Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ARTAB_09.17.2008Minutes of the Meeting of the Arts and Culture Board City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Present: Charles Aguillon, Penny Plueckhahn, Georgene Richaud, Ruth Roberts, Mandy Solin Absent: Addie Busfield Jane Paden Staff Present: Eric Lashley, Library Director; Judy Fabry, Library Administrative Assistant A. Call to order by Chair Ruth Roberts at 2:02 p.m. B. Announcements from the Chair and Board members. Ruth and Don Snell visited The Crossings, a retreat center and spa cum art gallery near Lake Travis, and learned that Bob Coffee's casting of "The Mules" that was originally intended for installation in University Park will instead be installed in Georgetown. It is finished and will be on display at The Crossings for a few weeks before he installs it on the Square. C. Citizens wishing to address the Board. None were present D. Consideration and approval of minutes of last meeting. Georgene made a motion to accept the minutes as distributed, Penny seconded, and it passed unanimously. E. Consideration of and possible action on 1. Agenda for Arts Summit — Charles Aguillon, Ruth Roberts Charles passed out a summary of ideas from arts -related people in Georgetown with whole he had spoken in the past few days and their ideas for topics for the Summit (made a part of these minutes). It had not been possible to arrange the meeting that he and Ruth had planned with these people. The Summit has been moved to October 7 and 9, starting at 6:30 p.m. each night. Charles will draft an announcement about the meetings and will send it to Judy for distribution. He envisions a roundtable discussion of topics that representatives of the invited organizations will submit in advance. In his phone conversations, improved communications among organizations and a master calendar of the arts for Georgetown seemed to be common concerns. 2. Grant criteria, Plano revisited — Penny Plueckhahn. Penny distributed a page of notes (made a part of these minutes) summarizing her conversation with Jim Ware, Creative Arts Manager for Plano. After her presentation of the information, Mandy asked what Penny thought Georgetown could learn from Plano. Penny said that it is clear that the Board needs to create a master plan for the arts and she believes Jim Ware can help them do it. Georgene said she would like to hear Ware speak and that he seems to be someone who can help the Board think longer term than they have been doing and also be able to suggest how to add arts facilities to a master plan. Penny saidshe also thought Plano's division of arts duties between the Cultural Affairs Commission, the sole duty of which is to administer grants to arts organizations, and the Public Art Committee, which is charged with purchasing public art, seemed like a good way to handle the two tasks that Georgetown's board has been struggling with. Georgene argued that the same effect could be achieved simply by agreeing to split the budget between those two areas. Penny proposed a half -day workshop with Ware to which Randy Morrow and Paul Brandenburg would be invited. Eric interjected that he thinks more City staff should be mvolved because getting buy -in from all departments will be an important part of making a master plan work. He passed out a worksheet (made a part of these minutes) that summarized common aspects of all of the RFQs for master plans he'd looked at. He noted that getting widespread buy -in was important inevery one Discussion followed about how large the group meeting with Ware should be and what its purpose should be. Penny suggested that it would be better to limit City staff's participation to only Brandenburg and Morrow until actual work on the master plan begins. She believes that the City already looks to Plano as an example and that it will be easy to get Georgetown administrators to buy into Ware's suggestions. Mandy and Georgene suggested that comparative work needs to be done before master planning to see what the arts have done for other communities, and to get ideas about the big goals the Board should establish. Mandy thought the goals could be established and then research done to support them. She also wanted to look at more cities than just Plano. Penny will get in touch with Ware to find a date that is mutually agreeable. It may be a Monday, probably in November. 