Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPAAC Packet 10-04-18 Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, October 4, 2018 3:30 PM Helling Lobby Conference Room 410 E Washington St AGENDA Call to order Public discussion of any item not on the agenda Consideration of minutes of the September 6, 2018 meeting Review of Submissions to RFQ for City Hall Art Project (to be distributed early next week) Committee announcements or Committee reports Staff reports Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this program/event, please contact Marcia Bollinger, Neighborhood and Development Services at 319-356-5237 or marcia- bollinger@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. MINUTES PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 – 3:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM – CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Erin Fitzgerald, Wendy Brown, Steve Miller, Vero Rose Smith, Brett Zimmerman (for Ron Knoche), Juli Seydell Johnson NOT PRESENT: Tam Bodkin Bryk STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Bollinger, Morgan Musselman, Anne Russett PUBLIC PRESENT: Kay Colangelo, Thomas Agran, Rachel Arnone and art students RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL By a unanimous vote, the Public Art Advisory Committee recommend adoption of the proposed amendment to 14-2G-7G-6 of the Iowa City Code by the Iowa City City Council as presented by Anne Russett. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Juli Seydell Johnson temporarily substituted as chair for this meeting, as Erin Fitzgerald arrived late and Tam Bodkin Bryk was not in attendance. Thomas Agran commented that he read the minutes of the August Committee meeting and wanted to speak on the idea of a resident artist program like that of St. Paul, MN which was mentioned in the FY19 fund allocation discussion. Agran stated that he had misunderstood a fundamental tenant of St. Paul’s program but had recently met the latest St. Paul City Artist at the Iowa Arts Summit which took place in August. Agran said he thinks it is important to clarify the details of the program to the Committee because he believes a City Artist program would be perfect for Iowa City. Agran stated that St. Paul’s version of the program is not a traditional artist- in-residence program but rather a program that arranges for an artist to be a member of City staff so the City can utilize their skill to address structural problems at a municipal level, rather than someone who paints murals and creates other pieces of art around the city, though that may be a way the City Artist and the City decide to solve a problem. Agran stated that the most recent St. Paul City Artist developed a program around gaining public input and that the artist had mentioned to him that the community members who typically attend public input meetings are not necessarily the audience who would be using the park, for example, so she reached out to specific areas and created “pop-up” public input meetings where she would provide popsicles for attendees. Agran noted that this project was a result of the City arranging for an artist to look at a problem and coming up with a creative solution as opposed to following the typical bureaucratic process. Agran mentioned another project that the City Artist had arranged where she placed poetry on the sidewalks. Rather than creating an expensive project like Iowa City’s Literary Walk, the artist developed a program where, anytime the City was repaving a sidewalk, a poem written by someone in St. Paul was imprinted on one of those squares as a way of getting art into all parts of the city at very little cost. Agran mentioned that St. Paul’s Public Art Program does not fund the Preliminary City Artist because it is a staff position within the City government that is funded by a grant unrelated to the Public Art Program. Given his new understanding of the program, Agran thinks it would be a great project for Iowa City to implement and he wanted to clarify the specifics of the St. Paul City Artist program so the idea could be revisited by the Committee as a potential future project. Vero Rose Smith mentioned that due to her personal experience as someone who receives funding in intervals, not through a grant but through external funding to the institution at which she is currently housed, she knows that operating in such a way is difficult, particularly for longitudinal projects, such as city-level projects. Rose Smith stated that the ideal program would be funded by the City or otherwise funded in a manner that is not dependent on annual or bi-annual renewals of a stipend as the uncertainty of a grant-based program is difficult to work with both in terms of collaboration with others and on an individual level. Agran mentioned that he asked the City Artist what the tenure of the position was, to which she replied that the position is not tenured, as it comes with the expectation that the City Artist, like the Parks Director for example, is expected to be available to solve problems and a predetermined residency period does not allow for that kind of flexibility. Agran stated that the most recent St. Paul City Artist worked for the City for six years and the Artist before her worked t here for about twelve years, so the position is treated like any other city government position, with the understanding that the City Artist’s time is not restricted as they work to do something meaningful for the city. Steve Miller asked if implementing a City Artist program is something that falls within the Public Art Action Committee’s capabilities. Marcia Bollinger stated that the Committee could make the recommendation to the City Council during the budget process, although it would likely involve a certain significant of research before that recommendation is given to assess how critical the position is and what the priorities are. There was no further public discussion of items not on the agenda. