Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-07 CDC MinutesCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 23, 2007 - 6:00 p.m. Minutes of Meeting Mr. Salay, Chair, called the meeting to order on Monday, April 23 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Committee Members present were Ms. Salay, Mr. Reiner and Mrs. Boring. Also present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher and Mr. Keenan. Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Ott, Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Hahn. Also in attendance from the Dublin Arts Council were David Guion, Executive Director, Jack Pigman and Trish Jarvis of the DAC Board. Ms. Salay noted that Council Member Keenan is the Council representative to the Dublin Arts Council Board. She stated that the purpose of this meeting is the discussion of a formal agreement with Dublin Arts Council. At Council's recent goal -setting a need for a formal agreement was identified. Over the past two years, there has been a recurring discussion about the expectations of the City and the responsibilities of the Dublin Arts Council (DAC) in regard to public art. Provision of Art in Public Places Program, including an agreed upon level of investment and frequency of introduction of new works. Ms. Salay noted that the anticipation of the Committee discussion tonight is to develop the basic terms of a formal agreement between the two entities so that there is an understanding of the City's goals and DAC's responsibilities. A formal agreement will enable future Councils to understand the expectations. For tonight's discussion, staff has provided information on five main points of the existing understanding with DAC. Mrs. Boring stated that she would like to clarify her goal with this discussion. She recently attended an APA meeting which has left her with the impression that Council should consider the public arts program in a much larger context. She noted that there is an existing ordinance regarding the public arts program. The Committee will need to be mindful of the various sections in that ordinance that may need to be amended depending on the outcome of this discussion. Ms. Salay noted that staff has provided copies of Ordinance 103-00 and 139-97 for the discussion. There also are minutes from numerous meetings, both of Council and the DAC, which provide record of previous discussions. The goal of tonight's discussion is to identify all of the relevant points to be addressed in an agreement. In addition, there can be discussion about possibly broadening the concept, as Mrs. Boring has suggested. Mrs. Boring stated that the current ordinance provides that the DAC will continue the art in public places program as it is currently structured. The question then is how the program is currently structured and should that current structure be continued. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 2 of 10 Ms. Salay stated that Mr. Guion has provided the Committee the history of what has been spent on the art in public places program. It begins in 1989 with the first project, Leathedips. On an annual basis, the program cost has been about $42,000. Mrs. Boring stated that the arts in public places program was structured to provide a new piece every two years. Attempting to adhere to an approximate annual cost may not achieve Council's objective. It was not the expectation to have another piece every year. The only exception to that practice was the special commission of the Jack Nicklaus piece. Ms. Salay stated that there are actually a couple of ways to view the financial aspect. Historically, the City has spent $70,000 - $150,000 per piece. Most recently, the amount was approximately $150,000 every two years. A new art program is scheduled for this year, and Council was shown the budget for that a couple of weeks ago. Mrs. Boring stated that the expenditure of $150,000 every two years for a new public art piece has seemed reasonable. She inquired if the bed tax revenue has been adequate or has there been a time when the 25 percent was less than the annual cap. Ms. Grigsby responded that the existing arrangement was based on a projected amount of hotel/motel tax revenues. A couple of years, the 25 percent was slightly over the amount in the exhibit. This year, it may also be higher, but the original intent was that the actual 25 percent of hotel/motel tax revenues would exceed the amount specified in the exhibit with the idea that the difference between the actual and the projected, along with the rent, would then be utilized to retire the debt service on the DAC facility. Mrs. Boring stated the rent is increasing approximately $2,000 per year whereas the projected bed tax that DAC receives is increasing approximately $10,000 per year. Ms. Grigsby stated that when the exhibit of projections was originally developed, Embassy Suites was due to come online, so an adjustment was added for that. After that, a conservative increase of 2.5 percent was added each year. However, in 2002- 2004, those projections were close to the actual. Ms. Salay stated that even with the 2001 terrorist event, the bed tax revenue met the projections. Mrs. Grigsby confirmed that is correct. Mr. Keenan stated that the 25 percent should be 25 percent of the actual revenues. Ms. Grigsby stated that prior to the lease agreement, in 1997-1999 it was strictly 25 percent of the actual revenue received. Currently, the payments are based strictly on the projections in the exhibit. Mr. Keenan stated that the exhibit projections are then the maximum amount DAC can receive. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Grigsby confirmed that is correct. Mr. Keenan stated that, on the other hand, there is a guarantee of a maximum rent increase. Ms. Grigsby stated that the benefit of this arrangement for DAC was that they are guaranteed a certain amount. If the bed tax revenue actual is less than the projections, DAC will receive the set amount based upon the projected revenue. Ms. Salay stated that if another hotel or two should be located in Dublin, the additional amount over the projected amount of the 25 percent would be used to retire the debt service on the DAC facility. