Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-06 Finance Com. MinutesDUBLIN CITY CQUNCIL Finance Committee of the Whole Monday, August 14, 2006 Council Chambers Minutes of Meeting Mr. Keenan, Finance Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Council members present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCash and Mr. Reiner. Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Hahn and Ms. Ott. Dublin Arts Council representatives present were Mr. Guion, Mr. Pigman, and Mr. Gerberry. Mr. Keenan stated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss various matters related to the Dublin Arts Council, the Art in Public Places program, the proposed visual arts strategy, and the proposal for a percentage for the arts program. He showed a portion of a DVD regarding Loveland, Colorado's public arts program. (The DVD was shown to Council -copy available in City Manager's office.} He asked Ms. Grigsby to provide an overview of the history of the Dublin Arts Council and Art in Public Places program. Ms. Grigsby noted that Ms. Ott has assembled the information for tonight's meeting. It indicates that an ad hoc committee was established in 1983 by City Council to encourage the arts in Dublin. In 1985, the Dublin Arts Council was created as an independent organization. In 1988, the first year of the City's hotel-motel tax, the DAC received a grant award. Over the years, there were fluctuations in the amount of the DAC request and it was felt there was uncertainty about a consistent level of funding for the DAC. In 1997, an application was filed for 1998 funding of the DAC. But as part of that discussion at the Finance Committee, there was a focus on how to provide some level of permanent funding mechanism and the 25 percent allocation from hotel-motel tax concept was proposed. In late 1997, Ordinance 139-97 was approved by Council, which allocated 25 percent of the hotel-motel tax revenue to the DAC, an identical amount to what the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau was allocated. There were some parameters set in the 1997 ordinance, calling for a review each three years. Three years later, around the time the ordinance was to be reviewed, the property at 7125 Riverside Drive came on the market and the City entered into discussions about the purchase of the facility and to work out arrangements with the DAC to have this property as a permanent home. Prior to that, the DAC was growing and expanding programming and the facility at the old firehouse was not adequate. The City acquired the property in 1999 for slightly over $1.3 million and did renovations in excess of $750,000. The City issued debt for the acquisition and improvements and the debt continues through the year 2020 and averages between $170-$175,000 per year for each of those years. The lease set up was based upon annual lease payments paid by the DAC to the City for $60,000 and increased incrementally by $2,000 during each year of Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 2 the lease. The DAC would receive 25 percent of the projected revenue from hotel-motel tax that was established at that time. It was written such that the DAC would receive funds in the amount of the 25 percent projection, not the actual 25 percent of the hotel/motel tax revenues collected. If the revenues were higher than projected, the City retained the excess and those monies would be used toward repayment of the debt. However, it was also guaranteed that the DAC would receive a set amount of money and if revenues were lower, they still had a guaranteed amount. Throughout the 1990's, the hotel-motel tax revenues grew significantly; in 1998, there was a huge jump as a result of the Marriott coming online. In the year 2000, another jump occurred with the opening of the Embassy Suites. The lease also included information about how maintenance was to be performed. The City performs the majority of the maintenance at the facility -the mowing, the snow plowing, and anything in excess of $500. The DAC was also given the option of acquiring the facility at some point in the future, if they found a partner who would assist them with a capital fund project. The Art in Public Places program began in the late 1980's, and the first piece was completed in 1990. Since that time, a total of seven pieces have been completed through the Art in Public Places program. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that on the first page of the memo, it indicates that in 2001, art facility renovations were $2.2 million. Ms. Grigsby stated that actually, there was $1.3 plus million for acquisition and $750,000 for improvements. There were same additional improvements funded by the City for which debt was not issued. The amount of the debt was slightly over $2.1 million. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the art facility renovation number also includes the acquisition costs. Ms. Grigsby responded that is correct. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification of the total investment in public art projects listed in the memo as $715,000, averaging approximately $100,000 each. Ms. Grigsby responded that the early pieces were $70,000 each and the later pieces increased in cost. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification regarding the second page of the memo where it indicates the City contribution for each year. Is that what was set aside of the 25 percent? Ms. Grigsby responded that in 1992, 1994 and 1996, the $70,000 was based upon the grant application from the DAC and what they had allocated in the application for the actual art piece. The other year was when the jurying process was done. Mr. Keenan stated that one of the covenants in the 25 percent funding was that the Art in Public Places program would continue as it had in the past, and that is where the $70,000 number came from. Ms. Grigsby stated that the $70,000 number was prior to the time the 25 percent hotel/motel tax allocation was approved. Ms. Ott indicated that those numbers reflect what was actually in the contract with the artist. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Keenan pointed out that the expectation was that the Art in Public Places program was to be continued in the future, consistent with what had been done in the past, within the 25 percent allocation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated she was trying to clarify if the "City's contribution" language meant this was over and above what the DAC had contributed, or whether it was the total cost of the project. Mrs. Boring stated that if that were the case, every other year the DAC budget would be higher to provide for a public art project. Ms. Grigsby stated that prior to the 25 percent allocation, DAC came to the City for a grant to cover their entire budget. Included in their budget was the Art in Public Places program. The $70,000 reflected in the memo is the amount DAC had allocated for the art piece. In early years, DAC set the budget for the project as $70,000, so when the artist bid the project, they understood the budget parameters. