-- -- - ___ \ (> '' J OLO Report No. 90-3 January 29, 1991 A DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY ART IN-PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM I. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • • . la II. AUTHORITY, SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ••••••••• 2 A. Authority • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 B. Scope •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 C. Methodology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 D. Acknowledgements •••••.•••••••••••••••• 3 III. DEFINITIONS . 3 IV. BACKGROUND AND EVOLUTION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY ART IN PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM COMPONENTS ••••••••••• 5 A. History of Montgomery County Percent-for-Art Legislation. 5 B. Establishment of Montgomery County Public Art Program Components •••••••••••••• 10 V. DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY ART IN PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE LEGISLATION ••••••••••••••• 11 A. Overview • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 B. Bill No. 30-83 and Emergency Bill No. 15-88 ••••••• 12 C. Emergency Bill No. 37-90 • • • • • • • ·• • • • • • • • • • 19 VI. DESCRIPTION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY ART IN PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM. 20 A. MCPS Public Art Program Component • . • . • • . • . • . 20 B. Executive Branch Public Art Program Component . • . 22 c. M-NCPPC Public Art Program Component. • . • • . • . • 23 D. Montgomery College Public Art Program Component . • . • 25 VII. PUBLIC ART PROGRAMS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. • • • • .. • • ••• 26 A. OLO Survey ••••••••••• . • ••• 26 B. Arts Extension Survey ••••• • • • • • • • • • •••• 29 VIII. EVALUATION/ANALYSIS OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY ART IN PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM ••••••••••••••••• 33 A. Evaluation/Analysis of the MCPS Program Component •••• 33 1. Evaluation of the MCPS Public Art Program Component. 33 2. Analysis of MCPS Capital Projects and Public Art Appropriations •••••••••••• 39 B. Evaluation/Analysis of the Executive Branch Program Component •••••••••••••••••••• 42 1. Evaluation of the Executive Branch Public Art Program Component •••••••••••••••••• 42 2. Analysis of Executive Branch Capital Projects and Public Art Appropriations •••••••••••• 46 Office of Legislative Oversight 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockv~e, Maryland 20850, 301/217-7990 l) Page C. Evaluation/Analysis of the M-NCPPC ?rogram Component ••••49 1. Evaluation of the M-NCPPC Public Art Program Component. 49 2. Analysis of M-NCPPC Capital Projects and Public Art Appropriations ••••••••••••••• 53 D. Evaluation/Analysis of the Montgomery College Program Component • .. • • ., • • • • ., • • .. • • ., • 56 1. Evaluation of the Montgomery College Public Art Program Component. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 56 2. Analysis of Montgomery College Capital Projects and Public Art Appropriations ••••• • 57 IX. RELATED MATTERS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ., • • • 59 A. Optional Method of Development Public Artworks. • ••• 59 B. Other County Public Artwork Acquisitions •••••••••• 60 x., CONCLUSIONS • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • 61 XI. RECOMMENDATIONS • • 65 XII. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS. 0 68 EXHIBITS A. Code Chapter 8, Article V, as of May 12, 1988 A-1 B. Emergency Bill No. 37-90 B-1 c .. Listing of Percent-for-Art Programs_ in the U.S. C-1 D. Listing of Council Approved Public Art Commissions D-1 E. Recommendations Section from Report by the Study Committee on Artwork in the Optional Method · of Development E-1 ADDENDUM I. Qualitative Aspects of the Montgomery County Art in Public Architecture Program . ADD-1 LISTING OF CHARTS AND TABLES Charts of Expected Versus Approved CIP Expenditures 1. MCPS CIP Expenditures FY85 Through FY89 7 2. Executive Branch CIP Expenditures FY85 Through FY89 7 3. M-NCPPC CIP Expenditures FY85 Through FY89 .. ., ., •• 7 4. Montgomery College CIP Expenditures FY85 Through FY89 8 5. MCPS CIP Expenditures FY89 Through FY93 9 6. Executive Branch CIP Expenditures FY89 Through FY93 9 7. M-NCPPC GIP Expenditures FY89 Through FY93 •• ., • • 9 8. Montgomery College CIP Expenditures FY89 Through FY93 •••• 10 Tables Relating to the MCPS Public Art Program Component Page 1. Schedule of Council Approved Commissions •• .3"4" 2. Listing of Artists Approved for Five or More Commissions •• 35 3. Listing of Scho'ols Approved for $50,000 or More in Art Commissions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • 36 4. Schedule of Approved Appropriations Versus OLO Estimated Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• 40 5. Schedule of Appropriations and Expenditures as of June 30, 1990 ••••••••••••••• • • 41 Tables Relating to the Executive Branch Public Art Program_ Component 6. Schedule of