3. Status of Coffee sculpture — Ruth Roberts, Eric Lashley. Eric brought up the need to inform Council of the orientation of the sculpture and to reaffirm the Board's intent to locate the sculpture as originally planned. Discussion followed about wording a letter, which Ruth said she would draft in the next week. 4. Budget for 08-09 and Council workshop — Eric Lashley. Eric has arranged for a workshop with Council on November 10 l'he allocation to the Board for FY 08-09 will be $88,718 and Eric believes it is important to present a budget to the Council at the workshop and ask that it be officially adopted in the regular Council meeting the following night. The following discussion indicated the Board's uncertainty about whether they are ready to commit to doing a master plan in the coming fiscal year. The consensus was that they need to feel comfortable in articulating a strategic vision before committing to how they will spend their allocation, and they don't feel able to do that now. Georgene suggested talking about ideas instead of firm figures. Ruth agreed to prepare a budget proposal to present to the Board at the October meeting, for discussion and revision. 5. Update on pedestal construction — Jane Paden. When Jane called to say she was not feeling well and could not attend the meeting; she also reported that Philip would be in town this weekend and hoped to finish the pedestal at that time. He has already submitted the invoice for materials and labor, which totaled $1500. 6. Master planning process — Judy Fabry. Further discussion of undertaking a master planning process will take place after the Arts Summit and the meeting with Jim Ware. 7. Certificate of Appreciation — Judy Fabry. There were no nominations. Respectfully submitted, Judy Fabry for Jane Paden Ruth Roberts, Chair CE,1- ' DAN A_ GATTIS County Judge WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS July 18, 2008 The Honorable George Garver Mayor, City of Georgetown 11_'-, E. o" Street Georgetown, TX 78626 RE: City Art Project Dear Mayor: I enjoyed the opportunity to visit with you this morning during our meeting. • Please come by any time for a cup of coffee. I am writing to you concerning the art project for the City of Georgetown. It is my understanding that a sculpture has been selected from the art submitted and that there has been some discussion regarding placement on the southeast corner of the County Courthouse grounds. As you are aware the restoration of the courthouse was accomplished in partnership with the Texas Historic Commission (THC) and any additions or changes to the property are subject to those agreements. We have discussed the sculpture with THC and I have attached the e-mailed response which opposes this placement. In compliance with our agreement with THC we will be unable to provide a site for the sculpture and would encourage placement at a city site off the square where it might be enjoyed for many years to come. It is unfortunate that we are unable to participate in this project however we value our relationship with the city and look forward to the opportunity to partner with the city on future projects. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, _ Dan A. Gattis • Cc: Paul Brandenburg, City i%lanager Page 1 of 1 w jgy Vasquez • From: Joe Latteo Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:02 PM To: Peggy Vasquez Subject: RE: City sculpture From: Sharon Fleming[mailto:Sharon.Fleming@thc.state.tx.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:37 PM To: Joe Latteo; chrisdyer@wchm-tx.org Subject: City sculpture Joe, Relative to the sculpture currently proposed by the City, I offer the following: Williamson County gave THC an easement, recorded 6-27-2001, protecting the architectural integrity of the property in exchange for our initial grant award of $243,000. It gives the legal description of the property as "All that land, being Lot 1, Block 40 of the revised plat of the City of Georgetown, County of Williamson, as filed May 1, 1851." Thus, a commitment was made that the courthouse and the courthouse grounds are preserved and upheld by the County, in accordance with the county's own building and grounds policy. Placing this sculpture on the courthouse grounds is not consistent with the goals of our recent project and our office does not support it. W ggest that the County oppose the placement of this sculpture by the City on its property and encourage the • City select -another site such as a City park. Thanks for discussing this matter with us, Sharon Fleming, AIA 0 '�1.itl'k: L iltiali= i:\ i l� L_ l i cif [. i t I;'A. h`f ::t.N GEORGETOWN TEXAS July 29, 2008 The Honorable Dan A. Gattis Williamson County Judge 710 Main Street, Suite 101 Georgetown, Texas 78626 Dear Judge Gattis, I am in receipt of your letter dated July 18, 2008, regarding the proposed sculpture project to be placed on the Courthouse Square. The City understands the limitations placed on the County by the Texas Historical Commission (THC) due to the THC funding received by the County for the Courthouse