ARTS POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - · Web viewDeveloping a structure for local government arts policy and program development is an intricate balance of roles, responsibilities,

ARTS POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL REGION

Submitted by

Urban Aspects Consulting Group Ltd.

September 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part/Section PageA. Background 5

1. Introduction 52. Methodology 63. Local Government and the Arts 74. The Arts in the Capital Region – What Do They Bring

to the Community?8

5. Are the Arts in a Crisis? 106. IMC Support for the Arts in the Capital Region – A

Short History11

B. Structural Options 16

1. The Existing IMC Structure 162. Alternative Organizational Structures 17

2.1 Other Cities and Regions 172.2 Option 1 – Modifying the Existing Structure 242.3 Option 2 – Moving to the CRD 282.4 Option 3 – An Arms-Length Agency 41Integrated Recreation and Social Services 45

3. Conclusions 46

C. Structural Components 48

1. The Arts Commission 482. Staff 54

D. Programming 62

1. Public Art 622. Cultural Tourism and Economic Development 663. Facilities 724. Funding 77

E Recommendations and Implementation 95

1. Implementation 951.1 Communications and Information 951.2 Timing 96

2. Recommendations 96

Appendices 100

Arts Policy and Program Development in the Capital Region 2

List of Tables

Number Title Page

1 Usage in the Capital Region 92 Status of the Arts Policy Recommendations 133 Structures in Other Jurisdictions 194 Cost Comparison Existing IMC Structure and CRD Division Structure 405 The Organizational Structure and Role of Arts Commissions in Other Cities

and Regions49

6 Job Descriptions – Arts Manager/Arts Development Officer 567 2000 Budget for the Arts Development Office 608 Support for the Arts Outside the 4-core Municipalities in the Capital Region 809 1998 Per Capita Municipal Support 81

10 Adjudication Schedule - IMC Arts Operating Grants 2000 8111 Per Capita Contributions by Areas Outside the 4-Core 8812 IMC Operating Grants 1989-2000 91

AppendicesA-1 List of Persons Interviewed 101A-2 CRD Population 1986-2000 102A-3 Arts Organizations’ Budgets, Attendance, and Employees 103A-4 Arts Commission Mandate 104A-5 Intermunicipal Arts Operating Grants: An Historical Survey - 1979 – 1999 105A-6 Intermunicipal Grants 2000 105A-7 2000 Special Project Grants 106A-8 Net Per Capital Cultural Operating Support in the GVRD, 1995 106A-9 Web Site Contact Information for Other Cities and Regions 107


THE ARTS POLICY FOR GREATER VICTORIA 1989

VISION

The arts play an essential role in defining and enriching the quality of life in a community. The arts speak to the cultural heritage of the community, describing its past and its spirit; the arts articulate the creativity and energy of the community; and the arts create the vision of what the community can become. Throughout history, an active and vibrantarts climate has been the hallmark of our finest cities. Victoria has the potential for the same richness of spirit, if municipal leadership seizes the opportunity to create an environment in which the arts will grow and prosper. Bold action in support of the arts will enhance the quality of life and enhance Greater Victoria’s reputation as a destination of choice for individuals and companies who seek quality of life above all.

BROAD GOALS

To promote creativity and excellence in the artistic life of Greater Victoria

To promote diversity in the artistic life of the community, including the traditional and the innovative, the established and the aspiring

To encourage financial stability and managerial efficiency in the operation of Greater Victoria’s arts organizations

To ensure adequate facilities are available for the creation and presentation of the arts in Greater Victoria

To develop opportunities for all residents and visitors to enjoy and participate in artistic activities in our community


Part A – Background

1. IntroductionLocal government support for the arts within the Capital Region has evolved over several decades. An important milestone in this process was the adoption of the Greater Victoria Arts Policy in 1989 by the four core municipalities - Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay and Esquimalt. The Arts Policy set out a local government political and administrative framework for providing support to the arts, recognizing that the arts are an essential and key part of the life of the community. Over the following decade the 4-core municipalities have worked together in providing funding, developing public art programs, establishing a staff and commission function, and generally raising the profile of the arts within local government.

From time to time over the last decade, efforts have been made to encourage support from other local government jurisdictions the Capital Region, but with little success. When the Arts Policy Study was initiated, there were 9 municipalities in the region, today there are 13 and more than 35% of the population of the region resides outside the core area. Even in 1989, the need to encourage local government partnerships across the region in support of the arts was clear: as the Arts Policy stated – “The work of our major arts organizations enhances the quality of life for people throughout the Capital Region, not just the four core municipalities.”1

More recently, and as part of a continuing process of evolution, the Greater Victoria Intermunicipal Committee decided there was a need to examine and define an appropriate model to continue the management of arts policy and funding (both operating and capital) in the region and the servicing of arts organizations offering public programming. Not since the Arts Policy Study has there been a concerted look at the administrative and political structure for local government support of the arts in the Capital Region.

Urban Aspects Consulting Group Ltd. were engaged to carry out this work under the guidance of a working group composed of representatives from the Intermunicipal Committee, the Arts Commission and ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria.

A number of outcomes for the project were identified, including:

the identification of potential models and recommendation of one for implementation;

the identification and discussion of the issues and risks associated with the recommended model and strategies to mitigate the risk;

the presentation of an implementation plan with timelines and which articulates strategies to increase support amongst the outlying municipalities; and,

the proposal of an organizational structure which addresses political decision making, grant adjudication, policy analysis and program development, the future direction of the Arts Commission, and the existing staff roles.

1 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, p. 19.


2. MethodologyIn carrying out this project, it quickly became clear that there were numerous and varied expectations of what the final report would contain. As a result the report is lengthy, drawing as it does on information gathered from individuals, organizations, and background material from both the Capital Region and 16 other cities and regions in Canada and the United States. The approach taken, however, was valuable in providing an understanding of the main issues for the arts and local government in this region, as well as providing a number of strategies and structures used elsewhere that might have local application.

Literature ReviewBackground reports and studies, including the Arts Policy for Greater Victoria, arts policies and reports from other cities and regions, and a number of documents provided by the Arts Development Office, ProArt, and municipal staff were reviewed. Internet web sites for other cities and regions were also examined for information about local government arts policies, programs and structures. (A list of web sites is included in the Appendices.)

InterviewsContact was made with over 80 individuals – mostly by telephone, a few in person, and several in group sessions. A list of potential contacts was developed by the consultants, assisted by the working group. In a few cases it was not possible to contact everyone as the interviews were conducted during the summer months when some individuals were away for extended periods. The list of those interviewed is included as Table A-1 in the Appendices.

Interview guides were prepared for interviews with contacts in other cities, locally elected officials (within the core municipalities and outside the core), and individuals from various arts or other organizations having relevance to the project. As a large number of people were interviewed, the use of interview guides provided a similar structure for each group of interviews, but were adapted to suit the interests of the person being interviewed. Throughout the report quotations from the interviews are used extensively to illustrate and emphasize particular points.

Organization of the ReportThe following report is based on the literature review, interviews and an analysis of the findings. The report is divided into a number of sections, which contain a description of practices in other cities and regions, background information, and an identification and discussion of key issues. The report sets forth a number of alternative local government organizational structures for supporting the arts, and includes an examination of how funding, staff functions, the Arts Commission, public art, cultural tourism, and facilities fit into these structures. Conclusions and recommendations for follow-up direction and action are provided.


3. Local Government and the ArtsWhile the primary responsibility for building a stronger arts base lies with arts organizations themselves, a “partnership between the Arts and the Community is one from which both can benefit.” Local government support for the arts “is about the kind of city we want, artists help to create the kind of city that allow our values to thrive.”

Cities and regions across North America are increasingly realizing the social benefits enjoyed by communities which support the arts: greater community pride, attractiveness and civic identity, enhanced social cohesion, social activity, and opportunities for citizens to recreate culturally. Communities which invest in the arts also enjoy measurable economic returns, including direct job creation, enhancement of tourism revenues, successful downtown re-development, and professional and corporate relocations.2

Social Benefits of the Arts Economic Benefits of the Arts

People participate in the arts and attendance is increasing

The arts are a large part of the Canadian economy

The arts are fulfilling The arts have a major economic impact

The arts preserve our cultural heritage The arts support the local economy The arts develop our civic identity The arts are labour intensive The arts develop volunteerism The arts attract tourism The arts develop job skills The arts attract business The arts are valued by the community The arts provide a buffer against

downward economic turns The arts enhance the community The arts are enjoyable The arts enhance a child’s development

Local government can support arts policy and program development in a variety of ways:

as a funder through project funding, grants in aid, and annual grants; as a facility manager/developer, including municipal and/or private facilities; as a facilitator and catalyst by forming partnerships with business, arts

organizations, and educational institutions; as an advisor and resource to arts organizations, community organizations and

individuals; as a communicator and advocate creating opportunities to display/showcase the

arts and artists; and, as a planner by integrating the arts into the broader community planning process,

economic development, and recreation.

2 Edmonton has completed studies on the economic impact of the arts and culture that showed profits of non-profit arts organizations exceeding those of the Edmonton Oilers. This information was obtained from an interview with John Mahon, Executive Director of the Edmonton Arts Council.


The rationale for local government funding of the arts is rooted in the recognition of the arts as a public good – in much the same way that funding for recreation, education, and libraries is rooted. Like all these endeavours, the arts need space, equipment and time. It is not long ago that active groups from within communities everywhere lobbied hard for recreational facilities and programming that are now taken for granted as a necessary part of the community, supported through municipal taxation. Their benefit to the community has been well demonstrated.

So too is the benefit resulting from local government investment in the arts.

The Calgary Arts Policy 1996

The arts enhance our city and our lives in many unique ways. Murals and sculptures bring color and beauty to the community. Festivals bring life to our city’s urban centres while celebrating our diverse heritage. Music, theatre, museums and art galleries, and literary publication all provide entertainment, diversion, and enrichment to our lives. Art classes, and involvement in community and professional productions provide opportunities for self-expression, fulfillment and enjoyment to those who participate. Collectively, the arts both celebrate our cultural diversity and contribute to our image as Calgarians. The arts also have a substantial impact on our economy, generating employment and revenue for many residents and businesses in Calgary. An investment in the arts yields a high return through the enrichment of the community and diversity of our economy.

4. The Arts in the Capital Region – What Do They Bring to the Community?

The Capital Region is home to a wide variety of vibrant and high quality arts organizations – a cause for “celebration” as one observer noted. Few regions of this size have a comparable range and quality of arts organizations and activities. The reputation of these organizations within the province and across Canada is excellent.

The arts are part of the social fabric of the Capital Region. Over the 1998/99 fiscal year, for the organizations funded by the Intermunicipal Committee, attendance exceeded 500,000.3 The figure would be even higher if other arts organizations and activities (including those provided through parks and recreation departments and amateur arts groups throughout the region) were included.

3 Arts Development Office. Funded Arts Organizations (Operating Grants). Figures from ProArt member organizations in 2000 indicate that attendance is approaching 600,000.


The arts are about community development, engagement and involvement (e.g. the Moss Street Paint-In and Symphony Splash).

Participation is widespread – it is not limited to the core municipalities. Attendance by postal code at events at the Royal and McPherson Theatres indicates that 80% of patrons reside within the 4-core and 20% reside elsewhere in the CRD. The table below provides further evidence of usage throughout the region.

