.Design.Beview Board and.-Council, :as well `-as- the .intent of this: section -of -the -,,Guidelines..:_ . We . agree that--a sepaxation of units,-,-may allow for tmore: flexib-ility in design and,, given a good design, can-create -development of a-fpleasant scale. On the other hand, the staff recognizes-that creating too much flexibility in the guidelines will allow for possible abuse of the intent of the zoning. The primary/secondary and duplex zone districts both specifically state that both units shall be in a single structure. The intent of this is to maintain the low density scale of the zone district. The challenge of the Design Review Guidelines is to estaablish a balance between allowing flexibility for good design while regulating against design.which may be inappropriate. The staff, for discussion purposes, has come up with two possible options for amending Section 18.54.050 C. 13. Option A. Rewrite Section 18.54.050 C. 1 to eliminate the requirement -for a physical connection of the units, and at the same time strengthen and clarify the design criteria which would be required.in order to create.-.a visual connection. This 7. --criteria could include a unified landscape plan for the entire lot, utilization of one-road cut, compatible materials ..-.such as siding, roofing, trim, stonework, roof forms, color :...schemes; balcony styles, window treatments, etc. .This:option would completely eliminate requirements for a physical,.-connecti-on,..-thus.:allowing:maximum flexibility in siting the units,,in creating the scale of the units, and in creating spaces between the units. The design criteria would serve to unify the development on the site. There is concern on the part of the staff that this option could allow for development that would create the appearance of two separate single family dwellings on separate pieces of property, especially on less vegetated sites. This creates the visual appearance of density over and above that of the low density -.zoning. Option B. -::This -option-=is--a clarification, and'. further definition of the existing wording'of Section 18.54.050 C. 11. Under this w._.option, both. connection criteria andsiteconstraints would be clarified and defined-in order'-.-to-encourage consistent interpretation.and application-,;of this-section of the code. This optiom..would still require-,a connect or between units unless significant site constraints could be demonstrated by the applicant. An example of further definition of "connection" could be as follows: "Primary/secondary structures shall have a party wall connection equal to a minimum of ten percent of the exterior perimeter of the primary unit unless significant site constraints can be demonstrated by the .applicant.". This -opt-ion,-would also :further.-clarify, the definition of "site constraints.":. An example-of this'further definition could be: 1. Significant rock outcroppings 2. Significant vegetation such as large trees 3. Existing drainage patterns 4. Severe slope variations creating two distinct building sites .5. Existing dwelling unit on the site This option basically maintains the intent of the existing Section 18.54.050 C. 13 of the Design Review Guidelines. Specific definition of connection of units and of site constraints would enable consistent application of this section of the Design Review Guidelines. It should be reognized-that by specifically defining "physical connection" we may be limiting design flexibility. ...:-'The -staff ':has -spent much time discussing this issue. The desire -:to allow flexible design while maintaining the ability to regulate inappropriate design is a difficult task. These two options have been devised to create discussion on both sides of this issue. It is our.intent that through dialogue with the Town Council and the -.Design Review..Board._ we .will.--be:.able _to rreach~-a conclusion which will strike this balance. Vail Associates, Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek February 13, 1987 Mr. Ron Phillips Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Ron, Vail Associates application to renew the permit for the weather modification program for Vail and Beaver Creek Mountains was approved by the State of Colorado. The permit will allow operations starting at 12:01 a.m. on February 14th, weather permitting through April 19th, 1987. Our application was submitted after the State notified us on February 3rd that they would be in a position to accept applications to renew permits. Our rationale for resuming weather modification at .this time is that while skiing is still good, we believe it only prudent to increase snowfall so that ski conditions will be optimum as we get into high season and as average daily temperatures increase. The program is similar to those of previous years with utilization of ground based generators upwind of the Vail and Beaver Creek Mountains. The cost of the program for Vail Mountain is $24,777 if we utilize all the projected seeding hours. We request that the Town of Vail share 50% of the cost of the program with Vail Associates. +v. Sincerely, Joe Mac Manage Mountain Planning JM/kl cc: Larry Lichliter Past Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476-5601