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2, 2018 MEETING Miller moved to approve the minutes of the August 2, 2018 meeting. Wendy Brown seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Fitzgerald arrived at 3:45 p.m. REVIEW OF SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH ART PROPOSAL FOR THE LONGFELLOW TUNNEL Rachel Arnone and two of her eight-grade art students from Southeast Junior High, Maya and Coy, presented their designs for the mural that will be completed in the Longfellow Pedestrian Tunnel. Arnone stated that the two designs presented to the Committee today were voted upon by the class and were chosen as the winning designs, and that each design would take up one of the tunnel’s walls and they would extend slightly beyond of the tunnel so that they would be visible to those nearby. Arnone stated that the two designs consist of similar colors. Miller asked if the class chose the designs so they would complement each other when voting. Arnone responded that no, the class just votes on the top two designs, and it has worked out in the past couple of years that the designs complement each other. Maya stated that the inspirations for her design were trees, which she enjoys drawing, and photos of octopi that inspired the tendrils that surround the tree. Coy stated that the rainbow component featured in her design symbolizes equality. Fitzgerald asked if they were planning to paint the ceiling of the tunnel again. Arnone replied that they did not paint it last year but that they could this year if they would have ladders provided by the Parks Department to do so. Bollinger asked if Parks Department had primed the ceiling area last year. Arnone responded that she and the students primed the far interior of the tunnel last year because the tunnel was too wet for the Parks Department to prime. It turned out to be still so wet when the students primed that in some areas the primer had fallen off the wall. Arnone stated that they had spray painted when the primer was wet because it would not dry. Bollinger stated that this is the reason the project is taking place in the fall, because it was thought the students will be able to paint in drier conditions in the fall rather than spring. Marcia asked Arnone when they planned to start the project. Arnone stated that she plans to paint the tunnel in late September or early October because the students need to make stencils for Coy’s design and they need to discuss how to complete Maya’s design, which will require a more freehand use of spray paint. Marcia asked the students how they would like to extend their designs outside of the tunnel. Maya said she will probably extend the octopus- inspired tendrils and Coy will likely extend the rainbow. Seydell Johnson motioned to approve the designs as presented for the Longfellow Tunnel. Rose Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE RELATED TO PUBLIC ART IN- LIEU FEES IN RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS City of Iowa City Senior Planner Anne Russett, who drafted the proposed amendment, was in attendance for this portion of the meeting so the Committee could ask her any questions they might have regarding this change in the zoning code. Russett explained that the amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Public Art In-Lieu Fees in Riverfront Crossings would change the requirement that public art funds received for height bonuses be spent in the same Riverfront Crossing Subdistrict as the subject property that contributed said funds to the funds being able to be spent within the Riverfront Crossings district in general. The specific language is as follows: “Funds contributed shall be used by the City for public art within the Riverfront Crossings Subdistricts where the subject building is located as approved by the Public Art Committee” would be changed to “Funds contributed shall be used by the City for public art within the Riverfront Crossings District as approved by the Public Art committee.” Brown asked how many subdistricts are within the Riverfront Crossings district. Russett replied that there are eight subdistricts and that the park area is not designated as a subdistrict but as public open space. Bollinger stated that the amendment does a lot for the flexibility of locating public art anywhere within the Riverfront Crossings District. There would be $73,000 coming from this one project which the Committee hopes to use for the relocation of the Kenneth Snelson sculpture to the Riverfront Crossings district. Fitzgerald asked for clarification on whether it costs $73,000 to move that sculpture. Russett responded that the $73,000 is what the City received from a developer who decided to contribute 1% of their costs to the City’s Public Art Program, meaning that the Committee has $73,000 available to them to be used within the Riverfront Crossings District. Seydell Johnson stated that these funds will be used for the relocation of the Snelson sculpture, involving engineering and consultant fees and rehabilitation of the sculpture. Miller asked Russett if she could see any potential negative outcomes coming from this change to the zoning code, such as who has the choice regarding where public art is placed. Russett replied that the City and the Committee still have the authority to decide where the art is placed, because any funds that are spent need to be reviewed by the Committee, and that is true for this project and all future projects. Agran asked if the 1% development bonus program was in effect for only the Riverfront Crossings District or for other districts within Iowa City. Russett stated that was correct. Agran asked if that development bonus in Riverfront Crossings was recommended in the original development of the district or if it was added later. Russett responded that the public art bonus was