restoration. Because of those limitations, the City's intent, from the outset of the • sculpture project, has been to ensure that the piece of art is placed wholly on City property and not within the property boundary of the Courthouse. The attached survey of the area illustrates the approximate location of the sculpture relative to the County property line. If, in your opinion, there are better options for the placement of this artwork, please feel free to offer your suggestions. In summary, the current anticipated placement of the sculpture is on City -owned property. However, we are sensitive to the concerns of the County. It may not be too late to request both the Council and the Arts and Culture Board to consider other locations. Sincerely, George Garver Mayor cc: City Council City Manager SL. P.O.H„E 11}:1 iicif rCr+'4vR. Ir::. >ir'r-I)h;J 1 •.u;,Il_ Ii>'------i;'! > II i. X. w,r Proposed Location of Sculpture on Courthouse Square "%Z I C 0 U R T S 0 J A R Courthouse Property Line INSTALL STA 5+59 12"X 2 ' TAPPMU WM J6 Li. OF V2 DR 21 PVV PIPE -12- h' f=S7AJ+l LIMAS 0 MILLED R �A 0 0 • • Planning for Public Art & Culture Capturing the Community's History and Creating a Sense of Place in Georgetown Presented by Jim Carrillo, AICP, ASLA now HALFF August 20, 2008 • Why Plan for Public Art? Civic identity is comprised of history and place, both of which influence and are influenced by culture and public art. Civic art is a way to enhance our city, strengthen our neighborhoods and provide color and character to our public spaces. -Houston Arts Alliance Public art can be part of an overall strategy to improve our community. A cultural focus is an important city value for the public good. -Ithaca Art Plan Public art is most effective when it is incorporated, as a design strategy, into the planning of public spaces from the outset and acts as a catalyst for generating activity. -Project for Public Spaces As urban historians have shown that the story of a city is layered and complex, art projects now document, celebrate, and explore communities whose stories may once have been overlooked. Arlington, VA Public Art Master Plan [Public art] can bring unique design and cohesion to the city's public places, create works and environments that celebrate and offer insights about the region's history and culture, and bolster the city's distinctive sense of place. -El Paso Public Art Master Plan C] 1 Where are you going, & how do you get there? Why write an Arts & Culture Master Plan? ■ Ordinance requirements suggest a need for master plan. ■ Formally establish vision of Arts & Culture Board and standards for board decisions. ■ Garner public involvement and interest in public art. ■ Where are you going? A master plan helps answer this question. Framing an Arts & Culture Master Plan Education & Awareness Generating public awareness in arts and culture through classes, lectures, and other public engagement programs. Components Selection of artists to teach classes, give lectures Stipend / funding Who are your partners? Citizens of Georgetown Administrative Components Staff / board requirements Funding and resources Exhibits & Events Planning for support for artists, public displays of art, such as permanent installments, historic architecture, temporary exhibits, cultural celebrations, music festivals, etc. Components Criteria for selecting artists Guidelines for selecting and prioritizing placement Maintenance • n LJ 2 • • Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan ■ Ordinance calls for: — Guidelines & standards to review future projects (done) — Recommendations of policies and programs for planning, placement, and maintenance of projects (done sporadically) —W. �,``;.; i ■ Other things it calls for: — Vision / Goals — Process — Governance — Specific actions Architecture is a form of public art that — Funding guidance tells a story of the city. Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan ■ Based on other plans, elements could include: — Visioning of Future for Arts and Culture in Georgetown — Establish policies to promote arts in Georgetown and collaboration among departments — Identify catalyst steps integral to achieving vision and goals of Arts & Culture Board — Identify specific arts & culture projects that will fulfill vision and goals of Arts & Culture Board — Identify funding sources and methods for using funds — Establish criteria for artist and project selection Art can symbolize the culture of a city or purpose of a building. 3 Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan El Paso, TX Methodology: ■ Reviewed existing plans, policies, and documents ■ Conducted 100+ stakeholder interviews ■ Held 6 community forums (2 in Juarez, Mexico) ■ Reviewed public history Art can be functional, such as many of the benches in the Town of Cary, NC. Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan El Paso, TX Elements: Heavily geared toward policy and programs, but does include a portion identifying opportunities for public art. ■ Identifies groups to coordinate with to ensure public engagement ■ Identifies immediate action steps ■ Identifies "unique characteristics" of city that are foundation for public art — Dynamic border — Fluid identity — Many histories, including themes/events for artist inspiration ■ Identifies specific public art sites and projects for long term ■ Establishes policies and procedures for: — Annual action plan — Artist selection — Contracting and completing a public art project — Recommended revisions to art ordinance and guidelines • • • 10 • • • Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Allen, TX Methodology: ■ Worked closely with the public art planning advisory committee ■ Reviewed best practices being utilized around the _ country _ ■ Consultation with the City staff regarding administrative plan ■ Facilitated a public workshop to develop the Projects Plan and identify where art will have the most visual impact and where artists can get involved ■ Identifies priority action steps necessary to implement any part of the plan, including formally - establishing the ordinance and staffing needs ■ Elements are fairly evenly divided between public art can be integrated policy/program and infrastructure into public parks and spaces. ■ Divided master plan into three sub -plans: — Administrative Plan — Project Plan — Community Program Plan Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Allen, TX: Administrative Plan Administrative requirements to fulfill the vision and goals of the Arts & Culture Master Plan. ■ Formally establish the program ■ Roles & responsibilities ■ Sources & uses of funds ■ Annual work plan guidelines ■ Artist selection guidelines ■ Project implementation ■ Public art contracts ■ Gifts/loans of artwork ■ Collection management Public art can create a sense of place, such as at the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden at the Walker Arts Center 5 Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Allen, TX: Proiect Plan Identifies specific projects to be implemented over the time frame of the plan. ■ Outlines opportunities for public art ■ Identifies specific projects and proposed budget for each. ■ Establishes prioritization criteria Art can be integrated into infrastructure, such as manhole covers in Denver, CO. Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Allen, TX: Community Programs Plan Through community partnership, how public art can become an important part of everyday life? ■ Promoting the collection ■ Collaboration with community partners to integrate public art into community events ■ Encouraging public art in private development The Dougherty Arts Center in Austin offers classes for various forms of art for children and adults . • • • X u r • Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Ventura, CA Methodology: ■ Established a steering committee — Identified critical issues — Solicited stakeholder involvement — Reviewed draft of plan ■ Consultant — Interviewed stakeholders — Hosted issue -focused public forums Ventura's master plan considers f music to be a form o art ■ Community input — Four town hall meetings — Seven focus group sessions ■ Plan reviewed and approved by both steering committee and then commission. • Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Ventura, CA Elements: Very heavily geared toward policy, no project proposals identified. ■ Six policies: — Build & preserve city that is reflective of heritage & inspiration — Support cultural infrastructure (people, places, & organizations) — Create broad public awareness of cultural offerings — Enhance opportunities for life-long learning in the arts — Access to and involvement in cultural opportunities — Stabilize and expand funding and other resources n LJ 7 Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Arlington County, VA Methodology: ■ Developed under the Commission for the Art and Public Art Committee ■ Is a specialized element of the public spaces master plan ■ Extensive field research, consultation, and public outreach over course of 2 years. — Several public meetings — Early on, held a special work session with Board to discuss existing policies — Evening public forum — Day -long public charrette — Reviewed existing planning documents and private and public projects in progress — Drove and walked corridors Arlington County's plan emphasizes that public art projects should integrate with architecture, landscape, and