Council Approved Commissions •••••••••• 43 7. Listing of Artists Approved for Commissions of $30,000 or More • • 11 • • ., ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ., • • • • • 44 Listing of Sites Approved for $30,000 or More in Art Commissions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·• • • • • • •• 45 9. Schedule of Approved Appropriations Versus OLO Estimated Requirements • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 47 10. Schedule of Appropriations and Expenditures as of June 3 0 , 19 90 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 9 Tables Relating to the M-NCPPC Public Art Program Component 11. Schedule of Council Approved Commissions •••• • 50 12. Listing of Artists Approved for Public Artwork Commissions •• 51 13. Listing of Sites Approved for $25,000 or More in Art Commissions ••••••••••••• e e e G e 0 • • 52 14. Schedule of Approved Appropriations Versus OLO Estimated Requirements •••••••••••••••••••••••• 54 15. Schedule of Appropriations and Expenditures as of June 30, 1990 •••••••••••• • 55 Tables Relating to the Montgomery College Public Art Program Component 16. Schedule of Approved Appropriations Versus OLO Estimated Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ., 58 Tables Relating to the Overall Art in Public Architecture Program 17. Cumulative Schedule of Appropriations and Expenditures as of June 30, 1990 •••••••••••• 61 18. Cumulative Schedule of Approved Appropriations Versus OLO Estimated Requirements •••••••••••••• 62 I. SlJMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND In FY84, the Council enacted legislation which created the County's Art in Public Architecture program and specified _that one percent of the construction cost of certain capital improvement projects be set aside for acquiring and installing art in public places. The law was subsequently modified as follows: Emergency Bill No. 15-88, effective May 12, 1988, reduced the percentage required to be appropriated for public art from one percent to one-half percent for those County construction projects receiving initial appropriations for detailed architectural and engineering design during fiscal years 1989, 1990 or 1991; and, Emergency Bill No. 37-90, effective May 4, 1990, reduced the percentage to be appropriated for public art from one-half percent to one=quarter' percent henceforth, established a cumulative maximum amount of $100,000 to be expended for public art at a County facility, and clarified the definition of sites eligible to receive public art to include any County facilitye The Executive branch, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), and Montgomery College each established a public art program component, which has been coordinated with the Montgomery County Arts Council through its participation on art selection panels.· The four County agencies independently interpreted and applied the percent-for-art law somewhat differently. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS • The County has not adopted standard policies, guidelines or procedures under which all four public art program components must operateo Although four County agencies have developed effective program components, each has operated independently of the others with little coordination or sharing of information among the components. Each agency has operated its program component under a different interpretation for applying the public art percentage and a different policy regarding expenses chargeable to its public art appropriationso • Since no common interpretation of the percent-for-art law existed, the Office of Legislative Oversight (010) examined the law and created a standard interpretation by which each program component could be measured. Based on the 010 interpretation, shortfalls may have occurred in appropriations approved for the County's public art program componentse A majority of these shortfalls relate to timing of agency requests for public art appropriations, and represent funding which has not yet been requested by the program components. • Some County departments and agencies have acquired or are planning to acquire public artworks independently of the Art in Public Architecture program. These placements are not currently required to be coordinated with the County's public art program, nor are placements under the Optional Method reported to the public art program components so that County placements may be coordinated. -la- -"- I • When the original percent-for-art law was enacted, the Council envisioned the Art in Public Architecture program as a long-range program to which the County would have a fairly level financial· commitment. However, the art percentage is tied to the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and there has been substantial growth of the.CIP over the- past six years._ As a result, the Council has twice adjusted the law to bring the County's financial commitment more in line with what was originally planned. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS • The Council