Loading...
12.19.18 BAC Minutes CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND CON IISSIONS MEETING AMUTES Name of Board/Commission: Boulder Arts Commission Date of Meeting:December 19,2018 at the Main Boulder Public Library,1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact information preparing summary: Celia Seaton,303-441-3206 Commission members present: Mark Villarreal,Felicia Furman,Kathleen McCormick,Devin Hughes,Erica Joos Commission members absent: none Ubrary staff present: Matt Chasansky,Office of Arts&Culture Manager Lauren Click,Coordinator,Grants Mary Haan,Coordinator,Programs for Artists David Farnan,Director Celia Seaton,Administrative Specialist City staff present: None Members of the public present:Ken Wilson(Museum of Boulder),Shelly Benford(Chautauqua Association)and Sarah Braveman(BMoCA) Type of Meeting: Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to order and approval of agenda [0:00:15 Audio min.] The meeting was called to order. Villarreal asked the group for any addendums or changes to the agenda. Items 4A and 4B were tabled for a future meeting in January. Furman moved to approve the amended agenda. McCormick seconded,and all were in favor. Agenda Item 2: Review of Minutes [0:01:28 Audio min.] Item 2A,Approval/Review of November 2018 Meeting Minutes Villarreal asked the commission for changes or addendums regarding these minutes. McCormick noted needed edit from use of her first name in the Commission Business section. McCormick moved to approve the November minutes as amended,Villarreal seconded,and the motion was unanimously approved. Agenda Item 3:Public comment [0.02.53 Audio min.] Ken Nilson,president of the board of trustees at the Museum of Boulder(MoB),referenced his comments from the meeting two months prior regarding larger organization funding. Several board members at the MoB lobbied for additional funding with individual members of City Council,spurring the creation of additional$250,000 in funding to support large organizations. Knowing that commission will be looking at how they will spend these dollars over the next couple months, he expressed his hope that they"will keep in mind the means of the various large organizations"as some do"struggle"to meet needs financially. Shelly Benford,executive director of the Chautauqua Association,reiterated and supported Ken Wilson's comments. Noted expensive maintenance of their venue. Agenda Item 4:Public Art Program—tabled for future meeting N/A Agenda Item 5: Grant Program [0.07.00 Audio min.] A. ACTION:Grant Reports 1. Cynthia Sliker,Alliance of Artists Communities Annual Conference in Philadelphia,PA,$1,000 2. Greater Boulder Youth Orchestras,Midori Project,$3,000 3. Leah Quiller,American Music Therapy Association National Conference in Dallas,TX,$1,000 4. Patti Bonnet,We're Still Here:Boulder's Original Natives,$5,000 These reports impressed McCormick. Within the We're Still Here report,she was dismayed to read that the grants process had an onerous impact. She would like to gain clarification from Bonnet on whether this was due to permit procedures with the City,or in fact involved elements of the grants process. Group asked staff to touch base with Bonnet to clarify these issues to be sure that any barriers to grant application be lessened,possible 2019 retreat topic. Furman made a motion to approve the reports,McCormick seconded,and all were in favor. B. DISCUSSION:Update on the Structure of 2019 One-time Grant for Venues/Facilities—Chasansky,providing brief history,referenced October's commission discussion addressing City Council's parameters for this novel funding. Farnan and Chasansky spoke with City Council further about this,realizing that the topic warranted further exploration. While staff had initially proposed a split in funding(to include rental assistance),after vulnerabilities were pointed out(and understanding that this was not the grant's purpose per City Council),it now proposed using the full$250,000 for the facilities use grant. Organizations with increased burdens and potential community impact were discussed. Three main criteria were initially proposed: 1)to alleviate the increase in costs to renters, 2)to help keep the cost to audiences low,and 3)ease capital costs. Further conversation with organizations regarding lowered rent raised some"red flags"—except for The Dairy and Nomad,most do not focus on the leasing of their space(instead,using it themselves). Efforts at encouraging collaboration may serve as a clearer goal with this new funding—"how do we push for these larger groups to work with smaller ones?" Villarreal noted that in his observation of the City Council discussion,the focus lit upon extra programming for the community,increasing flexibility and events. Villarreal expressed desire to follow City Council guidance in designing this grant since he feels this is a"test"whose success may lead to future funding. Villarreal clarified that he feels this test will discern how well the community will benefit. McCormick,having listened to the council meeting,spoke to her understanding that the funding was intended as program specific. Noted Council Member Carlyle's concern that some groups that don't own facilities will not benefit(e.g.,BIFF). Commission asked if council has an already fixed idea of which organizations should be funded and Farnan replied no. In his conversation with Council Member Yates,he heard desire for an"open"competition. Joos asked staff to recall the previously discussed parameters of applicants needing to be Boulder-based nonprofits with a certain type of facility (no small private facilities,no CU facilities). Joos recalled the discomfort around the qualifications put on this funding. Hughes noted the clarification he has since gained from speaking with Council Member Yates. McCormick wondered about BIFF and the Boulder Philharmonic who both must pay large rental fees for their space;she believes this aligns with Council Member Carlisle's concern. Suggestion raised to honor the organizations that offer the most benefit to the community. Joos:"so subjective." Furman noted that she thinks council intends to support dealing with the"hardware"of a facility(e.g.,fixing a toilet). Farnan confirmed that the funding is focused solely on facility-based groups. Need to drill down on what kind of service/discounts/free space they offer the community. Chasansky asked the group to consider how funding could enhance programming. McCormick emphasized outreach efforts of some larger facilities-based orgs—some are private and some