infrastructure Elements of an Arts & Culture Master Plan Arlington County, VA Elements: Includes both policy and infrastructure recommendations, but more heavily toward infrastructure. ■ Sets out a vision for public art in Arlington and basic principles of how it can be integrated into Arlington's architecture, gathering places, and natural landscapes ■ Identifies and prioritizes opportunities for art projects that most strongly support the vision of the plan. Establishes criteria for identifying opportunities and identifies funding sources. ■ Recommends strategies to guide county ■ Establishes priorities for selecting projects ■ Describes process for involving artists in design of building and open spaces • • 40 V 0 • Timeframe Plan timelines can range from 6 months to nearly 2 years. Allen, TX 8 months + Arlington, VA 2 years Austin, TX 10-12 months Cary, NC 20 months Ithaca, NY 1 year Klamath Falls, OR 6 months Ventura, CA 18 months Cultural celebrations can be a venue for public displays of art. Citizen Input Methods ■ Citizen survey - Telephone - Mail -out - Online Extensive public input helps establish the vision and goals for ■ Citifocus groups public art in Arlington County, VA. zen ■ Artists & Key Stakeholder interviews - Student survey ■ Public meetings N7 Role of The Planner ■ Guides and focuses the planning process ■ Listens and distills input ■ Research and ideas ■ Becomes a focal point for building acceptance among the community Public art can enhance the pedestrian environment, such as along Columbia Pike in Arlington County, VA C] • E 10 Summary of Ruth Roberts' speaking points at Council meeting 8/26/08 • 1. All artists submitted proposals based — in part — on knowledge of the site where their art works would appear. 1-0 I* 2. We consulted with the County at the beginning of this endeavor. There was no problem with the site. 3. All decisions were taken in public meetings, some of which were covered by the press. 4. (Salute to Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration, who — earlier in the meeting - had said, in answer to a question about changing something already established, "A contract is a contract.") Contract has been signed; money has been — partially — paid. The contract references the location. The original clay version of the sculpture has gone to the foundry; the casting process in underway. The artist is on vacation, out of state; he is unaware of any problems. 5. The press has extensively covered each step of the process as - we brought our Board decisions to Council, and - as Council unanimously approved our actions. * The minutes of September 10, 2007 show that we knew nothing could go on the Courthouse lawn. 6. If there are changes made to decisions already taken and publicized, how can we hope that on future projects, artists will feel that they can negotiate with the Arts and Culture Board and with the City of Georgetown in good faith? 7. It should be noted that the sculptor of Waterin'the Work Mules is highly regarded in Texas. He is the president of the Texas Society of Sculptors. He is a friendly, easy-going man, but there is no reason to think that if he is treated badly, sculptors in this state — and other states - will not hear about what happened to Bob Coffee's work in Georgetown. • From: Date: August 27, 2008 10:25:17 AM CDT To: Subject: Angry Hi Ruth, The more I thought about the Council session last night, the angrier I got. Here's why. The City Council, acting on behalf of the citizens of Georgetown, appointed an Arts & Culture Board. One of the missions of that Board is to oversee the selection of art, paid for with City funds, which would be pleasing to the majority of citizens for placement in public spaces in the city. The board, acting on behalf of those citizens, chooses a location which is approved by the Council, and sends out a solicitation for works of art. The board assembles a committee of interested citizens to choose among the submitted proposals. The committee, representing the citizens of Georgetown, selects an art work. That decision was based on three factors. First, which proposals had the most artistic merit? Second, which proposal was the most appropriate to the location selected by the Board and approved by the City Council? Third, which proposal was most likely to be pleasing to the majority of Georgetown citizens who were paying for it? • The committee submits its recommendation to the Board for approval. The Board submits the selection to the City Council for approval. After a selection process which, at every step, took into account the desires of the residents of the City a County Official is attempting to derail the process because, in his personal opinion, the art work is