Table 1: Usage in the Capital RegionOrganization Subscribers # on Saanich Peninsula % of totalVictoria Symphony 11,819 1,339 11.3 Belfry Theatre 19,873 1,550 7.8Art Gallery of Greater Victoria 1,900 340 17.9

Organization Performers # on Saanich Peninsula % of totalGtr. Victoria Youth Orchestra 62 6 9.7VIVA Choirs (young singers) 108 9 8.3Victoria Conservatory* 1,700 108 6.4

Education Programs Audience School District (63) % of totalVictoria Symphony School concerts Kids Series subscribers

4,800849

96095

20.011.2

Story Theatre Performance Classroom sessions

29108

1555

51.750.9

Kaleidoscope Theatre routinely reaches almost all schools in District 63, once or twice in a school year.

Peninsula Population (est. 2000) – 41,111 or 12% of the regional total * Includes out-of-town and out-of-country resident students Source: Stephen Smith, October 27, 1999

The arts are part of the economic fabric of the Capital Region. In 1998, the value of all goods and services (GDP) produced by the 22 arts organizations funded through the Intermunicipal Committee was $12.3 million. Precise estimates of the impact of the “ripple effect” are difficult to calculate, but generally it is agreed it is over $25 million.4 In terms of the cost-benefit, for each IMC dollar invested:

$28.50 in economic activity was created in the local economy $3.30 in additional funding was leveraged from senior governments5.

The arts provide employment for many. Over the fiscal year 1998/99, the organizations funded by the Intermunicipal Committee directly employed 446 administrative/ technical/ instructional people and 962 artists/musicians. Additionally, sixty-nine were employed in other categories.6

4 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria,1989, p. 3 and ProArt.5 Stephen Thorne. Culture, Tourism & the New Economy. November 17, 1999. 6 Arts Development Office, op.cit.


5. Are the Arts in the Capital Region in a Crisis?

There is a strong belief that the potential for a rich and stimulating artistic environment has not been fully tapped in the Capital Region. Even more critically and despite their significant social and economic contribution to the community, there is clear evidence that a crisis is looming in the arts.

As one observer noted “the community is complacent –people think the arts will keep on going, yet some are in serious difficulty and most are facing major challenges” and “these challenges are converging on the Lower Island at the same time.”

In the Capital Region: Arts organizations, including the largest organizations, continue to be financially

vulnerable – several major arts organizations are experiencing significant financial stress and organizational change. The collective level of debt amongst major arts organizations was $622,000 in 1999, this year’s debt alone is $1.14 million, for an accumulated total of $1.7 million.

New and smaller organizations face difficulties in competing for limited funds.

The combined level of support from senior governments is the second lowest in Canada - $6.56 per capita.7

The absence of major corporate headquarters in Victoria accentuates the funding problem and the pressure on existing sponsors is considerable.

The funding base – the 4-core municipalities – in the Capital Region has remained unchanged, except for a small contribution from Metchosin and despite repeated attempts to bring in new partners.

The shift in staff functions and the resignation of the Arts Development Officer several months ago has left a professional staff position void that has not been filled, leaving arts organizations and arts policy and program development unsupported.

Existing performing and exhibiting space is limited for both artists and the audience.

A number of key experienced and capable arts organizations’ staff members have left Victoria and others are reaching burnout – “consistent under funding over a decade or more – has eroded morale and enthusiasm”.

Volunteer burnout is also becoming more common, yet the arts are heavily reliant on the time, willingness, networking and fundraising skills of volunteers.

Financial constraint, contrary to popular opinion, inhibits artistic creativity, limiting programs offered to the public – “there is no fun, no creativity, the focus is pitching, pleading, begging, fundraising – not nourishing the product, creating new events, feeding the minds, celebrating”.

7 Stephen Thorne. Overheads - Culture, Tourism & the New Economy. November 17, 1999. The high is $24.22 in Quebec, followed by $21.93 in Newfoundland, and $21.60 in Manitoba.


“The ‘Best of Victoria’ – scenery, climate, and clean air – should also include what has been created by the community.”

There is a common misperception that arts organizations are badly managed and a lack of understanding that private sector and individual support combined with ticket sales are sufficient to sustain the arts.

6. Intermunicipal Support for the Arts in the Capital Region – a Short History

Historically local government support for the arts in the Capital Region has been provided primarily by the 4-core municipalities through the Greater Victoria Intermunicipal Committee. The IMC was originally established in the mid-1950s to address policies and funding of specific shared concerns such as sewage disposal and the Victoria Public Library – in the absence of other mechanisms for inter-municipal cooperation and before the creation of regional districts in the province in the mid 1960s. The first arts grant was provided to the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria in 1960.

6.1 Participation

From time to time, other municipalities outside the core have participated or been invited to participate in the IMC. For example:

1967 Central Saanich and North Saanich were included in the approved formula and became members of the IMC, although Sidney declined the invitation to join.

1971 North Saanich decided not to appoint a member to IMC. 1977 Central Saanich decided not to appoint a member to IMC. 1989 Central Saanich, Sidney, North Saanich, Metchosin, Colwood, and View

Royal were invited to become members, however all declined the invitation.

1990 The invitation to join IMC was extended again, including a presentation made directly to View Royal, the invitations were declined.

1995 Metchosin joined and made a financial contribution. 1990s Other invitations to join have been extended and while no other

municipalities have agreed to participate several have sent observors from time to time.

6.2 Funding

Before 1960, cost sharing was decided on a case by case basis. However in 1960 the 4-core municipalities agreed to use a formula calculated for each municipality on the basis of 50% population and 50% converted assessment for the grant to the art gallery. In 1962, it was agreed that the formula would be used for all projects.


From time to time the formula has been adjusted to accommodate other municipalities. For example:

1967 Central Saanich and North Saanich were included in the approved formula.

1970s The 4-core started using two formulas – one for the 4-core, and one based on the 4-core plus North Saanich, Central Saanich and Sidney. Some grants were provided on this latter basis, although it is not clear that North Saanich and Sidney provided any funding.8 Opting out of grants by any of the 4-core “occurred infrequently” during this period.

1976 Central Saanich adopted a no-grants policy in 1976. Since

1977Only the 4-core have used the current formula for arts funding, although in 1995 Metchosin made a financial contribution to the operating grant fund based on a per-capita assessment.

6.3 Structure

Since its inception the Intermunicipal Committee has been composed of two councillors from each of the member municipalities, although from time to time other municipalities have sent representatives or observers.

Administrative support for the Committee was originally provided by the City of Victoria and later by the District of Saanich. When Saanich took over responsibility for administrative support twelve years ago, the 4-core agreed to share the costs based on the Intermunicipal Formula. Recently Saanich indicated that it is time for another municipality to take on the administrative role, however, the matter has yet to be resolved.

While the basic structure of the Intermunicipal Committee itself has not fundamentally changed, over the years, the Committee has been supported by a variety of advisory bodies and staff.

1977 The Intermunicipal Committee established two advisory sub-committees to assist with the growing number of applications: the Cultural Funding Advisory Sub-Committee and the Social Services Advisory Sub-Committee. The six volunteer members of the Cultural Funding Advisory Sub-Committee, with broad backgrounds in arts, business and administration, were appointed for three-year terms. They established criteria and guidelines for adjudicating applications.

1988/89 The Intermunicipal Committee engaged a consultant to undertake a study to address the issue of a broad arts policy for Greater Victoria. The final report, An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria, the result of wide community input, contained 29 recommendations for action. The policy

8 Correspondence from City of Victoria in 1977 indicates that “…most grants are shared between the four core. Central Saanich indicated some time ago (1976) that they would not participate in any grants, and Sidney and North Saanich participate in only a few.”


framework and two recommendations were unanimously adopted by all four core municipalities in August 1989.

1989 - present

The first Greater Victoria Arts Manager, Lydia Kasianchuk, was hired and served until March of 1992. She was followed by Bess Jillings who served as Arts Manager until December 1998 and subsequently by Stephen Thorne who served as Arts Development Officer during part of 1999. The position has been vacant since November 1999.

Originally a part-time position of administrative assistant was created to provide support to the Arts Manager; this has developed into a full-time position.

The Arts Manager’s office originally paid rent to the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce for space within their office building. More recently the Arts Development Office has been located within the City of Victoria rent-free to the other paticipating IMC members.

1990 The first twelve-member Greater Victoria Arts Commission was appointed.

1999 The Arts Commission and Intermunicipal Committee made a joint recommendation that IMC member councils support in principal the transfer of all IMC functions to the CRD. Saanich, Victoria and Esquimalt voted in favour, Oak Bay was opposed. This issue was tabled at the CRD in May 1999.

6.4 The Greater Victoria Arts Policy Recommendations

Following completion of the Arts Policy in 1989, a number of recommendations were adopted. Subsequently, others have been adopted, some partially, but most not at all. In 1995, the Arts Commission undertook a review of the 29 recommendations in the Arts Policy Study to assess the degree of implementation after five years and conducted an update in May 1996. Another update was completed for this report.

Table 2: Status of the Arts Policy RecommendationsTopic Action to DateFUNDING

1. Substantial increase in operational funds Partial implementation - funding in 2000 is 2/3 the recommended level.

2. Base should be increased by deficit reduction $ Not implemented - funds lost. 3. Accept Bovey recommendations

increase funding 7% + COL per year by 2000, 9% of budget from municipal support

Not implemented.Unknown, not likely.

4. Criteria of assessment emphasize artistic quality community support financial viability

Implemented.


5. Two categories of funding should be established Established professional organizations Developmental and community-based

organizations

Not implemented.

6. Maximum 90% funds to go to professional groups Minimum 10% funds to go to community groups

Not implemented nor an explicit factor in adjudication.

7. Special Projects Fund to be established to support one-time events

Implemented.

8. Provincial government should maintain multi-year funding; integrate municipal support with provincial program

Not implemented.

9. Category A organizations should be supported on basis of a viable and supportable business plan

Partial implementation, must “demonstrate financial responsibility”.

10. Timing of decision should encourage & support planning by organizatons

Not implemented.Not adequate to needs.

11. Funding levels should be known in advance of organizations fiscal year

Partial implementation as some groups have adjusted their fiscal year.

12. Payment dates better match cash flow Some improvement, still inadequate to need.

13. IMC to encourage other CRD municipalities to join Much action, few results.14. Hotel room tax benefits to arts development Money went to Tourism distance

marketing, none to the arts.FACILITIES15. Cost of Rental and cost of facilities operation

should be addressed through operating grantsNo policy operational.

16. Manage civic facilities to: maximize use minimize cost break-even

Implemented.Implemented.Implemented.

17. Civic facilities give priority to local groups Over the last year, policies have been developed to accommodate different groups at reduced rates.

18. Build a new 400 seat theatre for 1994 Not implemented.19. Facilities up-grading

Capital Development Fund

Ad hoc implementation e.g. Belfry and Langham Court.

No action to date. Recommendation of Arts Commission in June 1995, to establish a fund, was rejected.

20. McPherson/Royal up-grading in consultation with users

Up-grading of Royal in part,further work to do. Proposal has been developed. Work is planned for the McPherson Playhouse.

21. Plans to develop rehearsal and production space for major organizations

Facilities study undertaken. No definitive action to date.


ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE22. Arts coordination through IMC

Arts Commission to be created, arms- length Establish Arts Manager position to support &

stimulate IMC and AC Replace McPherson Foundation with Civic Arts

Facilities Board to own and manage all civic arts facilities

Continue dependence on CAC to deliver services in support of municipal policy

Implemented.Implemented.Implemented.

Not implemented, but Royal Theatre has been transferred to the CRD, and the McPherson is in the process of being transferred. Both are operated and managed under the Capital Region Theatre Society.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC ART23. AM and AC to develop a strategy of community

development as a priorityPublic art component partially implemented; strategy not fully articulated.

24. IMC to ask AC to develop and implement a Public Arts Program

Partial: % for art & murals policy in place.

25. Each municipality should have a budget for art purchase

Not implemented.No acquisition budgets.

26. 1 % for art in public building All of the 4-core municipalities have a policy.

27. Each municipality to promote use of space for performance and exhibition

Partial implementation

28. Professional fees to artists for works in public buildings

Not implemented.

29. Commission to address need for a Community Arts Centre

Discussed in Facilities Study. No definitive action taken.


Part B – Structural Options

1. The Existing IMC Structure The current intermunicipal structure for arts development in Greater Victoria was established in 1989 following the adoption of the policy framework and certain recommendations of the Arts Policy for Greater Victoria.

Existing Structure

Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich Victoria Councils

Intermunicipal Committee

Arts Manager Arts Commission

This organizational structure was meant to address a number of issues identified in the Arts Policy, including:

weak coordination – where no one body was charged with the coordination of arts policy issues;

insufficient attention paid to policy – where too much time was spent on adjudication of particular funding requests and too little time on broad policy, particularly at the political level;

too many players involved – where arts organizations were spending considerable time keeping the Advisory Sub-Committee, the Intermunicipal Committee and individual clients informed of their activities;

lack of professional support – where those making the final decisions had to rely on the advice and assistance of volunteers rather than being able to call upon a staff person with the time and professional expertise to advise on policy issues and grant applications;

missed opportunities – where there was no one responsible for monitoring and taking advantage of funding available from foundations and other levels of government or fully exploring opportunities for joint programming; and,

weak team building – where no one involved had the time to devote to team building between political leaders, arts organizations, business and the education community.9

The new structure resulted in a more effective way of dealing with arts policy and development and over the last decade, particularly in its first years, much was achieved.

9 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, pp.33-34.


With the hiring of an arts manager professional advice became available for the first time and the arts, local government, and the community had an identified person and office to access for information and assistance. The Arts Manager and Arts Commission working together began to deal with forming collaborative relationships with other key stakeholders, an arts facilities study was completed, public art programs were developed, and the funding process and levels were improved.

Nevertheless and despite the significant achievements outlined above, many of the originally identified issues have not been fully resolved. Dissatisfaction with the existing structure was a prime motivation for undertaking this project.

2. Alternative Organizational Structures Developing a structure for local government arts policy and program development is an intricate balance of roles, responsibilities, and structures, responding to the needs of each community. There is no cookie cutter approach to this work.”10 Each approach reflects an area’s particular history of cultural involvement as well as its political and community structure and characteristics.

Within the Capital Region, there are some who feel that the existing structure has some advantages and in some respects works reasonably well; On the other hand, many feel that change is required. The degree and nature of that change needs to be determined based on what needs to be accomplished and what is practical and feasible. The essential question is whether or not the existing structure can be modified to make it work better or does another structure have to be created in its place?

The following sections of the report examine structures in other cities and regions across Canada and the United States and explore a number of options for local government in the Capital Region area.

2.1. Other Cities and Regions

It is useful to look at how other cities and regions are structured: examining alternative models can demonstrate a range of possibilities and an understanding of what might or might not work in the Capital Region. Table 3 provides a description of structures found in many cities across Canada and the United States.

While the governance model varies from a special purpose arms-length non-profit authority or commission to a directly operated office within a regional or municipal government department (special purpose or part of Parks and Recreation, Heritage and or Tourism), there are some common characteristics.

10 UBCM. Creative Connections – Arts and Culture in British Columbia. 1997, p. 49.


What should be done? “IMC is cracked but it

can work.” “Not worth the effort

to modify the existing structure, can’t think of a single advantage of the present structure.”

Most local government arts agencies have either a Board of Directors or Advisory Committee to assist in setting policy direction and in the application of available resources.

All agencies are managed and staffed by arts development professionals.

Most agencies carry out similar functions: administration (e.g. response to internal and external inquiries, budget preparation, civic reports, secretariat services to the arts commission/board); communications; technical and funding support for non-profit arts organizations; public art programs; community arts programming and development. Some carry out additional functions such as festivals and special projects, facility management, arts education, cultural tourism and economic development.

Where regional agencies exist, regional support is provided as an addition to the individual contributions of area municipalities.

2.1.1 Developing Regional Support for the Arts – Lessons from Elsewhere

Developing a regional framework for civic arts development usually takes time and a great deal of effort. One of the major obstacles that other regions have had to overcome is the reluctance of municipalities to contribute to activities beyond their borders. Another is the reluctance of areas outside the core area to contribute to what they see as a “downtown focused” service.

Strategies in other regions for achieving a successful “buy-in” have included:

Strong leadership at the political level combined with leadership from the arts, business and citizens.

Development of a structure that is perceived to belong to everyone. Demonstrating that the arts serve a “regional” audience. Ensuring that arts activities and events occur throughout the region. Addressing local issues and needs, recognizing that areas outside the urban core

may have organizations and facilities that serve a regional purpose. Applying differing funding levels in different parts of the region.

Two regional structures worth looking at in some detail are the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Portland Regional Arts and Culture Council. While they are considerably larger than the Capital Region in size, the approaches they have taken to develop a regional structure could have application in the Capital Region.


North Shore Arts Commission Mandate “to be an advocate, catalyst, developer, facilitator, promoter, policy maker, programmer, advisor, consultant, strategist, and enable for, and of, arts and culture as an economically significant and essential component of the North Shore community”

Table 3: Organizational Structures in Other Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Structure* Other InformationRegional/Multi-Jurisdiction Models

GVRD Regional Cultural Plan Steering Committee Staff with cultural planning responsibilities in member municipalities. + Strategic Planning staff liaison and administrative support from GVRD. This Committee is currently developing a regional strategic plan for cultural development in the GVRD.

Portland - Regional Arts & Culture Council (RACC)

Non-profit regional independent organization serving/funded by 3 counties, Metro Portland, and the City of Portland; governed by a Board of Directors.

27 members on the board – citizens appointed by each government agency, includes arts board members and paid staff; elected officials liaise. Staff approve the grants.

Denver - Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD)

Special regional district in the six metro Denver counties, governed by a Board of Directors.

9 member board of directors – 6 appointed by county commissioners of the six metro Denver counties and Denver City Council) and 3 by the governor of Colorado. There are no criteria for appointment, except that board members or staff of arts organizations cannot be appointed.

King County An office of King County -Cultural Resources

King County Arts Commission

Serves 38 suburban cities and some unincorporated areas

Funding, resource assistance and leadership to artists, arts organizations and communities.

North Shore Arts Commission

Arms-length body created to serve as an advisory board to the City of North Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver.

2 councillors on Board - 13 members – report through the councillor to the Councils. Administration costs are shared by the two municipalities, one of which provides the service. The Commission is fully funded by the City and District of North Vancouver.


Municipal/Single Jurisdiction ModelsVancouver Department within the city – Cultural Affairs. Budget levels approved by City Council. Staff make decisions on

funding.

Toronto The Culture Division is one of the five that comprise the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department. The other divisions include parks and recreation, economic development, communications and special events.

This is the new structure established following amalgamation.

Seattle Arts Commission (SAC)

Arms length agency of the City of Seattle. 15 policy-making volunteer commissioners + professional staffCommissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council.

Edmonton Arts Council Society

Non-profit, arms length society with a mandate to City Council.

17 person board (15 elected by members, including representation from large arts organizations). Other 2 members are from the City and Economic Development Edmonton.

Calgary City Department – Parks and Recreation +3 arms length autonomous agencies:

Calgary Region Arts Foundation Calgary Allied Arts Foundation

Calgary Centre for Performing Arts

City provides funding and technical support to the agencies; City also provides events programming and festivals.

administers support/funds to on-going arts groups and to individuals advises on visual arts policies and issues; manages the Civic Art

Collection provides and manages facilities

Halifax Department in the new Regional Municipality – Tourism, Culture and Heritage.

Grant Committee

Amalgamation brought together 4 local government jurisdictions resulting in re-organization of city’s departments.

Reviews applications and makes recommendations for funding.


Kamloops Program division in Recreation Culture Department; City Clerks department provides funding for specific contracts for the Community Arts Council to run programs.

Arts Commission

20% of staff time is dedicated to the arts program.Kamloops is also a member of the Okanagan Mainline Regional Arts Council (OMRAC), is a non-profit society working in community cultural development at the regional level. Each year they organize a conference on topics dealing with cultural development at the community level, a juried art exhibition, and occasional workshops.

advisory committee to Council on the direction of art development in the community.

Kelowna Division within the City - Cultural Services.

Kelowna Arts Foundation

Arts and Cultural Development Committee

Manages the City’s relationship with the Kelowna Museum, the Kelowna Art Gallery, Kelowna Arts Foundation, Parks Alive, and the proposed Community Arts Centre. a society established to distribute municipal grant-in-aid funds to the

arts community on behalf of the council advises Council on investments in arts infrastructure of facilities,

human resources, policies and programs, including Kelowna’s cultural tourism initiative, and planning for the Cultural District.

Saskatoon Division within the City - Cultural and Tourism Division. Council Committee

Professional staff manage the programs.

advises administration, reviews arts policy and provides advice.

Tacoma Division within the City - Cultural and Tourism Division. The Tacoma Arts Commission informs, advises and assists the City in formulating arts policy and

responding to arts issues in the community.

Ottawa Department within the City - Community Services. Cultural Leadership Committee (CLC) advises on cultural planning initiatives and policy.

Regina Section of the Community and Leisure Services Division of the City’s Community Services, Parks and Recreation Department. Regina Arts Commission

Report to the Parks and Recreation Board, which is made up of a mix of citizens and council members; the Board makes final decisions.

makes funding and policy recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Board.

* In addition to arts commissions, many of these cities/regions also have public art committees with membership from the community.


GVRD

In 1990, the GVRD established itself as a cultural funding agency through the creation of a cultural grants program which today provides annual operating grants to 6 region-serving arts institutions and an annual installment toward the creation of a $1 million endowment fund. The organizations funded include: Ballet BC, Presentation House Gallery, Vancouver Art Gallery, Vancouver Opera, Vancouver Playhouse Theatre Company, and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra.

While the annual budget allocation has not changed since its inception, it is split evenly between direct disbursements to eligible institutions with the balance deposited in the fund. The concept behind the establishment of the endowment fund was to produce a self sustaining revenue fund which would produce the financial resources needed to maintain the regional cultural grants program in perpetuity. A review of the program, to be triggered when the fund reaches the $1 million target, was incorporated into the grants program when it was established.

