CC Minutes - 08/11/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

private artists, and the private business sector including the Chamber of Commerce. 2. That respondents use predominantly privately owned walls for the production of art, and manage the program through the nonprofit sector. 3. That the program be a pilot program for one year only and that an evaluation component be included. The evaluation should include (but not be limited to) an examination of unauthorized tagging/vandalism in areas near the walls, before and after the program. During the year, there should be periodic monitoring and updates to the council. Ms. Nathanson said she could not support the motion for the following reasons: $25,000 is too much money for a program that has not been researched more thoroughly, especially for a new program; these type of projects should go through the Budget Committee to ensure consistency with the council's goals; research estimates that there are 150 to 250 individuals doing graffiti in this community and she believed the vast majority of the perpetrators were not artists; and there must be other ways to provide the artistic opportunity. Mr. Meisner said he also initially opposed the project for the reasons enumerated by Ms. Nathanson but he had a change of heart. He believed the motion will have an impact on the problem, adding that he actually talked to teens who thought this was an intriguing approach. Mr. Meisner said this was a creative alternative for graffiti abatement. He agreed that this should be a part of the regular budget cycle and said he proposed the council updates. Ms. Taylor said the only way she could support the graffiti abatement ordinance was if this was approved as well. She added that the City should provide opportunities for wall art. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion by deleting the phrase "predominantly privately owned" in section 2 of the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fart noted that there was no framework for the RFP and he assumed the bids would propose a model. He wondered what the level of staff involvement would be beyond the $25,000. City Manager Jim Johnson said he would likely assign the project to the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and minimize staff time by limiting it to monitoring the program. Mr. Fart said the input he has received, mainly from business owners, was that in communities where such a program was implemented, the artwork was created beyond the designated walls. He said he hoped the bidders would address that issue. Addressing a follow-up question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Johnson said it would be unusual for bids to be referred to the council but staff could refer the criteria. Mr. Farr said he would support the motion. Mr. Pap~ said there needed to be more creative ways of dealing with the problem. He recalled the council's approval recently of a matching grant community arts program and said he could not support the proposal at this funding level. Mr. Johnson said staffwas interested in the council's intent; specifically, should the art be limited to spray- can art? Mayor Torrey suggested deleting the phrase "spray can" in the motion, explaining that his intent was not exclude that medium. He also suggested quarterly review of the program, with the fund dispersal on a quarterly basis as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m.