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that is correct. Ms. Salay inquired if Committee members were satisfied with the expectation amount of $75,000/year or $150,000 every two years. Mrs. Boring stated that when she reviewed the budget for the DAC's traveling arts program, it impressed her as excessive for extraneous costs, such as travel, compared to the amount budgeted for the actual art piece. What is the expectation regarding the percent of the $150,000 that may be used for administration and technical costs? Ms. Salay agreed. Is the expectation that the $150,000 is to be used solely for the actual art purchase or is it the cost of the total program? Mr. Guion stated that in terms of the outdoor on -loan sculpture program, this is a pilot project. It is based upon 14 similar programs throughout the country. DAC's budget for the pilot program was based upon the costs experienced for similar programs. In his view, the arts in public places programs should be considered a process and the amount of the budget should be based upon the project. The amount should not determine the final product. Mrs. Boring inquired if the comparison of similar programs was limited to non-profit programs. Mr. Guion confirmed that it was. Ms. Salay stated that the budget for the new on -loan program was an estimate based on the budgets of other communities who have done such programs. The intent is to minimize costs wherever possible. Mr. Guion agreed. Mrs. Boring inquired the history regarding how the arts in public places program was previously structured. Ms. Ott stated that previously there were three-way agreements between the City, DAC and the artist who produced the piece. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 4 of 10 Ms. Salay inquired how the administrative costs were handled with the previous pieces. Ms. Ott responded that the purchase agreement with the artist did not address those. City records show that a certain amount was paid to the artist. If a portion of that amount was used by the artist for overhead cost or travel cost, the City does not have that documentation. DAC managed that portion of the process. Mr. Guion stated that in every contract referred to, there was an artist fee, plus an additional construction or materials amount to complete the work. The artwork is not actually purchased for that amount of money. Ms. Salay stated as an example that the City paid $70,000 to the artist who constructed Leathedips. As far as the City is concerned, that was the cost of the artwork. Ms. Ott noted that it is analogous to purchasing a car. The labor to manufacture the car is not separated out from the cost of the actual product received. Ms. Salay inquired how administrative costs were handled in the past. Mr. Guion responded that his understanding based on the previous contracts was that the artist included the administrative items needed to complete the work. Ms. Salay noted that for the on -loan sculpture program, there was a breakdown of the administrative costs in addition to the actual artwork costs. Was this was the first time those costs were shared with Council? Mr. Guion confirmed that was correct. Mrs. Boring noted that the on -loan sculpture process has been structured differently than the previous public art acquisition process. If one art piece is being commissioned, there should be an approved amount which would cover whatever the artist needs to provide the artwork. She is not in favor of adding travel or other expenses — those costs should be built into the project cost. Although the on -loan sculpture program has been structured differently, typically, those costs should be included in the total package. Ms. Salay stated that she would be comfortable if Council established a total budget of $75,000/year, or $150,000 every two years, for the acquisition of a new piece or pieces of public art. That would include the costs of transporting or placing the art. The understanding would be that $75,000/year or $150,000 for two years is the total amount to be spent. This seems to the simplest way to do this in terms of budgeting. Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner and Mrs. Boring agreed. Ms. Ott asked for clarification. Does that call for delivery of a work or works every two years? Is that Council's expectation? Mr. Keenan responded that it should be a work or works to allow for flexibility of doing smaller items or one larger project. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 5 of 10 Mrs. Boring stated that with that said, does it place a restriction on the type of works? Art does encompass a large definition. For example, with the on -loan program, after two years, the City may be left with nothing permanent. It is important to be specific that if the expectation is for a permanent piece to be left in place every two years, the language should be clear in the agreement. Ms. Ott asked if she is referring specifically to visual arts. Mr. Keenan stated that his understanding is that it would be a permanent piece, similar to what has been done in the past — a permanent sculpture or art piece. Mrs. Boring stated that it should be articulated, as the definition of public art could be much broader. Mr. Keenan responded that this Council's expectation is for a permanent piece for the community. He asked Mr. Guion if this is also his expectation. Mr. Guion responded that he would like to help define "public art" as there could be a sound installation which is not necessarily visual art. People would interact where sound is the art versus a visual representation. He agreed that the piece would have to be in place permanently. Ms. Salay agreed that it is important to define public art within the context of this agreement. Perhaps it could be stated that this would be a piece of visual art that will be permanent to the community. To do otherwise, such as with a sound installation, would require Council's approval of the proposal. Mr. Keenan agreed that is a reasonable approach, as there are potential maintenance issues for other public