In 1995 the GVRD Board approved a municipally driven strategic cultural planning initiative which provided a base of data and information about the arts and culture sector in the region. The initiative has been overseen by a Steering Committee comprised of staff with cultural planning responsibilities in member municipalities.

“Greater Vancouver’s municipalities have a vital role …one that is based on cooperation and collaboration, not only among the municipalities themselves but also in partnership with other stakeholder groups.”11

“…region-wide arts and culture strategies are complementary to the existing arts and cultural initiatives of local government. They focus on areas where there are benefits to be gained by jointly pursuing opportunities and addressing shared concerns.”12

In November 1997 the Board agreed that the next phase in the process was to develop a regional strategic plan to:

identify gaps in regional service and facilities; develop and propose ways for municipalities collectively to shape the infrastructure and

support base for regional activities and organizations; propose a framework for the region to work with senior governments and other partners

to ensure appropriate investment in cultural organizations; and, develop proposals for achieving co-ordination of cultural policies and investment.

11 Regional Cultural Plan Steering Committee. Strategies for Regional Arts and Cultural Development in Greater Vancouver, GVRD, p. 2.12 Ibid., p.13.


Phase 2 provided three strategic directions: enabling coordinated planning and development of region-serving cultural facilities and services to meet region-wide needs and opportunities; facilitating cultural economic development initiatives to ensure that the opportunities for growth in the cultural sector; and improving information exchange and understanding amongst both providers of and participants in cultural activities within the region, including residents and visitors.

In addition, four priority actions were identified: improving the financial environment for region-serving arts and culture initiatives, to

secure their quality and sustainability and provide for growth; developing a “Greater Vancouver Cultural Information Network” to improve the region-

wide flow of information about arts and culture; developing and implementing a cultural tourism strategy to increase, and enhance

regional distribution of, the economic and social benefits of cultural tourism; and, reviewing the challenges and obstacles to regional touring of performing and visual arts

and heritage exhibitions, and developing a program to enhance access to existing arts and cultural activity region-wide by facilitating its distribution to existing venues.

Work is continuing on developing a regional agency. As envisioned it would be a special purpose body, accountable to municipalities. Board members would be appointed by municipalities, but it would have the ability to raise funds through the GVRD.

The Portland Regional Arts and Culture Council

In 1973, the City of Portland and Multnomah County (the county in which the City is located) created a City/County Commission known as the Metropolitan Arts Commission (MAC). This Commission served as the local arts agency for the City for many years. The idea for the Regional Arts & Culture Council (RACC) emerged from Arts Plan 2000+ - a region-wide cultural planning process conducted under the leadership of MAC, completed in 1992.

Arts Plan called for the transformation of MAC into an independent publicly funded non-profit organization designated as the arts and cultural agency of the tri-county Portland region, whose mission was to provide a coordinated regional approach through leadership, funding and advocacy for arts and culture. RACC was formed in 1995 taking over the duties of MAC and expanding them on a regional basis.

A significant motivation for establishing RACC as a regional entity was to administer a hoped-for regional funding mechanism. However, as a result of a negative response to the idea in a public opinion poll, the notion was tabled. Instead, service agreements for developing and administering arts and culture programs were entered into between RACC and the five funding jurisdictions. The level of support varies among the different partners.

RACC provides four primary services: Grants and Technical Assistance, Public Art, Arts Education, and Arts and Culture in Communities. However, in early 2000 as part of an effort aimed at strengthening its relationships with regional partners to develop support for a regional


funding mechanism, RACC’s Board decided to undertake a number of initiatives over a three-year period. RACC will:

work closely with the local arts councils in each of the counties to build support for future efforts to establish a regional funding mechanism;

work to build grassroots support for arts and culture throughout the region through education and advocacy regarding the important role arts and culture play in the region; and,

establish a task force to research possible public sector funding mechanisms.

2.2 Option 1 – Modifying the Existing Structure

Modifying the existing structure is clearly one option that should be considered, but it needs to be examined in terms of its strengths and weaknesses and its potential for growth.

2.2.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing Structure

The current structure is not without its supporters – a number of advantages of the existing structure and aspects that work well were identified during the interviews.

Level of cooperation amongst the 4-core – On the whole there is a general feeling that the level of cooperation is high and well entrenched as resources are shared for a common purpose.

Commitment and support from IMC members – On the whole, most feel that members of the IMC work well together, recognize the significance of the arts in Greater Victoria, and are generally supportive of arts development.

Local/inter-municipal funding – Many feel that the current structure allows for both inter-municipal sharing and local support of the arts, addressing the needs of both the wider and local community.

Support for the arts – On the whole, most feel that the current structure at least provides some support, on a coordinated basis, from several municipalities, “it is better than nothing or a one by one approach”.

However, despite the significant achievements that were outlined in the previous section, many of the issues identified in the Arts Policy have not been fully resolved and remain a source concern. A number of these were identified during the interviews conducted for this project.

Length of time it takes to make decisions – There are too many bodies involved in the decision-making process because of a lack of delegated authority. “The system is clumsy and awkward.” “The approval process is onerous – IMC has no decision making power.”


Level of effort required to solicit support from local government – There is still a need for arts groups to appear before each Council for funding, particularly for special projects and capital but also on occasion for operating funding issues. “Many of the councils meet on Monday nights so the dog and pony show takes

weeks to accomplish.” “Inefficiency is wasting resources that are precious to start with.” “Very difficult for small organizations to do the dog and pony show.” “The governance structure is not responsive to the needs of the arts community.”

Inefficient administration – Decisions about funding and payment of grants are still dealt with separately by each municipality, not always at the same time. “Four municipalities hand out cheques, often for very small amounts and at different

times – in some cases it must cost more to process the cheque than the actual amount the cheque is worth.”

“Not knowing when operating grants will be determined, and at what level, creates uncertainty and makes planning difficult for arts organizations.”

Separation of administration and the Arts Manager/Development Office– Some administrative functions are carried out by the Arts Development Office, others are located in one or more of the municipalities. The Arts Manager/Development Officer is not directly attached to any local government. “Changes in municipal personnel can mean that no one knows who to contact in the

various municipalities - there are a lot of people to keep track of with so many municipalities involved.”

“No ownership as staff is separate.”

Lack of information and communication – Council members who are not on the IMC often do not have a solid understanding of key issues. “IMC councillors do not report adequately back to Councils – there is no regular

method of reporting.” “There is no mechanism to properly orient new councillors or to existing councillors.”

Lack of professional staff – With the vacancy in the position of Arts Development Officer and the change in the focus of the Office, once again the IMC, the 4-core Councils and staff, and the Arts Commission are operating without professional advice.

Lack of participation and support by areas outside the 4-core – Although there are

small contributions and attendance at IMC meetings from time to time from some areas outside the 4-core municipalities, by and large only the 4-core participates in the current structure. “If the process is so admirable why hasn’t it spread?” “Lack of generosity from the outside, leads to less generosity from the core.” “Very few contribute, yet all citizens benefit.”

There is a difference in opinion as to the value of the present structure in terms of the opportunity for individual municipal decision making. Some, particularly some elected


officials feel the current structure allows each of the councils some “independence” and a “hands-on approach” to decision-making and this helps to achieve “buy-in” and support.13 Others feel strongly, that once a global budget has been determined, decisions about who is funded should not be subject to individual “political” concerns or interests.

2.2.2 Building on the Strengths, Overcoming the Weaknesses

To overcome the weaknesses requires not only further simplification and streamlining of the current structure, but also a concerted effort to bring in other partners, recognizing that the arts serve a regional function and not just the 4-core.

Delegating AuthorityThe current decision-making structure is multi-levelled and time consuming. Delegation of decision-making would overcome this. In many cities the role of councils is to approve the global budget, with allocations for operating and special project grants delegated to either/and or staff, an advisory body, or a committee of council. The new Local Government Act, allows councils to delegate much more authority than they could in the past.

Investing decision-making authority in the Intermunicipal Committee, once the global budget is set, would eliminate the need for arts organizations to lobby individual councils, it would save council time and arts organization time. It would mean that once a decision is made at the Intermunicipal Committee, arts organizations would know the level of support they would be receiving. However, it would also commit councils to supporting organizations and events that, on occasion, not all support, particularly in the area of special project grants.

Tightening the Budget Timeline

Currently councils decide at various times – anywhere between November and mid May – the level of support they will provide to the arts. Arts organizations in the meantime are attempting to plan their programs without knowing what local government support they will receive. Needless to say this is a significant constraint when building a program. If authority were delegated, some assurances around which to build that program would be forthcoming earlier. Under this system, arts organizations would know in January (once the Provisional Budget is adopted) what they could expect in grants. Financial support for the arts is relatively small in terms of municipal budgets (approximately 2/10 of one percent). If there is a commitment to support the arts as a function of local government (and not as an add on), this arrangement should not be viewed as a problem. However, while this would be an improvement over the current system, arts organizations will still not receive the second installment of their grant until July, which for most of the major organizations is after their fiscal year end.

Orientation for New MembersWhen new members are appointed to the IMC they are often unfamiliar with the background, process, and structure of local government support for the arts; some are unfamiliar or know little about the arts community. The same can be true as the composition of councils changes. Orientation would be useful.

13 On the other hand, some feel that this is a problem, as is indicated in the immediately preceding section.


Greater Efficiency

Under the current structure, each participating municipality “cuts individual cheques” for both operating and special project grants. However, depending on the willingness of one of the 4 partners to assume the administrative responsibility for IMC, each municipality, once the global budgets for operating and special projects was determined, could forward their funds for these grants to the administering municipality. This would reduce overhead costs for each municipality.

AdministrationAt this time, no one of the 4-core municipalities has indicated a willingness to take on the administrative function of the IMC. Oak Bay and Esquimalt have always argued that they are too small and, the responsibility has fallen to Victoria and Saanich. Latterly all have cost shared the expense of providing the service, although the City of Victoria provided service at no cost to the others for many years. If the arts remain with the 4-core, a decision is required. Under a delegated model, administrative functions would expand beyond their current role, given greater centralization.

Location of the Arts Manager/Arts Development Office

The Arts Development Office is currently located in the Community Services office of the City of Victoria on Pandora. While downtown, it has little or no independent visibility and, in fact, it gives the appearance of being part of the City of Victoria. Its profile needs to be raised. As the City charges no rent for the space, cost might be a factor in locating the office elsewhere.

Tying the Office into the Structure of Local GovernmentAs a body not directly attached to any particular local government jurisdiction, the Office has little opportunity to access directly the support infrastructure and services that are part of local government. One such area is a central arts web site where information can be provided to the public and stakeholders. The separation of the Office also affects the ability for the arts to be integrated into policy development and planning, to be on the ground floor – “an out of sight, out of mind” situation. These issues are not insurmountable, a recognition of the situation and a concerted effort can address them. Apparently, the procedures that Saanich has implemented to deal with public art work well in this regard.

Separation from Facility PlanningWith the Royal Theatre, and shortly the McPherson Playhouse, transferred to the CRD there is little or no connection between the arts funding and programming role of IMC and facility planning at the CRD. Yet the two are clearly related – after all, the organizations that the 4-core fund are many of the same organizations that use those two facilities. It’s “a bit like designing a house without asking the residents to participate” noted one observer. Facility funding decisions can have a significant effect on operational funding decisions. If it is decided that a new arts centre is required, the need to provide a link between the various bodies involved will be even greater. Including a member of the Arts Commission on the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society Board would provide a link. Regular


communication between the Arts Manager/Development Officer and facility planners and managers would also help to integrate the various local government programs.