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the DAC set aside $35,000 per year in their budget for a public art project. Ms. Grigsby stated that each year, the budget was submitted with their grant application and one of the issues was it varied from year to year, depending upon whether or not a public art piece was included. The goal of the 25 percent allocation was to have a more level funding for DAC from which to finance the public art projects. Mrs. Boring stated that DAC did not set aside monies each year as agreed upon, however. Instead, they have submitted a higher request for the years they were undertaking the specific projects. She pointed out that the Jack Nicklaus sculpture was identified as a special commission. It was a City project, done with the assistance of the DAC. It was not a DAC driven project. Ms. Grigsby responded that initiative was undertaken in the year after the Tournament experienced poor weather, and was done in an effort to help retain the Tournament in Dublin. It was an acknowledgement by the City of Jack Nicklaus' contributions to Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out there was significant change in the cast of public art projects from 1998 through 2001. Why did that occur? When was it determined that the project casts would increase so dramatically? Ms. Grigsby responded that she is not certain, but she knows that in those years, the funding to the DAC provided by the City increased. Beyond that, she is not certain what prompted that change. Mr. Keenan recalled that there was a request for proposals and a juried process. Presumably, there were monies available and there was a desire to have something bigger and better. This effort began with the Watch House project. Mrs. Boring recalls that for the Nicklaus project, the committee involved came back and requested additional funding. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Keenan stated in regard to the jump from the $70,000 to $120,000 for the Watch House, that funding was available via the 25 percent hotel/motel tax share allocated to the DAC. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the growth in the facilities maintenance budgets for the DAC from 2003 to 2006. Mr. Hahn responded that the 2006 figure reflects the replacement of the 60-year old the roof. In 2003, gutters and windows were replaced. Mr. Keenan stated tonight's meeting was called for the purpose of discussing a number of questions raised by the Council over the past year. The first question is: Should the Art in Public Places Program continue in its present form? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that the program has lapsed in the past few years. In her opinion, there should be an Art in Public Places program. Council Members concurred that the program should continue. Mr. Keenan asked what role the Dublin Arts Council should have in the program as it moves forward? Part of Council's discussion earlier this year was that the financing piece of the program was not working. There appeared to be a significant lack of communication about the expectations of Council and the responsibilities of the Dublin Arts Council. Mrs. Boring responded that she had understood the role, respansibilitiesond expectations were fairly well articulated in the City/DAC agreement. One of the justifications for providing the 25 percent funding was to take Council out of the business of judging art, so it would not become a campaign issue, as did the Field of Corn art project. Ms. Salay recalls that the Field of Corn became a political issue, and it made sense to take City Council out of the arts business. Mr. Keenan stated it is universally accepted that art and politics are not compatible. City Council should not be involved in the actual selection of art pieces or artists. Such involvement could take away artistic license. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated she concurs with the suggestion for a public arts program master plan. The plan should provide criteria for the selection of a site, due to cost and visibility issues, and the parameters for judging what art is acceptable or unacceptable. Mr. Keenan noted that Council has had the final approval for the public art site, as it has always been placed within a public park or public right-of--way. Mr. Hahn agreed, Hating that site recommendations were made by staff, working in conjunction with the DAC. Mr. Keenan stated there could be other opportunities for placement on school property or land owned by large corporations, but that would constitute public funding on private property. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 20Q6 Page 5 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the project she is referring to, "River Play," was intended to be placed on publicly-owned property. The site, however, was later recognized to be inappropriate due to the cast of achieving the level of quality necessary for that location. She supports having criteria for the location of public art, which has been included in the proposed public arts strategy. That should be part of the policy, as well as parameters for judging the art proposals. Due to the fact that City Council would not choose the art piece, yet it would be placed on public property, the program should recognize that certain things that would not be desirable on public property and set careful parameters. Mr. Keenan stated that is likely some model legislation could be reviewed that would set parameters that would not impede artistic license. Ms. Salay commented that she could not imagine staff would accept proposals for anything that could be controversial. Mrs. Boring responded that it has happened in the past; she recalls a specific example. She noted that in the City of San Antonio, they establish the amount within their capital budget, and the artist submits a proposal for a project that can be accomplished for that amount. In one case, the artist met with the area which would be impacted by the capital project, and he worked with the community members to create an appropriate art piece. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the proposal for Dublin would be similar, in terms of having a set amount budgeted for an art piece. Mr. Keenan stated that two parallel discussions were taking place -one was the DAC's "Art in Public Places" program; the second was a proposed City program for "A Percentage for Public Arts." However, these are separate issues. Mrs. Boring stated that it is difficult to separate the two, as they are related. Ms. Salay inquired if in the past when the City decided to participate in a public arts project, did an artist come forward to do a project, or did the City pick a site and then seek an artist? Some art pieces clearly are very appropriate in their locations. How was the location picked? Mr. Hahn responded that DAC and the City worked together to inventory possible sites for a public art piece. A short list was then forwarded to City Council who selected the site. Once the site was selected, the DAC initiated the program and called for artists. There would be a juried process for selection of the art work. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there was a defined budget. Mr. Hahn responded that a budget was established, and the artist would submit a design concept reflective of that budget. Mrs. Boring asked if there were cases where an artist secured additional funding for a particular project. Mr. Hahn responded affirmatively, indicating that the Watch House funding was significantly enhanced with contribution of in-kind services. Therefore, the cost of a piece Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 20Q6 Page 6 of art could and did exceed the initial budget when in-kind services were donated. This was outside of the City of Dublin funding. Ms. Salay asked who would serve an the jury for selection. Mr. Keenan stated that the DAC selected the jury, which included the DAC Executive Director and a committee of experts from the community. Mr. Hahn stated that former artists who had done public arts pieces in Dublin were often included. Mr. Keenan noted that an OSU arts expert has sometimes been involved. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the jury was not comprised of Dublin residents, but professionals to the industry. Mr. Keenan and Mr. Hahn agreed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there were ever any at-large residents on the jury. Mr. Hahn responded there were not, adding that the City had no involvement in the jury selection process. It was all done by the DAC. Mr. Keenan recalled that the jury generally consisted of about 4 or 5 individuals. Mrs. Boring stated that she recalls an occasion where there were four interested artists. They submitted proposals and were subjected to a final selection process. Mr. Hahn stated that a stipend was provided to them to develop their ideas and create a model. Mrs. Boring stated that she recalls the event was open to the public, and the artists could explain their proposal. Council members could attend, of course, and if there were strong objections, they would communicate their opinions to the DAC. Mr. Hahn stated that after that process, the jury selected the artist. Mr. Keenan noted that if something was offensive to the community, it could be dealt with in terms of criteria. Ms. Salay asked Ms. Brautigam to comment about the funding of the public arts program in Loveland, Colorado. Ms. Brautigam stated that Loveland has two means of securing public art. One method is the one percent for the arts program, whereby one percent of capital improvement projects is set aside for artwork. The other means is by donations. She explained that the Loveland High Plains Arts Council holds a sculpture show each year. Over the years, it has grown and its popularity increased. In order to participate, artists agree that they will sell their works at the show and 30 percent of the proceeds will be donated to the Arts Council. The Arts Council then takes those funds and an artist on their Board negotiates with people at the show. Those at the show submit proposed pieces they would like to place in Benson Sculpture Garden, the City park donated for this purpose. The City owns the parkland and the sculptors at the show submit pieces that are juried by the Board of Directors of the Loveland High Plains Arts Council. They establish the amount to be funded, and a Board member-artist negotiates with the jury-selected artists to secure a better price. The proposed art is then submitted to the Visual Arts Commission, and if they Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 7 accept the art, the work is commissioned. The completed art is forwarded to the City, and is placed in the garden and maintained by the City. Mr. Keenan asked about the composition of the Visual Arts Commission. Ms. Brautigam responded it is comprised of community members, mostly general members of the public with an interest in art. This group also selects the pieces for the one percent for the arts program. So they have two functions: a selecting body for the City program and an approving body for donations. She showed photos of sculptures she viewed at the recent sculpture show in Loveland. She commented that the prices negotiated are very reasonable, compared to what Dublin has spent on art. Mr. Reiner inquired if a cash flow was generated through the art shows. Ms. Brautigam stated that in the year 2000, the gross proceeds of the show were $1 million, sa the City netted $300,000. Mr. Reiner noted that it appears that the program started small, drawing in arts participants, and incorporating the City's foundries. The artists who participated were rewarded by having work commissioned. Ms. Brautigam stated that not only is the selected artist's piece placed in the sculpture garden, he/she is also allowed to bring art works to the show for five years without being juried. The concept is to encourage an artist to provide the sculpture at a good price in exchange for being permitted to participate in the shows. That, in turn, would result in additional sales for the artist. Mr. Reiner stated that the Loveland program may not be feasible for Dublin. Ms. Brautigam responded that the Loveland Art Show is in its 25t" year. It takes a lot of time to build up such a program. For instance, the Dublin Irish Festival will soon celebrate its 20t" year. Mr. Reiner asked if the recommendation is to have something similar to a sculpture show in Dublin. Ms. Brautigam stated that part of what Loveland is about is its bronze foundries -it's part of their identity. In the same way, Dublin would have to determine what it wants. However, the Loveland experience shows that good art can be obtained for a lot less money. Dublin has beautiful grounds at the DAC building which could house sculptures. Mrs. Boring stated that Dublin has a beautiful central park which could accommodate art and it could grave each year. It would encourage pedestrian traffic. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that Dublin already has a lot of parks. A variety of public art could be incorporated, such as mosaic benches, which she has seen in other cities. The structure created in Loveland is an interesting one for future discussion. Personally, she would prefer to use the parks Dublin already owns, and that this be built upon, making some pieces pedestrian friendly versus gigantic pieces. The existing ones are fabulous and are appropriate in their locations. But now Dublin needs to move on to other forms that are less expensive, more maintenance free and more pedestrian friendly. She likes Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 8 the concept of Coffman Park for public art, but she would want to incorporate such a program throughout the Dublin parks. Perhaps they could be prioritized in terms of public art and the type appropriate for each park. Mrs. Boring commented that the strategic plan proposed is a worthy idea. There are many examples of public art in cities she has visited that reflect their history. Mr. Reiner commented that he attended an arts fair where the Peoples' Choice Award was a painting of the Coffman Park barn. Although it was not for sale, he would like to see Dublin acquire that piece of art. Mr. Keenan asked if Mr. Guion ar Mr. Pigman could comment on DAC's plans going forward far the Art in Public Places program. Council and the DAC Board are aware that the public expectations have not been met, but it is now important to focus on the future. David Guion, Executive Director, Dublin Arts Council stated that he believes what is important to present to the City Council is that the DAC has been waylaid for a number of years, certainly since he has been involved. Monies have been set aside for Art in Public Places and the DAC has been waiting for the arbitration regarding The River Play to be completed. The DAC is ready to move forward. The monies are budgeted. What is decided in terms of a City one percent for the arts