Loading...
Minutes 09-22-04PlZNUTES OF THE REGULAR 14EETZNG OF THE ARTS COf4M~SS~ON BOARD HELD AT THE SCHOOLHOUSE CHILDREN'S I~IUSEUM, 129 EAST OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON I~IONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 AT 6:30 P.14. Present: Debby Coles-Dobay, Chair Richard Beaulieu, Vice Chair Suzette Urs Richard Brightfield Raymond Marcinkoski Kimberlee McGow Michael McGoey, Alternate Anita Remer Arleen Dennison, Board Liaison Absent Linda Sage, Alternate Call to Order Chair Debbie Coles-Dobay called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. Document Review The Board planned to review various documents including the funding document, the legal document, a call to artists and judging document, and the logistics document. The findings of the subcommittee reviews were shared with the Board members, who were asked to read them and come to this meeting prepared to discuss them. It was hoped that the discussion would lead to consensus on recommendations to the City Commission. Funding Document The Arts Commission envisions an aggressive 3-5 year funding program to generate capital to begin an Art in Public Places program parallel to the current rapid growth of the City. A Public Art Fee from developers would be recommended. The recommendation was to have an assessment equal to 1/2% of construction value of improvements to real property in the City of Boynton Beach, to be collected by the Building Department at the time of permit issuance. In order to recommend a percentage of construction value of improvements to be dedicated to the Public Art Fee, it was necessary to quantify the dollar amount in question. To this end, Chair Coles-Dobay selected projects that would have building Meeting Minutes Arts Commission Boynton Beach, Florida September 22, 2004 permits issued after 3anuary 2005 for up to five years and the total came to $274M. Divided over three years it would be $75-100M/year; divided over five years, it would be $50M/year. ]~f the Board used a percentage of 1/2% as the amount a developer would have to dedicate to the Arts, and Chair Coles-Dobay personally recommended this, over three years the budget for the Arts Commission would be $3.75M per year and over five years, it would be $2.25M. A comment was made that 1/2% for the Public Art Fee sounded like the Arts Commission was not serious, and the speaker preferred a fee of 1%. The question arose as to what would happen to money collected if it were not spent during construction. The consensus was that it would go into the Public Art Fund for use as the Arts Commission saw fit. The art created within a project did not have to equal the sum of the developer's contribution. The recommendation, though, was that 70% of the Fee collected would go to construction costs of major capital improvement projects dedicated to public art and 30% would go for various expenses. If the Arts Commission got a bargain on art, the rest would go back to the Fund. A comment was made that the City of San Diego, California had recently instituted a 5% Public Art Fee. The question of asking for a percentage of a project or working with developers to exchange art for incentives was discussed. Chair Coles-Dobay stated that after discussing this with various people in the City, including Mr. Hutchinson, and comparing the art policies of other municipalities, she arrived at the Public Art Fee as the best funding choice. There was no guarantee from the CRA that incentives would be spent towards art or that those funds would actually be there. The need for a sunset clause was mentioned so that at some point in the future, the collection of the Public Art Fee would cease, l~t was hoped that the program would be self-funding by that point in time. If a developer were charged the Public Art Fee up front and then wanted to pay for his own art, should the Fee be refunded? In some municipalities, the money would be refunded. There was no consensus on this. Some felt that the Board would lose control over the quality of art to be presented. On the other hand, the Board would be regulating the quality through the review process and criteria. This was discussed as an alternative to the Public Art Fee. Some felt that the Public Art Fee had to be charged anyway and if the developer did not want art in his project, the money would just go to the Arts Fund. 2 Meeting Minutes Arts Commission Boynton Beach, Florida September 22, 2004 Ms. Dennison commented that the developer was getting a building permit based on the Arts Commission's criteria in the standard review process. She said that the City wanted art in every project, so apparently, there was no alternative. The comment was made that art could be benches, lighting, or some other kind of functional art also. When looked at in that light, art could be integrated into every project. A consensus seemed to be reached on taking out the statement under Art in Project Alternative, "If the developer/owner constructing or reconstructing a commercial structure does not wish to have art in their project, they must still pay the City the Public Art Fee as stated above." Standard Project Review Process - Planning & Zoning Department The standard review process was discussed. The Arts Commission will join this review process. It will come up with some quantifiable standards for Art that can be answered by the developer during the review process. The standards or criteria would definitely set forth what the Arts Commission wanted to see. At an earlier meeting, Mr. Greene suggested that the Arts Commission should go to the pre-application review meeting, which precedes the standard project review process. This would give the Arts Commission members an opportunity to learn about what the project was and explore arts ideas with the developer. Sources of Art Donations from wealthy patrons of the arts would be one source. Donations of art could come from the County, the State, other States, or internationally. Kansas City has a 20-acre sculpture park where citizens who wanted to get a tax break had donated almost all the pieces. Legal Recommendation Document Ms. McGow presented this document. The issue of how to pay for art was discussed. One of the alternatives was to pay 50% to the artist up front, 25% at fabrication prior to shipping, and 25% on installation. In regard to artists' rights, the maintenance of public artworks would be the responsibility of the City. The rest of this paragraph should be deleted. The point was made that it should be the artist's responsibility to notify the City of any changes of address. The scope of services was discussed and oversight by the Arts Commission. A call to artists would be put out for a certain type of piece in a certain place. Meeting Minutes Arts Commission Boynton Beach, Florida September 22, 2004 The Arts Commission would review all the work that came irli A finalist would be chosen from the contestants and a maquette could be put in place on site. The scope of work would include the placement of the piece of art, how it was going to be secured, installed, and the plaque that would go with it. This would all be covered in the cost of the project and it would be done on a project-by-project basis. Tn the event of termination of contract, the phrase "...developer shall reimburse the artist for work performed and expenses incurred prior to the termination date..." was to be deleted. The members decided to meet as soon as possible so that they could finish the document review, starting with a project flow chart (Arleen Dennison), call to artists, and anything not covered at this meeting. The hope was that consensus can be reached and that the Arts Commission could make firm recommendations to the City Commission. III. Next Meeting: October 6, 2004 at 6:30 p.m., at the Schoolhouse Children's Museum IV. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (100104) 4