Growth

If the current structure is to grow beyond the 4-core municipalities, it will be important to extend an invitation for others to join, and perhaps in the process offer some incentives for doing so. It is unlikely that growth will occur immediately, it will take time to develop potential partnerships and will require considerable sustained effort at both the political and administrative level.

The capacity to accommodate growth is limited without a significant and major change in the current structure. Serving 4 municipalities now is a challenge for a single Arts Manager/Development Officer. Serving up to 13 would be impossible, particularly if the Arts Manager/Development Officer is expected to develop close working relationships with local government staff and to report in person on a regular basis to councils.

The current political structure – 2 councillors from each participating municipality on the IMC – could be a problem if numerous other municipalities come on board. The committee could become too large to be efficient. This is an issue that the Greater Victoria Public Library has had to deal with, and is currently dealing with, as the number of partners increases. It would be well to consider how they have approached the issue. There is time, expansion of IMC is not likely to occur immediately.

2.3 Option 2 – Moving to the CRD

The Capital Regional District is the one multi-purpose local government that covers the entire region. Regional districts in British Columbia were established to provide a vehicle for the delivery of regional services, a political and administrative framework for inter-municipal or sub-regional service delivery on a partnership basis, and "local" government for rural areas. It seems reasonable, given the widely accepted view that the arts serve and are used by people throughout the region, therefore, to consider the CRD as an option.

In October 1998, the Greater Victoria Arts Commission developed a position paper on CRD involvement in the Arts14. It is useful to note the reasons why they supported a move to the CRD.

Funding responsibility – While all citizens of the Capital Regional District can benefit from the programs available, only the four-core and Metchosin share the cost. There is an inequity issue inherent to this situation which needs to be addressed.

Regional Growth Strategy – The CRD emphasis on economic development and job creation gives a reason for CRD responsibility for the arts. The background paper Regional Growth Strategy 5: Foundations for our Future states: “Advanced technology,

14 Greater Victoria Arts Commission. CRD Involvement in the Arts: A Position on Structural Change. October 7, 1998.


manufacturing, and film and arts appear to be growing sectors that could diversify the regions employment base.” Between 60 and 70 percent of all arts budgets are expended on salaries, with most of the balance going into local goods and services purchases. The arts are about jobs. 15

Cultural tourism – Employment in the region is heavy in the service sector. Tourism is a major industry and the cultural sector is positioned to enhance tourism. Cultural tourism offers a vehicle to enrich the experience of the visitor, increase the length of stay, and create more jobs. A regional strategy is needed, this is more likely to happen if the CRD formalizes its responsibility for arts and culture development in the region.

Research capability – Broad, in depth documentation of the economic contribution of the arts in the region is lacking. In a period of financial restraint, all public activity must justify the public expenditure. The research capability of the CRD would enhance the ability of the arts and culture sector to demonstrate its role in the economy without a substantial increase in the cost of doing so. It would also allow the CRD to offer a more comprehensive picture of the economic situation within the region.

The main advantages cited were: a reduction in the decision-making time frame; an increase in the size of the fund available for arts programming in the region by offering a vehicle for serviced patrons in municipalities outside the core to participate in the funding process; a vehicle for more extensive municipal involvement in arts funding and development; and, thereby an expansion of the potential for programs in the peninsula and in the western communities.

2.3.1 Advantages of the CRD

During the interviews a number of advantages of moving the current IMC structure to the CRD were identified.

Regional Profile, Visibility, and PriorityMany feel that having the local government office for arts development at the CRD would give it more profile and visibility and increase community awareness. Many feel that as part of a larger organization it would be “taken more seriously”. Because all the “players would be at the same table, the arts would become a priority of the entire region”, there would be “a political recognition that the arts are important on a regional basis” - “reflecting the regional nature of the arts”.

ParticipationMany support a move to the CRD because they believe it provides the best possibility for increased local government participation in support of arts development.

One-Stop Shopping

15 The arts are also about quality of life and promoting social well-being. As the Regional Growth Strategy 5: Foundations for our Future states: “Realizing the vision means: … The arts and local arts community are promoted.”


With one administration and one decision-making body, processes would be faster and more accessible. It is difficult for any organization to deal with multiple governments, a regional structure would “avoid the dog and pony show”. A quicker decision-making would increase the ability to respond to immediate needs. Given the budget process and timeline at the CRD, as compared to now, the funding process could be streamlined and expedited, allowing for better annual planning and cash flow as well as increased leverage with senior governments and corporate donors.

Regional DiscussionWith the “same information shared around one table, when everyone is being heard in the same place, there is more chance to develop a vision for local government support of the arts and the role of the arts in the region’s social and economic development”. A regional table provides an opportunity to have a say at the regional level.

Part of a StructureBecoming part of a local government body would provide the Arts Development Office with an “administrative home”. Right now the Office is “an anomaly – out on its own, isolated”. As part of a larger organization, such as the CRD, there would be greater access to resources and expertise. For example, the Arts Development Office would have access to a web site that could be developed to provide better access and visibility to the public and user groups.

A Local/Regional Structure With a move to the CRD, region-wide arts strategies would be complementary to the existing arts initiatives of individual local governments, focusing on areas where there are benefits to be gained by jointly pursuing opportunities and addressing shared concerns.

2.3.2 Disadvantages of the CRD

Similarly, during the interviews a number of disadvantages were identified, albeit fewer than the list of advantages. Three main areas of concern were apparent.

Loss of IndependenceSome feel that when fewer municipalities are involved, that a “more personal approach can be taken”, that “individual municipalities retain more control over decisions – the CRD is more arms-length”. Some feel that direct accountability will be lost and that the arts will be “removed from the consciousness of councils”.

Loss of VisibilitySome feel that moving to the CRD would mean “being absorbed into a large bureaucracy” that would decrease public visibility and access to political decision-makers.

Costs Would Rise


Some believe that moving to the CRD would increase administrative costs and they fear that the additional costs would be paid for by reducing funding to arts organizations.

2.3.3 Establishing a Service at the CRD

The procedure for establishing a new service at the CRD is complex and time consuming. A new policy adopted by the CRD Board in May 2000 makes the process even more difficult.

Policy for a Standard for Adoption or Review of Service Function

That the following be adopted and consistently applied for either the adoption or subsequent review of service functions undertaken by the CRD Board.

Does the service function meet a clearly defined need or aspiration of the participating area(s) involved?

Does the service function meet the test of being deliverable at a reasonable cost level?

Has the regional district examined all possible alternatives for the delivery of the service function?

The actual steps that need to be followed, include:

Getting the issue on the agenda – A request from those interested in establishing the service at the CRD has to be forwarded to the CRD Board. It would be helpful if letters of support from each interested municipality accompanied the request. It would also be helpful if an opportunity to speak to the issues was sought.

Getting agreement that the issue should be a CRD service – Establishing a service requires the support of 50% + 1 of the directors on the Regional Board. Interested parties would have to ask the Board to agree that the arts should become a CRD service. The vote would be based on 1 person/1 vote and to pass at least 12 affirmative votes are required.

Referral to the Finance and Administration Committee – If 12 directors indicated an interest in establishing the service, the matter would be referred to the Finance and Administration Committee to work out the details of participation.

Bylaw preparation – A service establishment bylaw requires an agreed upon cost-sharing formula, with dollar limits for a 5 year period and an identification of service funding partners. Finance staff would work with potential participants to identify an agreed to funding formula and funding levels.

Board acceptance/rejection of the bylaw – The Board decides whether or not the service should be established (12 votes are required). If the bylaw passes first reading, it is given second reading, then is sent to the participating municipalities for their assent. At this point,


Councils can decide to give consent on the part of electors, but if they choose, they can also go to referendum.

Final approval – If all the participating members agree to the conditions set out in the bylaw, the bylaw is sent to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for review. If Ministry approval is forthcoming, the bylaw goes to the CRD for third reading and adoption. If any changes are desired/requested, the whole process starts over again.

2.3.4 Is There Support for Establishing the Arts as a New Service at the CRD?

Interviews conducted with CRD Directors and Mayors suggest that a vote to establish the arts as a new service might narrowly pass, but could also fail. It is that close. However, it is important to view the results of the survey with some caution; if more information were provided to directors and councils it might be possible to gain additional support.

4-Core MunicipalitiesSupport would likely come from directors from Saanich (4), Victoria (3), and Esquimalt (1). (Note: one director in Saanich could not be contacted.) Support from Oak Bay would be forthcoming “if 8 municipalities agreed to participate in the service”.

Other MunicipalitiesNo directors outside the 4-core indicated they would support establishing the arts as a service, with the possible exceptions of Metchosin and Highlands. However, in both those cases, their Councils would likely decide the issue and the outlook is either unlikely in the former case and uncertain in the latter case. Every director indicated that their councils were not supportive and that this would likely determine how they would vote on any bylaw. Reasons for not giving support include:

Central Saanich “No council support.”Colwood “Have to think about moving it to the CRD – there is some support at the

CRD to look at the CRD actually reducing/reviewing the services it provides now. Council support is unlikely. ”

Highlands “Participation would be up to Council – not sure whether they would support participating.”

Langford “Council is unlikely to support, Langford already feels it is contributing more locally than any of the other municipalities in the Western Communities.” “Might consider putting it to a referendum.”

Metchosin “Up to council, not sure how they would decide.”North Saanich “Council voted unanimously not to support the Royal Theatre move to the

CRD, grants to arts, and sending a representative to the IMC.”

Sidney “Doesn’t think there is a real interest on Council, but not sure how the vote would carry. Everytime a service is added to the CRD there are some

Arts Policy and Program Development in the Capital Region

Moving the arts to the CRD is no slam, dunk!

32

hidden administrative costs.”Sooke “Don’t know if a definitive answer is possible. Need is local given limited

resources. Newly incorporated and trying to build up infrastructure and support locally.”

View Royal “Council would not support a new service, the CRD is getting huge and unmanageable and is not a very good vehicle. Might be able to support it in the future as more commercial development occurs in the municipality.”

Electoral AreasMore support might be forthcoming from the two electoral areas who were interviewed (the third was not available).

Salt Spring “Would look favourably on service establishment.”Outer Gulf Islands

“Possibly.”

2.3.5 Is There Support for Participating in a New Arts Service at the CRD?

Even if a new service was established, participation does not automatically follow. A request to participate in a new arts service would likely be received with even more resistance than establishing the service. The 4-core would continue to support the arts, otherwise it is unlikely that others would.

For electoral areas to participate, they can be included in the establishing bylaw (but they would need to hold a referendum to establish this as a local service), or they can voluntarily participate on a year to year basis using their grants-in-aid budgets as long as the purpose is deemed to be a benefit to their community.

2.3.6 Obstacles to Overcome

Apart from the positions that have been adopted, there are a number of other very significant obstacles to overcome if the arts are to become a service at the CRD.

Lack of Knowledge/InformationMany of the CRD Directors are unfamiliar with the Intermunicipal Committee16 or of local government arts policies and programs. Many lack information about the contribution the arts make to social and economic regional and community development.

16 In fact, it was clear from the interviews that some had never heard of it, and certainly did not know what it does.


It is unlikely, at least in the short term, that participation would increase beyond the 4-core municipalities.