program, and whether that will be separate from the Art in Public Places program is up to the City Council. Mr. Keenan responded that a "One Percent far Public Arts" is a separate item later on the agenda. It would be his expectation that, initially, DAC would have a role in that. Regarding the "Art in Public Places," it was the City's expectation that DAC would set aside monies every year for a project to be completed every other year. As Ms. Brautigam has pointed out, perhaps smaller projects could be done more frequently versus large scale projects every two years. Ms. Brautigam clarified that if there is $80,000 available in the DAC budget, it may be possible to have four pieces of public art to use along bikepaths. Or it could be used for a larger project, such as at Indian Run Falls. There are sa many possibilities, and focusing on one large scale project may not be the best use of the available funds. Mr. Keenan suggested that perhaps specific direction should be given to DAC in terms of criteria, such as maintenance for the art piece. The other recommendations relate to whether the City should retain a portion of the funding. This Council needs to discuss the criteria and give direction to the DAC. The DAC needs to provide information to Council regarding what monies are available and what they can do, moving forward. Vice Mayor Lecklider commented that the maintenance is important in terms of future budgets. He agrees this should be one of the criteria far future evaluation, in view of the needed repairs for existing art pieces. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Reiner stated that a percentage should be put aside into an escrow account for future maintenance. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that the future maintenance far the art pieces should definitely be considered going forward. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification from Mr. Guion. Is he indicating that in the 2005 audited finance statements, under the net assets unrestricted, that $76,000 is available for future Art in Public Places projects? Mr. Guion asked Jeffry Gerberry, Treasurer to address this. Jeffry Gerberry, Treasurer, DAC Board noted that while the DAC would need to maintain a certain cash balance for a defense of purpose to fund operations, they try to set aside at least $15-25,000 to ensure they can meet payroll and monies to operate the Council. Any funds above that are available for use in the Art in Public Places program. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification. Doesn't the DAC have a line item for the Art in Public Places program that maintains a restricted use of those funds? This narrative appears to indicate that the City authorized the DAC to ga from restricted dollar identification for the Art in Public Places program to unrestricted dollars -- perhaps five years ago. She would like an explanation as to why that occurred. As a result, DAC does not show a line item of the total budget set aside for the Art in Public Places program, which should be accumulating until it is used for that purpose. Mr. Gerberry responded that in their accounting standards, restrictions on net assets are placed by the donor. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that the Board can also restrict their funds as appropriate. Mr. Gerberry agreed. The DAC Board did not restrict those funds in the past, and therefore, the financial statements do not designate them separately. As unrestricted funds, however, they would still be available for that use. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if in 2007, the monies were identified appropriately in aline item, what funding would be available? Mr. Keenan stated that he assumes there would be some funding immediately available; the balance would not begin with a $0 amount. He would suggest that the DAC identify what monies are available now and place those in a line item designated for Art in Public Places. City Council would need to know what the available funds are now and what will be allocated each year thereafter. The agreement for the 25 percent funding to DAC provided that the Art in Public Places program was to be covered within the 25 percent allocation to the DAC continuing forward. Mrs. Boring explained that a set amount was not established in order to give DAC flexibility with those funds. The City's expectation was for a public art piece to be done each two years, and DAC was to budget for the art piece within their budget, whatever the cost of the piece. Council gave discretion to the DAC to determine what and how much the piece would cost. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Keenan commented that the focus has changed somewhat. The expectation has changed from a grand scale project to consider other smaller pieces to be utilized throughout the community. He would like to understand the starting point for 2006 --- what is available in funding, as determined by the DAC Board. Council then needs to give direction regarding the expectation of what should be set aside in the DAC budget for this purpose. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that he understands the basics of the financial reports provided by the DAC. However, he noticed that over the past 4-5 years, there has been a significant dip in assets. He asked if there were specific factors involved in this change. Mr. Gerberry responded that he has not reviewed the numbers recently for other than the past two years. He believes that in 2002, there was a deficit of $122,000, due in large part to the Art in Public Places project of "Going, Going, Gone." Beyond that, there were changes the Council was undergoing in moving from the fire station to taking on the lease. In part, their overhead at that point increased. In 2004, there was a surplus of $15,000 and in 2005 there was a surplus of $54,000. This was the result of the Board being more prudent regarding the spending. In addition, there was not an Art in Public Places project during that time. Due to the uncertainty faced with The River Play and how it would be resolved, the program did not continue. There were other changes at the DAC at that time, including art classes, changes in programming to take advantage of the new facility. He is not certain about the specific reasons for a deficit in 2001-2003. Mr. Keenan asked, going forward, what needs to be done? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be helpful for the DAC to come back to Council with an indication of the funds available in 2006 and going forward for the Art in Public Places projects. Ms. Grigsby clarified that under the lease, the DAC funding is based upon 25 percent of the projected amount of bed tax over the term of the lease. If the bed tax revenues exceed the projections, the DAC does not receive more funding. The schedule provides for an incremental increase in projections of hotel/motel tax revenue of 2 to 2.5 percent. Mr. Keenan stated that it was designed to protect the DAC in the event the hotel/motel tax revenues decreased during the term of their lease payments. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the DAC therefore was provided with a level amount of funding and they are protected in the case the hotel/motel tax revenues decrease. So the funding is guaranteed and the budget is predictable, and whatever additional monies DAC needs to meet their obligations would have to come from their fundraising efforts. Recognizing that continuation of the Art in Public Places program was part of the legislation which gave the DAC 25 percent of hotel/motel tax revenues, and the fact that the DAC bylaws state this as a purpose affirms the obligation they have for the Art in Public Places program. Mr. Keenan suggested to Mr. Gerberry that, together with the information about funds available in 2006 for the Art in Public Places program, the DAC should provide their plans Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2046 Page 11 to bring this program back on track. City Council needs to know what the future plans will be, how the program will be accomplished, an indication of the timeline for the next piece, what the judging criteria will be in terms of the size/cost of the next project, and how they view the interaction between the DAC and Council in regard to this program. Perhaps the City could identify some appropriate sites for the public art, and some sites may dictate the scale of the piece needed. Mr. Gerberry summarized that Council is looking for the form and function of what the future program would look like and how it can be operated. Mr. Keenan stated that once Council has the information on funds available as well as all of the other items mentioned, Council can tweak some of the criteria desired and interject them into the process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that would be helpful, and she encouraged Mr. Guion and the Board to -over the next 24 months -have something smaller every six months versus waiting for another two years to accumulate $200,000. This would generate interest and excitement. She would also like to step back somewhat and devise an Art in Public Places strategy or plan, which is what she had understood the community was working toward. Mr. Keenan suggested the Council now focus on the agenda item, Visual Arts strategy and asked Ms. Ott to provide an overview. Ms. Ott stated that at an early stage in researching a percentage for the arts, and in talking with the DAC, the question came up of what is the goal of adding additional funding for the public art in the City. From that, discussion took place regarding the value to the community to have an overall strategy, that looks not only at the Art in Public Places program but if a percentage for the arts program is adopted, whether the City would want to encourage private development to incorporate visual art; if the City wants to have a more active donation acceptance process, either financial resources or actual pieces of art for the community. From that, staff developed an outline of what is anticipated to be included in such a strategy, such as an inventory of public art, sites to showcase public art, what are the different issues associated with the role of the City versus the DAC versus artists who live in town in designing a vision far what the arts should be in Dublin. Also, looking onto some nuts and bolts issues associated with having public art --- how to manage it, maintain it, what are the expectations regarding artist selection and art selection, providing a standing guidance document for staff or the DAC, and whether it incorporates private development where they want to participate in adding visual art to their projects. Staff recommends such a strategy be incorporated into the Parks and Recreation Master Plan; it will fit nicely into the plan. Staff also believes it would be helpful to use that document as a means to communicate City Council and the community's vision about the arts. That type of strategy will move the City forward on the road being expressed tonight. Another consideration is how much public participation to have in one of these designs, and if this is an idea Council wants to entertain, staff can bring back a more detailed strategy. Council can then give direction to staff. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 12 Mr. Keenan asked if the process were initiated, what timeframe would be required for completion to incorporate this in the Master Plan? Mr. Hahn responded it would lengthen the process somewhat, but at the same time, there are some other future land use issues that are not decided that impact the timeframe as well. It will involve more time and work, but it is an appropriate fit. The intent with the Master Plan is to be specific to the degree possible --- not just to have rhetoric about the goals. Mr. Keenan asked about the cost for adding this to the scope of services for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Ms. Ott responded that staff reviewed the budget for the Master Plan. There is approximately $12,000 in the budget not anticipated as needed to accomplish the scope presented earlier this summer. Staff believes a substantial amount of this could be accomplished in house, using the City Manager's office, Parks and Recreation staff, and relying upon the DAC and the Master Plan consultant for their expertise on some issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the June 28 memo indicates it would take until March of 2007 to complete this. The longer it takes is more delay on moving forward, so she would hope it could be completed by that time. Mr. Hahn stated that Council has already identified some of the concerns regarding the Art in Public Places. There is no need to wait far a published Parks and Rec Master Plan to do something. If Council wants to have a separate program of a percentage far the arts, it does not have to be delayed until the master plan and finer details are completed. Ms. Salay stated that overall, long-term, the City is considering folding this arts program into the Parks and Recreation program of the City and it will be part of that versus having its own separate area. Mr. Keenan stated that the plan will address how the percentage for the arts program would fold into this, and will also determine how the DAC piece folds into this. It is all related. Mr. Hahn responded that the main decision is whether Council wants to support a percentage for the arts. The remainder relates to the details of implementation of a program -not the program itself. Similar to the video, someone spoke of their ordinance - they did not state that they created the ordinance in Loveland, but rather they cut and pasted ones from other cities. The intent here would be to "Dublinize" an existing program - not invent a new one. Mr. Keenan asked if the Council wants to recommend that a visual arts strategy be developed and funded within the Master Plan framework listed here. Mrs. Boring noted she has some questions before any recommendation is formulated. Mrs. Boring stated that Council had talked previously of incorporating a requirement for new office developments to have art within the Community Plan. In the past, that had related to other factors, i.e., density, greenspace, etc. Has staff considered ways of Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2046 Page 13 influencing the future Community Plan by incorporating something like the arts program in terms of expectations for new office developments? Ms. Ott responded that staff has only recently began to research this area. Staff has looked at everything from a density bonus to requirements for public art in some communities, if there is a way to balance art and landscaping, and how