My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2025
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 1:53:42 PM
Creation date
1/17/2025 10:52:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/09/2025
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
496
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The complexity and sophistication of a public art master plan may also depend on the political <br /> propensity to support the arts in a particular community. While this was not the focus of this analysis, <br /> the possibility exists that the selected plans come from cities which have a high appreciation of the arts, <br /> and thus a more sophisticated plan than other communities which do not value art as highly. However, <br /> the creation of a public art master plan itself is indicative of some political propensity to support the <br /> arts. Population was the only factor accounted for in this study that may affect support for the arts. A <br /> random sample would attempt to account for this difference in municipal government support of the <br /> a rts. <br /> Practical Implications and Conclusion <br /> This analysis has practical implications for cities which chose to undertake the public art master <br /> planning process. The review of ten selected public art master plans and relevant literature provides <br /> cities with a guide to forming a plan in their community. It is recommended that a public art master plan <br /> include, but not necessarily be limited to, the 12 core components identified in this analysis.The <br /> common practices and recommendations are based on their inclusion in the plans and literature on <br /> public art and municipal government practices. <br /> While the components are recommended for inclusion, different communities may have to <br /> adjust common practices to meet their local needs and constraints.This is particularly relevant to <br /> funding.A percent-for-art program is the national model for funding public art, and seven of ten plans <br /> used this system. This does, however, require a contribution of public funds,which may not be feasible <br /> for a community depending on its fiscal situation.An adjustment may also need to be made for staffing <br /> and administration, maintenance, and several other components that have financial implications. <br /> A key tenet of this analysis is the local, collaborative process that typically takes place to create <br /> a public art master plan. It is the common practice that a commission or task force with wide community <br /> representation be utilized, along with consultants to provide expert advice.This body is responsible for <br /> 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.