inappropriate. I find it appalling and personally insulting as a member of the Board and a member of the selection committee that the Council would take one person's opinion, who has not been involved in the process, and consider changing a decision which had been made by three groups of qualified Georgetown residents committed to providing public art which would be approved of and appreciated by the entire population. OK, I got that off my chest. I just needed to sound off. I hope you don't mind. I just think the whole thing is utterly ridiculous. Please keep me informed. Georgene n LJ Metropolitan Museum of Art Loans Sculptures to The University of Texas at Austin for Public Art ... Page 1 of 2 I, R') I I �� 17 �. :�ti :ti i e�. 1 I I 'AHATSTAFCS !1HF HAA::FS [HE'v'v'=�R Netropolitan Museum of Art Loans Sculptures to The University of Texas at Austin for Public Art Project August 5, 2008 AUSTIN, Texas — The Metropolitan Museum of Art is lending 28 mid- to late -twentieth-century sculptures to The University of Texas at Austin to be installed across campus as part of the university's Landmarks public art program. The first group will be installed in September 2008, the second in January 2009. The sculptures are on long-term loan from the Met. "We are very pleased to make this loan to The University of Texas at Austin campus," said Gary Tinterow, Engelhard Curator in Charge of the Metropolitan Museum's Department of Nineteenth -Century, Modern, and Contemporary Art. "These large-scale sculptures were intended for outdoor —or very large indoor —spaces, which we do not have available in New York. With the loan of the works to Austin, they will be enjoyed by thousands of university students, staff, and visitors to the university." "This important loan of sculptures from The Metropolitan Museum of Art will enrich our campus," said William Powers Jr., president of The University of Texas at Austin. "It will demonstrate the value we place on art and creativity as manifestations of the human spirit. We are extremely pleased to bring this superb collection to our university and our community." Landmarks is a strategic, long-term public art program of The University of Texas at Austin, created to facilitate the complex process of developing a collection for the campus that complements building projects and supports broader Olic ersity-wide priorities. The program applies a clear curatorial vision to the development of a cohesive collection of art for the university's main campus. "For the first time in its history, the university adopted a comprehensive policy with ongoing support for public art acquisitions," said Andree Bober, founding director of Landmarks and initiator of the Met project. "This is the university at its best, thinking big about what it can accomplish and being decisive about shaping its future. The Met loan is key because it provides an art historical framework from which we can build our own stunning collection." To ensure a comprehensive approach to building a campus -wide collection, Peter Walker Partners, architects of the Speedway and East Mall reconstruction, donated their services to create a Public Art Master Plan. The plan serves to guidE overall public art acquisition and placement in alignment with the Campus Master Plan by Cesar Pelli and Associates, the document which has served as a framework for campus improvement and growth for the past 12 years. The Pelli plan establishes a series of guiding principles with the objective of supporting and embodying a sense of community for students, faculty, and staff to create a sense of place that will remain strong and clear in the memories of graduates while also encouraging public access to and enhanced perception of the campus. "The installation of the Met collection is a pivotal development that corresponds to Peter Walker's Public Art Master Plan," said Pat Clubb, vice president for employee and campus services at the university. "The strategic placement of each piece will inspire interaction among students, faculty, staff and campus visitors." Seventeen sculptures will be installed throughout outdoor public spaces and inside several campus buildings in August 2008. There will be an unveiling of the first installation on Sept. 12, preceded by a free public lecture given by Valerie Fletcher, senior curator of Modern Art at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution. The second installation phase will bring 11 pieces to the Bass Concert Hall in January 2009, following the completion of the hall's renovation. e loan includes the works of such internationally renowned artists as Magdalena Abakanowicz, Louise Bourgeois, orah Butterfield, Anthony Caro, Jim Dine, Donald Lipski, Beverly