33

Royal TheatreThere is lingering resentment amongst some Directors over the way in which the Royal Theatre move to the CRD was handled: “has not helped one bit”; “the Royal took a lot of staff time which everyone had to pay for, even if they had not supported it being moved to the CRD”. (However, as one observer noted: the “Royal problem was not a CRD problem, it was an ‘odd duck’; a single incident does not reflect the arts sector –don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”.)

Senior StaffSome CRD senior administrative staff are reluctant to take on the arts as another service. In fact, it has been made clear that there is “no space within the building – might have to rent elsewhere”, “daytime meeting space is at a premium”, and “no administration staff is available”.

A No-Grants PolicyThere is a CRD no-grants policy that is sometimes used to deny grants to organizations. (However, in practice, the CRD gives many grants to many organizations – usually as payment for a service provided. There are lots of precedents, for example the grants given to the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society, the Family Court Committee, Victim’s Assistance, and several in the environmental area. Electoral areas have well-established grants-in-aid budgets.)

Attitudes About the CRDThe CRD remains an unpopular local government body in some parts of the region - the “CRD is not a happy word”. It is frequently seen as a “large bureaucracy”. Councils “like to use the CRD as a scapegoat”; “Councils like to gripe about the CRD because they feel it is out of their control”.

There is “not an appetite for taking on more things at the CRD – the Finance Committee has a task force looking at what the CRD can get rid of”; “Asking at the wrong time (given senior government downloading) – not even going to discuss funding more things”. For some there are higher priorities at the Board, such as health that require significant funding.

Core vs Outer AreasThere is a continuing tension between the core of the region and areas outside the core and a lingering resentment – “People are very territorial – begrudge the money that they perceive to be spent in the 4-core municipalities and not in their own communities.” Expressed another way – “the outlying areas provide open space/agriculture, etc. – balance of the equation belongs in the more urban core”. The view that “not in my municipality, so why should I pay” is fairly pervasive. On the other hand, some in the 4-core express the view that they “can’t keep dumping on the 4-core”.


2.3.7 Strategies

Raising Public AwarenessMany feel that raising public awareness of the importance of the arts and local government support is critical before any change will occur. A concerted and sustained effort with a “message, target audience, and public call to action is needed to get the message out to those communities who are reluctant to fund the arts”. The responsibility for this lies primarily with the arts themselves – they need to demonstrate that they are committed to serving a regional public and why support is essential. The media can also play a key role in raising public awareness and encouraging discussion.

Providing Information/DiscussionThe value of the arts needs to be demonstrated to local government officials, at both the elected and staff levels. Information is required on the link between the arts and economic development, including cultural tourism. “Usage is a persuasive argument” – it needs to be shown that residents from all over the region participate in arts activities.

The arts need to be placed in the context of other regional discussions and activities, one of which is the Regional Growth Strategy. A parallel, some feel, can be drawn with regional support for a parks system: “there are parks in every municipality, but there are also regional parks; everyone can use them and they belong to everyone, but not everyone uses every park in every part of the region – if this notion can be accepted, then it can be extended to the arts”.

Before a request is made to the CRD Board to establish the arts as a service, opportunities for providing information and facilitating discussion must be created. This can take several forms:

The public in each jurisdiction must “work to ensure that their elected representatives know that their citizens value the arts and want their local government to support the arts”. Local citizens need to get the arts on their council agenda. The subscriber’s lists of arts organizations can be a starting point for identifying potential advocates.

Elected officials in the 4-core could talk one-to-one with their colleagues in other parts of the region; they could make presentations to councils outside the core area.

A regional summit could be organized on the future of the arts within the region. Contributions and participation from all parts of the region should be sought.

Staff from the 4-core could use meetings with their colleagues from other parts of the region to provide information and discuss the arts and the role of local government in support. “There is a need to work and refocus on municipal managers.” Many opportunities exist: for example, senior managers and parks and recreation directors from various municipalities meet on a regular basis to exchange information and ideas and to share common concerns and approaches.

If and when, a request to establish the arts as a service is made to the CRD Board, informational material should be sent in advance for distribution to all directors. When the request is made, time to make a presentation should be sought.


Inclusion and InvolvementThere is a need to achieve “buy-in where everyone gets something”; a need to “acknowledge the needs of all areas of the region, not just the 4-core’s”; a need to make “everyone part of the solution”; and, a need to acknowledge that areas outside the core support their own arts initiatives (e.g. Langford and the Isabel Reader Theatre, Sidney and North Saanich their Community Arts Council and Sancha Hall, and Sooke, the Sooke Art Show) all of which contribute to the regional arts mosaic.

Bringing new partners on-line is likely to take some time. It may be necessary to “provide options for people to come in”, to make the structure “flexible enough to provide some choices”17. It will be important to ensure potential partners have a “say in how the structure is set up” – there is a concern that in moving to the CRD they will not have any influence, that decisions will be controlled by the core”. Just as many arts organizations supported by the 4-core serve a regional audience, it is important to recognize that areas outside the core have programs and facilities that also contribute to the regional arts menu.

2.3.8 Organizational Options at the CRD

There are numerous alternatives for structuring the arts as a service at the CRD.

As a division within an existing department As a department As a corporation owned by the CRD As an arms-length society

If any of these alternatives was selected, the IMC could be disbanded.

As a Division Within an Existing DepartmentGiven the current CRD departmental organization, the “best-fit” would most likely be Administration or Parks, with Administration providing the better fit. The Community Relations Division provides a model for this alternative. Community Relations has 2 staff members, reports to the CRD Executive Director and the Finance and Administration Committee of the Board.

In many cities, arts are part of parks and recreation departments. However, the function of CRD Parks s not the same as a municipal parks and recreation department. Furthermore, the CRD Parks Office is located in Langford. Relocating the arts office to Langford would make it less accessible to most of the organizations who use its services; it would remove the office from close proximity to the major tourism, business, economic development, and media organizations in the region. Visibility would be reduced. If the office was maintained in a central location, it would be separated from the rest of the department – an administrative arrangement that is inefficient and one that would be no improvement over the existing IMC set-up.

17 Specific suggestions of funding alternatives/incentives are provided in Part D, Section 4.


Located within Administration, an arts division would have a more direct connection to expertise and resources that would support the program – even if the office itself was not within the main downtown CRD building, it could be located nearby. It would provide greater profile and accessibility to the community, major stakeholders, and elected officials. As a division within the CRD, it could also benefit from and contribute to the “regional discussion”.

As a Department It would be possible to set up a new CRD department for the arts, particularly if the current CRD function for the Royal (and eventually the McPherson) were rolled in. Being its own department would provide a separate identity and high profile for the function. It could report to an existing standing committee of the Board such as Finance and Administration, or alternatively a new committee could be created. As a department, however, it would be small.

As a Corporation Owned by the CRDThe Capital Region Housing Corporation provides a potential model for a regional arts office. The CRHC was created in 1982 as a separate legal entity, wholly owned by the CRD. It has a 10 member board (6 CRD Directors, 4 members selected from the community and appointed by the CRD). The board chair is a CRD Director.

The CRHC has access to CRD services such as personnel, finance, and community relations obtaining such services as “cost-effective” accounting, collective agreement bargaining, and established policies and procedures. They are also part of the CRD computer system and receive computer technical support services; they share the CRD web site. However, they are charged for these services. Staff are paid at CRD rates established under the CUPE Agreement and the Exempt Staff Bylaw.

Funding for CRHC comes mainly from development revenue from management fees for housing projects – a source of revenue that would not be available to an arts office. From time to time the CRD has provided some funding to CRHC: seed money ($65,000) when the corporation was first set up; the salary for a planner for 3 years; and funding for 3 years to supplement the salary of a new senior position created to look at new ways to build housing without government subsidy.

While establishing a separate arts corporation would provide a separate identity and high profile, its small size might be less efficient than if the office was incorporated into an existing structure. While some perceive there to be advantages in an arms-length arrangement, accountability to the CRD Board would be less direct. While senior CRD staff are wary about taking on more functions, of all the alternatives, setting up a separate corporation is the least favoured and would likely be resisted.

As an Arms-Length SocietyWhen the Royal Theatre was transferred to the CRD, an arms-length external society – the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society – was created and provided with a grant to operate


and manage the theatre as well as a capital grant to upgrade the theatre. This is an arrangement common for facility operation and management in many cities and regions.

The Society has its own board comprised of community and elected officials, but it also reports to a subcommittee of the CRD Finance and Administration Committee composed of all the CRD directors (9) from the 3 participating municipalities. The Sub-Committee reports through the Finance and Administration Committee to the Board. The CRD provides clerical support and meeting space to the Sub-Committee. A weighted vote is used for budget items.

It would be possible to create a similar structure for the arts office. Based on practice elsewhere, it would be separate from the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society – the functions are different. Under this arrangement, the society would receive a grant from the CRD, including a global budget for grants to arts organizations, to carry out specified activities. Under this arrangement, the society could report to the same Sub-Committee as does the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society, or a new standing committee could be created to which both societies would report. This committee would be composed of representatives from the participating jurisdictions. There is an advantage to be gained from having both societies report to the same sub-committee/committee: while the functions of each are different, there is a link between arts development and facility operation and management.

Under this arrangement, the society, created to provide a regional arts office, would have its own board to oversee the functions of the society and staff would report to this board. The board can be a mix of citizens and locally elected officials from participating jurisdictions or comprised solely of citizens. There is a choice. Under this arrangement, staff salaries and the location of the office can be determined by the society board.

Some of those interviewed feel this alternative would provide a more arms-length structure, with less opportunity for “hands-on” political interference; others feel it would be too removed and not as accountable. Sometimes having a separate society can provide the society with more flexibility in terms of its operation. However, unless the society has other revenues and is not solely dependent on grants from local government to carry out its functions, this flexibility may be reduced. Most of the similar models in other regions (for example, RACC in Portland and the North Shore Arts Commission have other sources of revenue.

2.3.9 CRD Committee Composition, Authority, and Reporting Structure

None of the alternatives outlined above precludes the creation of an advisory committee, such as the Arts Commission. Such committees at the CRD can be comprised solely of citizen members or a mix of citizens and elected officials. The CRD has many examples of such committees – three notable examples are the Roundtable on the Environment, the Traffic Safety Commission, and the Water Advisory Committee. The Regional Water Supply Commission is an example of a committee that comprises a mix of municipal councillors and CRD directors. (See Part C, Section 1 for a discussion of the Arts Commission.)


As with committee structure, the CRD has a number of different voting procedures. The Regional Water Supply Commission uses a weighted vote for everything, CRD committees do not use a weighted vote for anything, and the CRD Board varies these practices using a weighted vote for budget matters and a non-weighted vote for everything else. The decision to use weighted voting or not could be one of the possible variables in achieving “buy-in” from outside the core area.

The Royal and McPherson Theatres Society reports to the CRD through a Sub-Committee of the Finance and Administration Committee. There is some reason, given the linkage between arts development/programming and facilities, to support establishing a common reporting structure for both the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society and a new arts office at the CRD. Given the potential range, number and nature of the issues and activities that an arts office at the CRD could deal with, a sub-committee of the Finance and Administration Committee may not be the most appropriate reporting mechanism. Instead, creating a new Arts Committee, comprised of elected officials from participating jurisdictions, would give the arts not only more profile but greater focus. The diagram below sets out what such a reporting structure at the CRD could look like. The committee would be advised by the Arts Manager/Development Officer and the Arts Commission and the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society.

