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