Pepper, Antoine Pevsner, Tony Smith, and Ursula vor dingsvard. Several education programs accompany the loan, including a free audio tour podcast and family and teacher resource guides. "The works will provide a superb teaching collection of twentieth-century sculpture across a wide range of styles and http://www.utexas.edu/news/2008/08/05/met_sculptures/ 08/18/2008 Metropolitan Museum of Art Loans Sculptures to The University of Texas at Austin for Public Art ... Page 2 of 2 artists," said Douglas Dempster, dean of the College of Fine Arts. "The Metropolitan loan will transform the public art landscape of the UT Austin campus. In one spectacular leap, the university will host one of the leading public art collections among American colleges and universities." Vr e are three key initiatives of the Landmarks program: the first is the long-term sculpture loan from the Met. The ond involves the purchase or commission of art for building projects on the main campus. These works are supported by a percent -for -art policy that sets aside funds from new construction or major renovation projects specifically for acquisitions. The third initiative enhances public sites that are not associated with a specific building project. Spaces such as gateways, medians, malls, corridors and Waller Creek have become university -wide priorities. Public art in these locations creates focal points, unifies overlooked areas on campus and ensures an even distribution of works in accordance with the Public Art Master Plan. These works will be funded by private contributions and support from foundations. For more information, contact: Leslie Lyon, College of Fine Arts, 512-475-7033. Office of Public Affairs P.O. Box Z Austin, TX 78713 512-471-3151 Fax 512-471-5812 E • http://www.utexas.edu/news/2008/08/05/met—sculptures/ 08/18/2008 �Iil ttlkj ry r�r tsoa GEORGETOWN TEXAS July 29, 2008 The Honorable Dan A. Gattis Williamson County Judge 710 Main Street, Suite 101 Georgetown, Texas 78626 Dear Judge Gattis, I am in receipt of your letter dated July 18, 2008, regarding the proposed sculpture project to be placed on the Courthouse Square. The City understands the limitations placed on the County by the Texas Historical Commission (THC) due to the THC funding received by the County for the Courthouse restoration. Because of those limitations, the City's intent, from the outset of the • sculpture project, has been to ensure that the piece of art is placed wholly on City property and not within the property boundary of the Courthouse. The attached survey of the area illustrates the approximate location of the sculpture relative to the County property line. If, in your opinion, there are better options for the placement of this artwork, please feel free to offer your suggestions. In summary, the current anticipated placement of the sculpture is on City -owned property. However, we are sensitive to the concerns of the County. It may not be too late to request both the Council and the Arts and Culture Board to consider other locations. Sincerely, George Garver Mayor cc: City Council City Manager • �C J.I P.O. Box -il)q (ieOt r'ti�wn. "1'i 4i27-0N)9 I 1312' 9,30-:3l;.)1 15121 9:30 622 flax, tt-t�tc.c�eOt•�r'IgwILE>1'1; tlla}'OtC�hEOt'„etcn�tltx.o!';; Proposed Location of Sculpture on Courthouse Square • \' 5 0 J A R INSTALL STA J+39 12' X 2' TAPPM S l W7H JB LF. OF 1' 2 OR 11 PVC PIPE aA STA J+f U, O m LLED . Page I of l Ogy Vasquez From: Joe Latteo Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:02 PM To: Peggy Vasquez Subject: RE: City sculpture From: Sharon Fleming[mailto: Sharon. Fleming@thc.state.tx.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:37 PM To: Joe Latteo; chrisdyer@wchm-tx.org Subject: City sculpture Joe, Relative to the sculpture currently proposed by the City, I offer the following: Williamson County gave THC an easement, recorded 6-27-2001, protecting the architectural integrity of the property in exchange for our initial grant award of $243,000. It gives the legal description of the property as "All that land, being Lot 1, .Block 40 of the revised plat of the City of Georgetown, County of Williamson, as filed May 1, 1851." Thus, a commitment was made that the courthouse and the courthouse grounds are preserved and upheld by the County, in accordance with the county's own building and grounds policy. Placing this sculpture on the courthouse grounds is not consistent with the goals of our recent project and our office does not support it. Voggest that the County oppose the placement of this sculpture b the Cityon its property City select.another site such as a City park_ p y p P rty and encourage the Thanks for discussing this matter with us, Sharon Fleming, AIA • 1 7/ 15/2008