included in the form-based code from the beginning because when the form-based code for the district was originally adopted it included multiple bonus provisions. Rose Smith asked if the developer would be publicly acknowledged for participating in the program to incentivize other developers to potentially participate. Bollinger responded that the public is likely unaware of this portion of the code, and there isn’t a provision in place that gives public recognition of participating developers, but that arranging that recognition is possible. Bollinger asked if the developers could install art that the developer personally commissions. Russett responded that the 1% goes directly to the fund, but that she supposes the developers could commission their own art to be installed if they desired, though there is not much incentive to do so. Miller asked for clarification on whether the 1% goes directly to the City’s Public Art Program fund. Russett responded that this is the case, and the funds are to be spent within that district only. Rose Smith stated that that seemed liked something worth raising awareness about. Agran stated that one thing to consider as developments occur and developers decide to give 1% is, when you tie the 1% development bonus to the district in which these developments are being built, especially when a significant increase in public art funding occurs, to ask who that public art funding ultimately serves because development is occurring in places with large concentrations of wealth and funneling that funding back into that one area will prevent it from being spread to the other areas of the city that are underserved or under-resourced. Agran mentioned that Seattle divorced their 1% program from the geography and as a result, when the city grows, the whole city grows. Agran stated that as the Committee thinks about their advocacy role, they should consider how public art funding that comes from these developments can be used to benefit the whole community. Russett said that they would have to work with the City Attorney’s office on that if changes are potentially going to be made in that direction. Russett stated that Washington state’s rules are different than the state of Iowa’s rules and typically when we ask for an in-lieu fee for something, such as a bonus or an open space, it needs to be tied to a specific area. Russett stated that they do have an in-lieu fee for open space and that there are open-space districts which could be potentially used as a model for public art. Seydell Johnson stated that those districts operate in a similarly limiting way, that wherever the money comes in, it must be spent within those districts to benefit the residents of those areas. Seydell Johnson stated that they previously tried to expand neighborhood open space in-lieu fees to reach more of the city and it wasn’t possible with current Iowa law. Fitzgerald stated that the Committee should make a mental note as to where they are spending their dollars and they should make their funding more strategic and effective, rather than spending additional funds where there is already funding. Miller moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Riverfront Crossings code related to the public art fees in-lieu as presented by Anne Russett. Seydell Johnson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR REPORTS: There were no committee announcements or reports. STAFF REPORTS: Bollinger stated that the RFQ for the City Hall Public Art piece went out September 5, and that the deadline is the 28th of September. Bollinger stated that the matching fund grants application is in the process of being posted online and that, once the application is posted, a press release will be distributed. Bollinger stated that the next deadline for the matching fund grants application is October 19th. Bollinger also stated that they are finalizing agreements with the selected artist for the Farmers’ Market placemaking project. Bollinger stated that Cara Briggs Farmer’s shipment of aluminum has been held up, so progress on the Chadek Green Placemaking Project has been momentarily stalled, but will begin again soon once the aluminum has arrived and that the installation should be finalized at the end of October. Fitzgerald asked if there was any damage to the Riverfront Crossings Park from the recent storm. Seydell Johnson replied that there were many trees down throughout the city, but that there wasn’t any damage to that specific park. Miller asked if the budget had been officially finalized. Bollinger stated that it has been finalized. The Committee reviewed the allocation of funds as arranged in the August meeting. Bollinger asked the Committee if they had officially decided to work with Cara Briggs Farmer on future community garden placemaking project at Creekside. The Committee agreed to work with Cara Briggs Farmer on future placemaking projects in neighborhood parks that have community gardens. Fitzgerald asked what the process of finding a new chair to replace her would be and when that process would begin. Bollinger responded that the official process of designating a new chair would not occur until January, and that Tam Bodkin Bryk would be the interim chair following Fitzgerald’s vacancy. Fitzgerald stated that she will attend her last committee meeting in October. ADJOURNMENT: Seydell Johnson moved to adjourn. Miller seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned 4:25 p.m. Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2018 Name Term Expires 11/2 1/4 2/1 4/5 5/3 6/7 7/12 8/2 9/6 Bodkin Bryk, Tam 01/01/19 x O/E x x x x x x O/E Brown, Wendy 01/01/20 O/E x x x x x x x x Erin Fitzgerald 01/01/20 x x x x x x x x x Knoche, Ron x x x x x x x x x Seydell- Johnson, Juli x x x x x x x x x Vero Rose Smith 01/01/21 -- x O/E x x O/E x O/E x Steve Miller 02/01/21 -- -- x x x O/E x x x Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member