Possible CRD StructureCRD Board

CRD Arts Committee

Arts Manger/Development

OfficerArts Commission

Royal and McPherson

Theatres Society

The degree of committee autonomy at the CRD varies considerably and the new Local Government Act allows local governments to delegate more authority than previously: the Capital Region Housing Corporation Board is responsible for the corporation’s administrative budget; the CRD Board ratifies the budget and large contracts for the Regional Water Supply Commission, but most other matters are left to the Commission’s Board to determine; and CRD Standing Committees make recommendations to the CRD Board for a final decision. It has been common practice at the Board level, to accept recommendations from committees, with little interference or intervention, where all the participating jurisdictions are represented. This, so far, has been the experience with the Sub-Committee dealing with the Royal Theatre.18

2.3.10 The Cost of Moving to the CRD

Because there are many unknowns and variables at this time, it is not possible to provide a definitive breakdown of costs of moving the IMC structure to the CRD. However, some costs can be identified, permitting a comparison. The table below is based on the existing level of

18 This view was expressed by many of those interviewed.


service – it does not include additional costs that might be incurred if the number of participants in the service increased or the activities of the Arts Development Office were expanded.

Table 4: Cost Comparison Existing IMC Structure and CRD Division StructureCost Item IMC ($) CRD ($)Salaries Arts Development

Officer/Division Manager68,750 51,131 – 61,043

Administrative Assistant 27,573 35,560 - 39175

Overtime/Special Assistance

$500 n/a

Sub-Total 96,823 86,691 – 100,218Benefits Arts Development

Officer/Division HeadContract position – none paid. 11,249 – 13,430

(22% of salary) Administrative Assistant 3,000 7,823 – 8,619

(22% of salary)Sub-Total 3,000 19,072 – 22,049Office Supplies/Equipment

Stationary/Office Supplies 3,250 3,250Misc. Materials and Supplies 1,700 1,700

Capital and Equipment 600 600Telephone/Courier 2,370 2,370

Sub Total 7,920 7,920OtherArts Development Officer Exp. 4,500 4,500IMC/CRD Administration Fee 23,445

Includes $3,500 as direct cost for Arts Development Office and

other costs associated with IMC administration, most of which are arts related. Additional costs are incurred by each municipality for

dispersal of grants and council administration.

3,173 – 5,288Charged out to all staffed

departments on basis of staff costs - 3-5 % of budget - for

finance/human resources services. Additional costs

might be incurred for administration of grants and committee support services.

Rent – for 400 square feet 0Provided by City of Victoria,

estimated cost is $8,000-10,000

8000 – 10,000Each department rents space

$20-25/square foot, depending on location.

Sub Total 35,945 – 37,945 15,673 – 19,788Total $143,688 – $145,688 $129,356 – $149,975 Source: Arts Development Office, Municipality of Saanich and CRD Finance Staff

While the breakdown of costs is somewhat crude given hidden or unknown costs, it is nonetheless clear that the cost of the two structures is within the same ballpark. In fact, it is entirely possible, if the individual 4-core costs are added in, that savings would result with a move to the CRD. The decision-making process, where each 4-core council makes independent decisions and separately administers grant payments, increases overall costs.


2.4 Option 3 – An Arms-Length Agency

A third option for structuring arts policy and programming in the Capital Region would be to create an arms-length organization. Arms-length arts agencies generally have the following characteristics.

They are usually independent non-profit societies. They have a board of directors, usually composed of a combination of citizen

members and elected officials. They often have a “mandate” and “global budget” from local government, with a

requirement to report periodically. They employ their own staff. Most of their funding for “mandated” programs comes from local government. They often carry on other activities, including fundraising.

2.4.1 Examples from Elsewhere

While arms-length agencies are not the most common structural arrangement for local government arts programs, there are a number of examples in other cities and regions in Canada and the United States.

North Shore Arts CommissionThe North Shore Arts Commission was established 10 years ago, “at a time when the local government departmental model was less common”. It is fully funded by the City and District of North Vancouver (on a per capita formula basis) and functions as an advisory board to their municipal councils. When issues of an arts nature arise in Council, they are most often referred to the North Shore Arts Commission for further investigation and comment.

Council makes appointments to the Board, which also includes a councillor from each of the municipalities. Commission staff are paid by the municipalities and administrative costs are shared by the City and District. The Commission reports through the elected members to each of the councils, supplemented by official reports and presentations from staff and board members. In addition to the Commission, both the City and District directly employ staff to carry out public art and cultural tourism programs. Facilities are also managed by the municipalities.

One of the Commission’s prime responsibilities is the administration of the Arts Assistance Grant Program. In determining policy for the program and the final grant recommendations, the Commission uses its own Grants Committee and artists, arts educators, arts administrators and other community members to serve as members of the Arts Grants Jury. Commission staff provide consultation and assistance to all applicants, the Arts Grants Jury, the Grants Committee and the Commission for the recommendation process. Recommendations on artistic issues are reserved for the Arts Grants Jury. Staff make comments and recommendations on managerial and administrative questions. The


Commission reviews all grant applications and considers the recommendations of the Grants Committee and the Arts Grants Jury. The Commission then makes recommendations for approval or rejection to the two municipal councils.

The advantages of this system are its “flexibility” and the ability to use “a lot of volunteers that provide cost savings”. The disadvantages are that “there are a lot of levels, it is cumbersome at times, it takes time to get everyone up to speed, and there is a fair amount of administration”. It should also be noted that the North Shore is considerably smaller than the Capital Region and the 4-core and the nature of the arts community differs significantly.

Edmonton Arts CouncilIn 1993 City Council appointed "The Mayor's Task Force on Investment in the Arts", comprised of representatives from the business and arts community, community members, and 2 council members. Their mandate was to develop strategies to ensure the long-term viability of Edmonton's arts community. After a year of research and public consultation, their report "Building Creative Capital" was completed. In March, 1995 City Council approved the formation of the Edmonton Arts Council as a one year pilot project. An office was established with space donated by Melcor Developments Ltd. until the end of the Pilot Year. City staff was seconded to assist in the development of the pilot project. There are currently 4 full-time staff members (an executive director, grants officer, communications officer and marketing/outreach officer) plus 2 people at the Community Box Office Ticket Booth.

The Arts Council has a service agreement with the city to direct civic investment, advise on policies and initiate and participate in projects. The Council is member driven (300) and part of its income is derived from memberships. The Council’s Board is made up of 17 individuals primarily from the business and arts sectors. Medium and large arts organizations have representatives, City Council has a representative as does Edmonton Economic Development. As one observer noted, “the arts is a core mandate of the City and City Council understands that the arts are part of the community”.

Other ExamplesTwo other variations of the arms-length model are Calgary and Portland. In Calgary’s case, the city provides 3 autonomous agencies with funding and technical assistance to administer support/funds to on-going arts groups and to individuals; advise on visual arts policies and issues and manage the Civic Art Collection; and provide and manage facilities. In Portland’s case, the RACC, which grew out of a regional government arts department, receives funding from 5 local government bodies to carry out a number of arts programs.

In the GVRD, after years of study and some regional cooperation on funding, establishing a special purpose body or agency is being considered as a “regional” structure for the arts, with a focus on information exchange and cultural tourism. Such a body would be intermunicipal, having its own board appointed by member municipalities and accountable to member municipalities. Funding would be raised through the regional district.


2.4.2 Local Examples

Two examples of local arms-length agencies are the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission and the Greater Victoria Public Library. Both operate with some independence, with the Economic Development Commission having greater autonomy from local government than the Library (e.g. the Library’s budget must be approved by the participating municipalities). Both have elected officials and citizens on their boards.

Greater Victoria Economic Development CommissionThe Economic Development Commission exists to facilitate the growth and development of jobs and economic growth particularly in the private sector. It was established in 1985 by a consortium of community organizations and public and private sector leaders. Historically funded by government, the Commission has made a major shift in recent years to a funding mix of local government, the private sector and contracts. The Board of the Commission is composed of citizen members and the mayors of the 3 contributing municipalities.

The Commission currently receives some funding from Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay. However, over the years and despite numerous attempts to encourage other municipalities to partner, the Commission “has not been able to convince others to come in”. In fact, over the years, the level of support from local government has dropped, and until new funding sources were identified, the Commission almost ceased operating. The advantage of the structure is that there is a measure of independent decision-making, while maintaining a connection to elected officials. The disadvantages are that recognition of economic development as a function of local government has been slow to evolve and direct accountability to local government is weak.

Greater Victoria Public LibraryThe GVPL has evolved over several decades into what a previous Chairman of the Board has described as " a special kind of small miracle … the best and largest example of voluntary municipal cooperation within the Capital area … "19 Membership in the Greater Victoria Library includes the 4-core, Highlands, Colwood, Metchosin, and Langford. Peninsula municipalities are currently considering whether to join.

Expansion has affected board size and structure. When municipalities from the Western Communities joined, Colwood and Langford each got 2 members, and Metchosin and Highlands each got one. If new partners are added, the structure will be changed again: 5 each from Saanich and Victoria, 2 each from Esquimalt, Langford, and Oak Bay, 1 each from Colwood, Highlands and Metchosin, and 1 for every new member. The Board is a mix of elected officials and citizen appointees.

The Board is required to submit its budget to the Council of each municipality. It, or an amended annual operating budget, are approved by Council resolution of municipalities which, together, were required to pay in the previous year more than half the net operating cost of the Board. The GVPL is a relatively large institution. Even so, the effort required of

19 GVPL 1999 Annual Report. GVPL web site.


staff to deal with individual and multiple municipal councils, can use up considerable time and energy – particularly at budget approval times.

Libraries have long been an accepted local government activity. Even those municipalities that joined GVPL over the last decade formerly belonged to the Vancouver Island Regional Library. This was not a matter of municipalities deciding to take on a “new” service.

2.4.3 Is an Arms-Length Agency Feasible for the Arts in the Capital Region?

Anything is possible. However, the advantages and disadvantages of setting up an arms-length agency for the arts in the region need to be carefully weighed.

A New Agency or Attachment to an Existing One? A new agency would probably have to be created, no existing one emerged from any of the discussions undertaken for this project. Neither ProArt nor the Greater Victoria Community Arts Council has the mandate needed – they play other and necessary roles. While Calgary was in the position of being able to use existing arms-length societies to carry out much of its arts program, the situation in the Capital Region is much more akin to that in Edmonton where a new agency was created. If a new agency was established, the IMC could be disbanded.

Size of the OperationThe Arts Manager/Development Office is small – 2 full-time staff with some administrative back-up provided by one of the 4-core municipalities. Most of the other arms-length agencies are larger, with staffs that can take on both program and administrative functions. The North Shore Arts Commission, while small, relies on the City and District of North Vancouver for many administrative services. In fact, the situation with the North Shore Arts Commission is not actually dissimilar to the IMC structure in the 4-core now.

Separation from Other Local Government Activity

If the arts are seen as an activity of local government with a role in the social and economic development of the community, a small stand-alone arms-length agency could have more difficulty fulfilling this role. The prevailing view and practice is that the arts need to be a part of local government structure.