public. Villarreal asked about timeframe for a"beta version"-Chasansky hopes to bring this to the January meeting. Joos noted the accountability piece of having money stay in Boulder and having a piece where organizations can explain who is presenting in their space—are majority local? McCormick doesn't agree with this;she expressed the need to invite outside art into our"insulated"community. Joos agreed with McCormick's thought and feels there are a lot of venues that serve this purpose. Could serve not as hard criteria,but rather as exploration of what percentage deals with Boulder-based groups and artists. Panel can then judge balance. Chasansky suggested a criterion for organizations that want to begin engaging locally. Joos-if primarily outsourcing or insourcing,how will this funding change that? McCormick asked whether the number of grants given can be undetermined until all applications are received. Staff:yes,though we will then have to look at partial funding for those requesting the entire amount. Hughes noted his preference for as few restrictions as possible as well as a set number of grant awards and set amount of grant funding. Farnan does not encourage set amounts. With indeterminate amounts it will have to be a two-step process,if only to check back in with the group. Hughes questioned number eligible-Chasansky guessed 11. Chasansky summarized highlights of discussed criteria:how funding would be used to emphasize collaboration, better provide community programming,increase engagement with Boulder,and allow less barriers to access. Villarreal desired corralling to arts and culture,"we can worry about science when they give us[that funding]". Hughes noted his own inclination to accept a compelling project that involves science integrating with art. Joos reminded the group of the important voices heard at the cultural summit from those who can not meet up with City Council for various reasons and urge for better communication and assistance between organizations. McCormick posed a potential question:"how are you building community within the sphere of arts and culture?" Farnan:"the reality is that this is all new money,"it will not decrease the amount given out otherwise. Joos reinforced her desire to unite as opposed to"pit"arts organizations against each other. Agenda Item 6: Commission Business [1.04.58 Audio min.] A. DISCUSSION:Ideas for Changes in Application and CommentlScoring Process-McCormick has heard some artists'discomfort about having their scores and comments/questions online,particularly as the application is not online to provide"proper context." McCormick:some large organizations would feel uncomfortable with having financial info online and thus putting applications online would be an imperfect solution-"sounds like it is all or nothing." Fl1Tnian asked about the feasibility ofposting online information only visible to the artist him or herself. Click noted that this would take some additional staff hours for each grant cycle to send individually as opposed to in one bulk missive. Hughes favors full transparency,feeling that public funding calls for public transparency. Furman agreed,and does not want to overburden staff. Villarreal also has no interest in adding to staff workload and agreed with Hughes'sentiments. Joos noted that McCormick could follow up with these people to see what they would need to move forward. McCormick suggested it as possible retreat topic. Panel training could help alleviate some of these concerns with education re:proper phrasing and methodology in comment/query. B. DISCUSSION:Ideas for changes in criteria for applicants who have an outstanding grant. McCormick has before expressed this unease—she feels an"artist should finish something before they ask for... another piece of the pie." Would like a way to integrate this into the selection process. Click reminded all that commission will receive a list of pending reports when receiving applications. Encouragement points can be affected by an outstanding late report,and discussion can be made to argue this point among the panel. McCormick suggested putting a limit on the extensions. Furman suggested providing benefit of the doubt and recalled that monthly reports will touch base. Chasansky offered providing commissioners with the extension requests with reasoning into the commission packets,group agreed that this would be informative. Chasanasky:another good retreat topic for 2019. Farnan: this is not any issue with the grants process,but more a need to"call out"the organization in question. Further discussion clarified that the issue had arisen with Ecoarts. McCormick asked that if there is another extension request from this group,they should come to a commission meeting. Chasansky—requests will go in'the packet and"if you see someone you would like to discuss the issue with,"staff can request that they come to a meeting. C. DISCUSSION:City Council discussions of Opportunity Zones. Villarreal noted his understanding that affordable housing and affordable office space are the driving forces;he also noticed a"subtle change"where now studios are included in the language. He encouraged the Arts Commission and artists in the community to look into these federal opportunity zones. Villarreal noted the importance of artistic visibility and offered to attend an upcoming City Council meeting. Chasansky:the next step will involve planning documents for the opportunity zones through community engagement—he will relay forthcoming information to Villarreal. Agenda Item 7:Matters from Staff [1.42.40 Audio min.] A. DISCUSSION:Questions About the Manager's Memo-Chasansky welcomed questions;there were none. B. DISCUSSION:CVB Board Position—Chasansky has been sitting on this board which is typically held by a commissioner. CVB intends to have future advocacy role with City Council,who recently cut their funding. Their robust program includes assigning meetings and conventions,marketing Boulder for tourism,and community engagement. When asked if anyone on the commission desires this role,Joos expressed interest;she and Chasansky will discuss this opportunity further. Agenda Item 8:Adjournment [1.50.00 Audio min.] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time,the meeting was adjourned. Date,time,and location of next meeting: The next Boulder Arts Commission meeting will be at 6 p.m.on Wednesday,January 16,2019,in the Boulder Creek Room at the Main Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave.,Boulder,CO 80302. APPROVED BY: ATTESTED: Board Chau V Board Secretary Date Date