this is addressed with the Code. The hope with a visual arts strategy is to have an opportunity to explore those. She anticipates that any of these items would have to come back to Council as separate legislation to actually enact. Mrs. Boring stated she is concerned about whether the City could secure more in other ways than it would receive with a percentage for the arts. Ms. Ott stated that staff has discussed informally with Tam Pippin of BBC Consulting if this Council would decide that impact fees are appropriate to help manage increasing costs, is public art one of those things that cannot be maintained at the current level. Ms. Salay stated that Mrs. Boring's point is well taken ---the City does not want to lose sight of the other things important to the City in the development process. Mrs. Boring noted that she supports the idea of having this in the parks master plan. However, if the City had allowed a percentage for the Avery/Muirfield roundabout, for example, there could have been an art piece -even if it were a component such as the guardrail or arches. She doesn't want to lose track of the concept of incorporating art in bridges or other City projects prior to the time the master plan is completed. Ms. Ott stated that Planning staff would consider this type of amenity in a proposed plan similar to the other features or open space. Mr. Keenan stated that a visual arts strategy could include a number of things, including Art in Public Places, a percentage for the arts, private development incorporating art, donations and grants. It is a comprehensive strategy and overview. Ms. Salay noted that this would be under 5C, development incorporating art in the proposed outline for a strategy. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher cautioned Council that the ideas are wonderful, but she does not want to wait two years for this to occur. It is preferable to begin with something, building some excitement and interest in the arts. Council should not wait until a final detailed document is completed. An arts program is already in place and it needs to be on paper, listing what has been done and what can be built upon. Mr. Reiner comented that the idea that Loveland had was very clever, in view of the fact that they had a foundry in place. Some citizens have suggested other concepts, such as Stratford on Avon. Some have made art as a draw to the City, similar to the way Dublin has made the Irish Festival a draw. Perhaps in their research, the DAC people could Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 14 review what would be appropriate in Dublin in a similar vein -something with 20 to 40 year outlook. Mr. Keenan asked if there is an interest in formulating a recommendation for a visual arts strategy, incorporating it into the Master Plan for parks and recreation. It was the consensus of Council to incorporate a visual arts strategy into the Parks and Recreation Master Plan being developed and to fund this from the $10-15,000 available, as Ms. Ott has reported. It was the consensus of Council to allocate the funds within the range of $10-15,000 for this additional scope for the Plan. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he is relieved that Council and the DAC have reached a renewed understanding about the Art in Public Places program. It has been a concern expressed repeatedly. He is hopeful of moving forward with a clear understanding between the DAC and the City that the expectation is that the Art in Public Places will be funded out of the monies provided to the DAC on an annual basis. Mr. Keenan summarized that there are three parts to tonight's discussion: 1 } The Art in Public Places program -the DAC is charged with reporting back to Council on the amount of funds available yet in 2006 in their current budget for public art and the expectation of what they can allocate in 2007 and going forward for public art and how they view the future program. When Council receives this report back, there are other considerations, such as the maintenance of public arts issue. 2} Development of a visual arts strategy, which has been discussed and Council has agreed to move forward within the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation at a cost of $10-15,000; 3} The one percent for the arts proposal. He asked Ms. Ott to address the percentage for the arts proposal. Ms. Ott stated that Council requested previously that staff draft a one percent for the arts ordinance for consideration. Staff reviewed the history of a percentage for the arts program across the country. The percentage for the arts program began in Philadelphia in 1959 and has been done in many communities since that time, tailoring them to community needs. A list of these communities and general description was provided to Council. Draft legislation has been submitted to Council for a program customized for Dublin's unique situation. It sets aside one percent of construction estimates for developing visual art to be in or near that actual construction project. The construction costs are far any project up to $20 million. Certain funds had to be excluded, primarily enterprise funds, as there are limitations from the state on the use of those monies. It was felt it was in the best interests of the City to stay within the General Fund allocations. When looking at the possible opportunities, staff drafted the legislation so that the set aside funds would go to a particular reserve account within the General Fund and that money could be used for these purposes: 1 }acquisition of art -whether commissioned ar juried art; 2) maintenance costs associated with maintaining the City's collection; and 3) some of the personnel and administrative costs associated with the program. Staff anticipates that this program could be large enough that it would take more than the Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 15 current staffing, so staff wanted to have the legislation flexible in order to support that. The other piece of this is the legislation establishes an additional commission through City Council - a Visual Arts Commission. Staff is recommending five members of the Commission: one appointed by the Dublin Arts Council, one representing expert artists, and three at-large members. This would provide a balance of community perspectives on the role art plays in the day to day life in the community. Staff felt that this body in its best form would be partially advisory and partially independent from Council. It would be advisory to Council in selecting siting locations. The Commission would recommend placement of the art in the community for Council's approval. Secondly, it would be authoritative in determining who the artists are and the appropriate works of art for within the community. Through the legislation, they would be made responsible for creating guidelines so it is not arbitrary from piece to piece -creating consistency and providing a level of independent thought separate from the funding component of this for the selection process. Finally, the Visual Arts Commisison would also be responsible for creating display standards -ensuring that pieces of art fit with the environment in which they are being placed. In looking at the impact financially of this program, staff considered three possible percentages of/4, ~/2 and one percent. fiver the next 7 years in the CIP, there are just over $54 million of construction estimates eligible under the criteria. The approximate funding associated with the CIP is listed on the right side of the document. In the proposed CIP for 2007 - 2011, there is approximately $700,000 earmarked for public art in the years 2008 through 2011. Staff did that as a placeholder moving forward, knowing that further discussion would take place with Council to identify appropriate funding. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification that the $700,000 would not be in addition to whatever percentage is approved with the legislation. Ms. Ott responded that there is no funding included for the year 2007 -the Veterans project with its $250,000 funding has been identified as the 2007 item. It is not included in the $700,000 total. Mr. Keenan asked how the Visual Arts Commission would deal with the timing and frequency of art pieces? Some may want to go forward with a $40,000 project or some may want to wait until more monies are accumulated for a project. Ms. Ott responded that the way the legislation is drafted, there are some options. It would be in Council or the Commission's purview to set the threshold. Mr. Keenan stated that if Council identified a need in a park or in Historic Dublin, Council then could direct the Visual Arts Commission to secure such a piece? Ms. Ott confirmed that is correct. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that if this is the case, he would be somewhat sensitive to the three at-large members in terms of maintaining some geographic diversity across the City. Mr. Keenan asked if five members is typical of other Commissions throughout the country. Ms. Ott responded that it ranges from 5-7, sometimes 11-13 - it depends upon the size of the City. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 16 Mr. Keenan agreed with Vice Mayor Lecklider that having representation from all areas of the City would be desirable. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that, practically speaking, the major park locations are already established and Council would play a role in the siting of the public art in any case. He would not want to be in a situation where a region of the City felt they were not considered for public art due to lack of representation on the Commission. Ms. Ott stated that the legislation is written such that Council will make the final decision on the location of the public art. This will ensure distribution throughout the community. Because of the fact that the public art will be tied to capital improvements, and for a time, major projects will be built in one portion of the community for the COIC, staff recognizes there needs to be a balance in the location of the art. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification: is the one percent an additional one percent above what is contained in the CIP? Will the City have to provide the additional funding to accommodate the percentage for the arts? Ms. Grigsby responded that for the next five years, there is $700,000 programmed for this purpose. But going forward, that would have to be taken into account in the City budget. Ms. Brautigam stated that for each capital project, the cost to the City is increased by the percentage for the arts. Mr. Keenan pointed out that every capital project has contingency funds, and the City does not always spend the entire budgeted amount. But he understands that the percentage for the arts would have to be included in the budget. Ms. Grigsby pointed out that for some items, such as roundabouts, perhaps less landscaping or other elements could be done in order to add art to the project. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that three options have been introduced to Council tonight, yet the CIP budget already has monies included for this program. Why was that done when Council had not had deliberations about the proposal? Ms. Brautigam responded that staff was preparing the CIP about six weeks ago and staff was aware of this proposal, although the final details had not been determined. She suggested that Ms. Grigsby earmark some monies in the CIP in case Council should decide to adapt this program. The $700,000 was a conservative estimate. The actual number works out to be $537,000. Mr. Reiner asked about the $700,000 figure and where those monies are "housed." Ms. Brautigam responded they were not anywhere previously. Staff looked at the entire CIP for the next 7 years and plugged numbers in for various years, and that totaled $700,000. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 17 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the number has now been determined to be $537,288 or one percent. Mr. Keenan asked how the Veterans project is incorporated into this number. Ms. Brautigam stated that it is not included. Ms. Ott added that some further analysis is needed regarding the cash flow impact because of having the interchange in the 2007 CIP. That 2007 arts component is included in the $537,288 figure and staff will have to determine whether that can be accommodated in the 2007 capital budget. Mr. McCash stated that his understanding of the legislation is that it would not include any improvements made by a Special Improvement District, so does that mean anything done under a tax increment financing district would not qualify? The City does a lot of projects through TIFs. Ms. Brautigam responded that she believes the TIF projects would qualify. What would be excluded are projects funded out of the water and sewer funds, as they should be expended to benefit the rate payers. In fact, there is some litigation in other parts of the country about this very issue. Mr. McCash stated that the water and sewer funds are not a Special Improvement District such as the TIF projects. Ms. Grigsby stated that she believes the way the TIF legislation has been written provides enough flexibility to allow inclusion of this. Going forward, for TIF districts, the City will review whether the language should be changed to clarify this intent. Mrs. Boring noted she has an overall concern with the program, although she shares the enthusiasm for the public arts program. The City effectively reduced the parkland acquisition funds in order to accommodate the Innovation Center. The City also discussed the importance of providing water and sewer services to those unserved areas of the City in order to provide safe drinking water. If the City can identify one percent to allocate for the public arts, is there a way to find a percentage to set aside for the water and sewer extensions? Ms. Grigsby responded that the allocations in the proposed CIP currently being reviewed were based upon the funds available in each of the years. There is always an option for City Council to make changes to the budget, but at some paint, changes will impact items already programmed. Mr. McCash summarized that the one percent for the arts will impact the City because the percentage for the arts will effectively be taken from the City's general fund and used for the art in conjunction with capital projects. It is not the contractor for the project who has to pay a percentage of the project to fund the artwork. Whether it is one half or one percent, the City is reallocating money as a part of this. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2006 Page 18 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that Mrs. Boring is suggesting that if Council endorsed an allocation of one-half percent of a CIP project for public art, the other one-half percent could be allocated for water and sewer extensions. Mr. McCash clarified that in general, what is being considered is taking a percentage of the construction casts for a capital project and allocating it for public art. This is money from the City's general funds to be allocated far public art. Mrs. Boring stated that is exactly the point. Mr. Keenan stated that Council is therefore making a decision to allocate monies for public art via this program. Mr. Reiner stated this was his original question -what is the source of these monies. Ms. Grigsby responded that for the mast part, the monies are generated from income tax revenues. Mr. Keenan stated that the City has recently made a decision to reallocate some parkland acquisition monies. One could say that the City has done a great job over the past 10-20 years with parkland acquisition, based upon a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch. It is a balancing act, and perhaps it is time to fund some other things. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he has another item to bring up, although it may be more appropriate to consider at another time. He would like to propose the suggestion of setting aside monies for neighborhood associations to do improvements. Some associations have come to the City previously to seek assistance with improvements of their entryways, i.e., Donegal Cliffs, Hemingway,etc. If there were $5-10,000 per year set aside which they could apply for --- monies which would enhance gateway features for neighborhoods --- it would be desirable. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in support of this idea and others which have come up over the past few years, she would advocate not starting with a full one percent for the arts, but instead leaving some flexibility by having a .75 percent for the arts. That would still provide $400,000 plus for the public arts. Mr. Keenan pointed out that a large portion of the $700,000 would come from the 2007 CIP projects needed for the COIC. Mrs. Boring stated that yet another option to consider is requiring new commercial buildings to include art. Mr. Keenan responded that the visual arts strategy can address this item. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated he is hopeful that the development community would react positively to that concept. If there was some momentum going forward, it could result in some competition. By the same token, it is possible they would seek other concessions in return for including public art -less landscaping, greater density, etc. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2046 Page 19 Mr. Keenan asked what is the pleasure of Council in terms of the one percent for the arts proposal. Is there more discussion needed regarding the concept or the criteria? Mr. McCash responded he believes it is definitely something the City wants to do --- whether it is one half or one percent. In reviewing the proposed membership composition for a Commission, he asked about the process for the representative of the Dublin Arts Council. Would this be someone recommended by the DAC and then confirmed by Council? What is the process for choosing someone to represent artists - a recommendation from the Ohio Arts Council, or from the DAC? Ms. Ott responded there are different options available. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she believes the Commission should consist of 7 members, not five. This would provide a representative of each ward within the community. Mr. McCash stated that the at-large representatives could include one from each ward of the City. Mr. Keenan added that the Commission should be reflective of the entire community. Mr. McCash suggested that the members would include one from each of the four wards, an artist, the DAC representative, and a Chamber representative. Mr. Keenan stated that the DAC would recommend their representative to be appointed by Council, and the DAC could provide recommendations on artists - 3-4 candidates. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that the Dublin Area Art League does exist and has many talented local artists involved. Perhaps they could be encouraged to apply for the ward representative positions in their area. Mr. Keenan asked if Council is in agreement with the $200,000 cap per project. Ms. Salay pointed out that while Council has a sense that the community strongly supports the arts, before Council gets too far along with this concept of spending one percent of the capital projects on public art, she would be interested in hearing from the community at large. She does not believe Council is prepared to make a final decision tonight, absent that input. Mr. Keenan agreed that more formal draft legislation would be needed before moving forward. Ms. Brautigam stated that she would want the Law Director's office to review this and staff could bring it back to Council for first reading in September. Finance Committee of the Whole August 14, 2046 Page 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she has concerns with the comment that some of the monies would be used for staffing. She believes the City has gone dawn the wrong path in using hotel/motel tax revenues to fund the Community Relations department operations. She would hope that would not be the case with this program. Council expects this allocation to be used to purchase art and not to fund existing or additional staff. Noting this is her personal opinion, she believes the City has gravitated over time, using money differently that it was originally anticipated to be used. That has therefore limited what the City has then been able to do with the hotel/motel tax revenues. Ms. Brautigam acknowledged that is certainly a policy decision. The reason the language is included is that many cities do not want not to spend general fundlincome tax revenues on additional staff, but believe that the art program should cover those expenses. If this Council chooses not to do sa, that language can be eliminated. Mr. McCash clarified that only a certain portion of the hotel/motel tax revenues are allocated for the salaries for the staffing for special events. The other portion is paid out of the income tax revenues or General Fund. Mr. Keenan summarized that Council has provided direction regarding: (1 } the follow-up from the Dublin Arts Council regarding their funds available in 2006 and going forward for the Art in Public Places program; (2} the visual arts strategy, which will be accommodated in the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation; and (3} the percentage for the arts program, for which draft legislation will be fine-tuned and brought to Council in September for first reading. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification. Her understanding, based on tonight's discussion is that Council will not determine the percentage to be allocated for the arts until more detail has been provided. Mr. Keenan agreed, noting that discussion will take place at the two readings of the legislation. All options are still being considered. Mr. Keenan thanked staff and the Dublin Arts Council representatives in attendance. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Clerk of Council