art. There needs to be an agreed upon definition for what constitutes as public art. Mrs. Boring asked if it would make sense within the definition to have some consideration of the maintenance, or to define the scope of maintenance. Council is likely not interested in artwork that will require significant maintenance and upkeep. Mr. Hahn stated that tonight, staff was hoping to seek understanding of the expectations for an agreement. The funding level expectation has now been clarified. The Arts Council has always touched base with the City regarding the particulars of the design. In some cases, the City has not picked up on the potential maintenance costs of some pieces installed. These have been lessons learned in the process. However, in this agreement Council could provide general direction that maintenance be a consideration and understood prior to a work being commissioned. Mrs. Boring stated that her assumption is that in follow-up to this discussion, staff will bring back some recommendations of how to structure this agreement. Ms. Salay concurred. She appreciates Mr. Hahn's comments. It is important to have on the record the need to be cognizant of the maintenance. This is an important consideration for an artwork placed outdoors. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 6 of 10 Mrs. Boring stated that in traveling to other cities, many programs are done quite differently than Dublin's. These entities identify appropriate artists and the artists engage with the public in an active process at a location selected for a public art. It is a collaborative process and helps the community to embrace the artwork. Mr. Keenan stated that the only problem with this process is that a work such as Field of Corn would likely never have resulted. Many people did not like it at the outset, but have since come to appreciate the artwork. Mrs. Boring noted that if the City begins to develop an art in public places program with a great deal of public involvement, the goal could be met of creating a world-class program. When major corporations consider donating to the arts, they will then consider donating to Dublin and not to larger cities. This would also provide buy -in from the community. Mr. Keenan stated that there have been such collaborative processes in the past, such as with the Nicklaus sculpture and the Veterans project. Mrs. Boring disagreed, noting that these involved committees — not the general public. She would envision inviting the public in to participate. This is simply a concept. Mr. Keenan noted that he believes collaborative processes took place for both of these projects. Mr. Reiner stated that caution is needed, however, as many good artists could be discouraged by such a process. Mrs. Boring stated that what she is referring to is a different process entirely. It is a community process, not a committee process. She does not know the details of these projects, but believes it could be explored. Mr. Keenan agreed that there could be room for this process as well in an art in public places program. Ms. Salay asked Mr. Guion for input. Mr. Guion stated that one of the goals of the DAC strategic plan is to understand the Dublin community and what they want the DAC to offer. Part of the outdoor on -loan sculpture exhibition is that there will be a year of a process to learn from the community what pieces they like and why. They will have the opportunity interact with the artists, art critics, art historians and art educators to understand the work. Through understanding, they will decide which piece or pieces they would like to purchase. Mrs. Boring stated that she assumes that throughout this process, a series of public meetings will be set up. Expecting people to fill out comment cards without the benefit of education is unlikely. People become more involved through the education process. Mr. Guion stated that the DAC is setting up a blog and a website attached to the Historical Society website and to the Dublin City website — all to receive feedback. They will have tours, especially in the spring of 2008 to take people through the process. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 7 of 10 Some of the Dublin School students will do virtual tours to reduce transportation costs. There will be a lot of community engagement in understanding the works made possible through many technological advances. Ms. Ott added that the Arts Master Plan in draft form provides a multitude of ways to engage artists in the process of acquiring art. One of the policy statements is to engage artists early in the design of a capital project. There are many ways that the DAC and the City can partner to help artists learn about Dublin and incorporate those things that are unique about Dublin in their work. Mrs. Boring stated that she understands that some of these issues will be addressed in the Arts Master Plan, but there may be "massaging" at a later date of the details. Ms. Ott responded that it provides the DAC and the City opportunities of different means to engage artists in the community. Ms. Salay stated that it appears that DAC and City staff have heard the concerns and are thinking of different ways to engage the community in the selection of the artist and the art piece. Council wants to ensure that as much of the community as possible is engaged in the process. As the community feels ownership, the better the arts programs will be. Mrs. Boring added that there will be more support for expanding any funding opportunities. Ms. Salay stated that the goal is to have a very successful arts program in the City. Mr. Guion stated that in his presentation to Council, he indicated there are six different ways in which art works can be acquired. There may be many more ways to acquire art. The Veterans project is a good example of interaction and involvement with artists at the outset of a project. Mr. Keenan stated that everyone recognizes the importance of public art in terms of economic development for a community. Ms. Salay stated that going forward, that is an important item that can be communicated to potential businesses that may come to Dublin. Mrs. Boring suggested that the next discussion be held in a conference table setting. Ms. Salay agreed, noting that her goal was to initiate this discussion tonight, understanding that more time would be needed. The Council meeting at 7 p.m. may preclude a complete discussion tonight on this topic. Grants to Community Arts organizations, including an agreed upon level of investment and collaboration with other entities. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 8 of 10 Ms. Salay stated that the handout from DAC contains history of their funding of area arts organizations. She is not certain how this can be addressed in an agreement, as the various groups could change. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she understood that the DAC also funds projects for the Dublin Schools. This is not a comprehensive list. Mr. Guion stated that his understanding is this relates only to grants to community arts organizations. Mrs. Boring stated that she is very interested in seeing how much and what the DAC is doing for the schools. In communities where the schools don't have an active arts program, an arts council is a valuable resource. But in the Dublin community, the schools have outstanding arts programs, and she wonders if Council may want to direct that a majority of the funding goes to organizations other than schools. Ms. Salay apologized to Mr. Guion, noting that she had discussed the formal grants program and did not discuss what the DAC does with the schools. Depending upon the school, they may or may not seek grants from the DAC. She is aware that art teachers request grants from the PTO and some from the DAC. Perhaps more information is needed about the resources provided to the schools. Mr. Reiner indicated he is very interested in learning about this aspect as well. Mr. Guion responded that in terms of dollar figures, the DAC is spending $4,000 this year — a small fraction of their budget — on the school grants. Mr. Keenan asked if the Dublin Area Art League interfaces with the schools. Mr. Guion responded he does not know. Mrs. Boring asked what the expenditures for the schools have been in previous years. Mr. Guion stated he can provide this information. Most of the DAC art education in the schools programs have been cut drastically, based on the discussion of Council and Council's direct comments. Mr. Reiner stated that much of the involvement of the DAC and the schools may pre- date Mr. Guion's arrival. He is not certain the DAC has been as controlling of the budget as they could have been in those years. The direction of Council at this point is to be more results driven for the arts, for something that can be enjoyed and utilized for years to come. That is the sense of Council, based on what he has heard. Ms. Salay asked if the $4,000 is what is in the DAC budget for school grants and that the schools then request grants. Mr. Guion responded that is correct. The schools apply for grants from a total pool of $4,000. Part of the materials for the art mosaic in the Brand Road tunnel was funded by Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 9 of 10 the DAC. The art education departments at the schools have excellent facilities, but sometimes need assistance with funding for materials. Ms. Salay asked how the DAC communicates to the schools that this grant money is available. Mr. Guion responded that the schools submit grant requests, similar to what community arts organizations have done. There is also an arts education committee that meets quarterly. The arts teachers are aware of this funding source. Mrs. Boring stated that providing arts grants to a group to visit a location does not seem an appropriate use. The monies funding the materials for the art in the tunnel are an appropriate use of those funds. In the past, some things she observed were not in keeping with the overall objective the City was trying to achieve. Ms. Salay stated that is an excellent point. The tunnel is a wonderful way to bring arts to the community, and those students will share this art project with others in the future. Mrs. Boring added that other cities have involved youth organizations in public art projects, and the tunnel was a good example of such collaboration. Ms. Salay stated that in terms of grants for community arts organizations, there are three entities at this time, plus the schools to be considered within the agreement. Mrs. Boring stated that there may be other arts organizations in the future. She suggested that the DAC come back and propose a percentage of the budget they believe is reasonable. Mr. Guion stated that the organizations must be non-profit to apply; there are three that have applied. They request a dollar amount and the DAC generally grants that request. At times there has been debate about how much to grant, but based upon Council feedback, the DAC is granting the entire request that the organizations have submitted. Mrs. Boring suggested that the procedures should be tightened up. There should be a specified amount set aside and dedicated for grants, and then criteria should be applied to determine the awards. Mr. Guion responded that they do budget for a specified amount of grants. Ms. Salay asked for a brief recap from the DAC of how they determine the budget amount set aside for community grants. Do they decide on a dollar amount, do they wait until the organization submits, and what type of programs and discussions does the Board have in regard to this funding? This would help give the Committee a better understanding of this process. Ms. Salay asked if staff needs other information regarding the grant process so that it can be included in the agreement. Community Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 10 of 10 Ms. Ott responded that staff would want to understand if there is a particular level of funding to be provided, in order to memorialize it in the agreement. Ms. Salay stated that another meeting date will be set for continuation of this discussion. She thanked the DAC representatives for all they do for the community. The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Clerk of Council