FundingEven where there are arms-length agencies in existence, funding comes primarily or totally from local government. In that respect, they are not funded significantly differently from IMC now, except that in some cases they undertake fundraising and sell memberships. As has already been noted, fundraising efforts and resources for the arts are already stretched, adding another agency to the list would exacerbate the situation.

Independence and Accountability


An arms-length agency provides for independent decision making, once a global budget has been set. However, it is also possible to provide independence with other structures by delegating authority – particularly in the area of grant allocations. Having a board with some representation from amongst elected officials and a requirement to report to an elected body on occasion can provide for accountability, although it is usually less direct than a structure tied more directly into a local government structure.

Growth PotentialOther regional arms-length agencies have generally evolved from a previous regional structure. In Portland, the RACC grew out of an existing regional government agency; in the GVRD, although limited, municipalities have contributed to regional funding for the arts through the GVRD for 10 years. As both areas illustrate, moving to a new regional arms-length structure does not happen overnight, considerable consultation and research was necessary to lay the foundation.

Establishing an arms-length agency in the Capital Region has some appeal to those who do not want to see expansion of the CRD, or to those who see a new structure as a fresh approach, one which is not “tainted by the domination of the 4-core”. However, based on the views expressed during the interviews, these views do not prevail. The reluctance to participate is considerable, whatever the structure.

3. Integrated Recreation and Social Services

The Intermunicipal Committee oversees two programs not related to the arts – Integrated Recreation and Social Services grants. Depending on the structure chosen for the arts, the existing decision-making process used for these two programs could be affected.

Integrated RecreationThe recommendation for the amount of funding to Integrated Recreation comes from the directors of the various Parks and Recreation Departments throughout the Region – Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Panorama, and Juan de Fuca. The recommendation goes forward to the IMC and then to each council. In many ways Integrated Recreation is already a “regional” service. If there was a change in the delivery system for arts programs (Option 2 or 3) and a disbanding of the Intermunicipal Committee, two possible alternatives are for this function to be transferred to the CRD or the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation directors could go directly to each council involved.

Social Service GrantsThe 4-core municipalities have provided grants to a limited number of social service organizations for many years. Grants are reviewed and recommended to IMC by the Social Services Funding Advisory Sub-Committee. Grant levels have not been increased in recent years and the same organizations are funded annually. There is “no challenge to being on the Sub-Committee and there is sometimes difficulty in attracting and retaining members”. Until


such time as there is an initiative to expand participation and significantly increase funding levels, the level of activity will likely remain more or less unchanged.

For a brief time many years ago, social planning was a function at the CRD. Since then, social planning has rested mainly with the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria and the City of Victoria. There are some in the region who would like to see social planning reinstated at the CRD; there are some who believe it should be attached to an existing agency such as the Community Social Planning Council. If there was a change in the delivery system for arts programs (Option 2 or 3) and a disbanding of the Intermunicipal Committee, the question of how to deal with social service grants (and social planning) needs to be considered. Until this is done, one way to deal with the outstanding issue of the grants is for the 4-core councils to delegate the responsibility to their staffs. The agreed upon recommendation for budget size and allocations could then be forwarded to each of the councils for a decision.

4. Conclusions

There is no perfect or ideal structure for developing arts policy and programming within the Capital Region. The three options that have been explored and examined all have advantages and disadvantages.

Representatives from the 4-core municipalities and the arts community are agreed that a move to the CRD is the best option, representatives from outside the 4-core are less convinced. This attitude would seem to have less to do with a recognition that many arts organizations serve a regional function, and more to do with a general reluctance to take on a new function with a cost attached and a dislike of the CRD as the vehicle. Establishing a new service at the CRD is not a certainty. Based on the interviews, the required 12 votes on the Board may or may not materialize. There is a need to identify the benefits that can accrue.

On balance, there are more advantages to be gained by moving the arts to the CRD. Over the last many years, the IMC structure has not grown and there are no indications that it will. By moving the arts to the CRD, there would be continued support from the 4-core and a greater possibility for growth. At least, the arts would be on the agenda and non-participating municipalities would hear the discussion. The measure of success, ultimately, would be an increase in the number of local governments participating in the service.

A move to an independent arms-length agency is premature. As an option it may evolve in time, if the experience of other jurisdictions is any indication. There needs first to be an acceptance by local governments of their role in support of the arts as a legitimate activity. Without this, the existing level of support and involvement is likely to continue. The essential and, to some, appealing features of an arms-length structure can be accomplished in other ways, particularly through delegation.

The existing IMC structure, with modifications, should be viewed as a fall-back position. At least, it would continue the support provided by the 4-core; at best it would improve the way in which that support is delivered. Continued effort to bring other partners on board would be necessary.


If what is happening in other jurisdictions throughout North America matters at all, it should be recognized that local government support for the arts is increasing. Cities and regions are ‘getting their act together’. Of the 16 jurisdictions looked at, all are moving forward. While it is simpler to arrange support and programs in a unitary municipal structure, than a regional structure, cities and regions are dealing with the issues. Many of the unitary structures looked at are areas where there are few other local jurisdictions or where amalgamation has taken place. Where there are multiple jurisdictions involved, the trend is for the arts to be supported on a regional basis, or at the very least to include those jurisdictions that benefit from the role the arts can play in the social and economic development of the wider community. There are a number of tests that can be applied for determining whether or not a service should be delivered locally or regionally20.

Is there broad public acceptance or demand for the service? Does the service overlap municipal boundaries? Is the service more responsive/appropriate at the regional level than at other levels? Are there other ways of providing the service to meet identified needs: how many

realistic alternatives are there for the delivery of this service; is the service more appropriately provided by government than the private and not-for profit sectors?

Is the service provided more cost effectively by the region than by local jurisdictions? Does the region have a clear mandate and authority for the service?

Within the region, arts services and facilities exist and are used at both the local community and regional level – that is the regional mosaic and an appropriately structured framework can serve both local and regional needs. It is possible to develop a structure where there is support for regional organizations and activity and at the same time, those jurisdictions that wish to provide and encourage local organizations and programming within their boundaries can continue to do so.

Throughout North America there is a wide acceptance that local government has a role to play in support of the arts, at both the local and regional level. The private sector has contributed in the past and will continue to do so and its vital contribution is well recognized, but it cannot fill the role that local government can fulfill. There are a number of options for delivering local government support for the arts and, in the previous pages, the relative merits of each have been laid out. There are also cost economies to be realized from sharing – the current 4-core arrangement has demonstrated this over the years. If the arts serve a regional function and are widely supported, there is a regional “mandate”; as to whether or not the CRD has authority for the service, this will be decided by the CRD Board and its member jurisdictions.

20 These “tests” are derived from an evaluation framework developed by Sussex Consultants Ltd.


Part C – Structural Components1. The Arts CommissionAdvisory arts commissions provide a “forum for citizens to voice their opinions on the planning and development of a city or region’s cultural life”; they are a “satellite dish to the community, receiving input from the community and providing information out to the community”; they can “articulate community values, interests and concerns to elected officials and articulate the elected response back to the community”; they are the “big thinkers, with community vision, future oriented, with a network to the non-profits and private sector”.

1.1 Other Cities and Regions

Just about every city and region surveyed has some form of a volunteer advisory body that assists elected officials and staff in setting the direction for arts policy and funding. Such bodies are of two main types: those that are boards of directors of arms-length agencies and those that are civic advisory committees – similar to the Greater Victoria Arts Commission.

Table 5 sets out the organizational structure and role of various arts committees/ commissions in other cities and regions. As can be seen from the table: size varies from a low of 8 to a high of 12; some have a mix of citizens and council members (“non elected members see council members as champions”), others have only citizen members; most attempt to provide broad community representation; most require members to have to expertise and sensitivity in the arts, with some designating members from key sectors such as tourism and business.

In addition, most of the committees/commissions meet on a monthly basis; some have meetings open to the public, others do not; most have open nomination processes supported by active recruitment by peers or staff.

In deciding who should be appointed to an advisory arts committee/commission, most cities and regions have grappled with the question whether or not to appoint active board members and/or staff of arts organizations making application or receiving local government funding. Practice varies. However, it is worth noting that amongst arms length agencies and civic advisory bodies, the input of arts organization board members and staff is seen as vital and beneficial and they are included on their board of directors or advisory committees. Strict conflict of interest guidelines are adhered to.

The case of Regina is an interesting one to note. As outlined above, the Arts Commission has seven members appointed by Council and up to seven members selected by staff. Council appointees cannot sit on an arts board or be an employee of an arts organization, but advisors are specifically chosen for their expertise and knowledge of art disciplines. Council appointees and advisors work in pairs to review grant applications, and their recommendations are brought to the whole table for discussion. However at decision time, only the Council appointees have a vote. According to staff in Regina, the system “has worked for years”.


Table 5: The Structure and Role of Arts Commissions in Other Cities and Regions

Jurisdiction Role Size Composition Length of TermKelowna The Arts and Cultural Development

Committee advises Council on investments in arts infrastructure of facilities, human resources, policies and programs, including Kelowna’s cultural tourism initiative, and planning for the Cultural District.

8 Arts community and tourism industry representatives, Director of the Kelowna Arts Foundation, Council member

3 years

Halifax Reviews applications and makes recommendations for funding.

11 5 councillors and 6 at large members (including Chamber of Commerce, United Way, Provincial Director of Cultural Affairs). Have advisory review panels that include arts representatives.

Kamloops The Arts Commission acts as an advisory committee to Council on the direction of art development in the community.

10 3 council members, 1 representative from the Community Arts Council, 6 members at large appointed by Council

King County The Arts Commission - promotes excellence and vitality in the arts, and public access to art activities

9 Appointed by county executive, reflect ethnic and geographic diversity, includes artists and individuals with arts expertise.

Tacoma The Tacoma Arts Commission informs, advises and assists the City in formulating arts policy and responding to arts issues in the community. Its goals include: the provision of equitable cultural access; strengthening, integrating and expanding arts education opportunities in varied settings for people of all ages, emphasizing children, youth and families; maximizing and directing economic and human resources through the cultivation of private and public partnerships from the local to the international level; and, promoting cultural arts and services that present a strong aesthetic image and that foster Tacoma’s vitality.

15 Individuals with experience and/or deep commitment to the arts.

4 years

Ottawa The Cultural Leadership Committee (CLC) advises the City of Ottawa on the vision which should guide cultural planning, initiatives and policy at the local level. The CLC monitors the City's response to the Citizens' Task Force on Culture and participates in the City's strategic planning. The Committee can also create ad-hoc consulting groups based on discipline and interest in order to gauge community needs and positions on issues of interest to smaller segments of the cultural community.

15 Balanced representation from a range of cultural activities including working artists and arts supporters, and heritage specialists and supporters. For grant adjudication, peer panels are put together.

Staggered terms of two years

Regina The Arts Commission makes recommendations on the disbursement of the grants and oversee the civic art collection policies; advises the city on arts related matters; advocates for the arts; and encourages effective communications among artists and organizations

14 7 voting members (appointed by Council), knowledgeable in the arts and sensitive to the needs of amateur and professional arts organizations serving the city; up to a minimum of 7 non-voting advisors (chosen by staff), can be members of arts organizations boards or an employee of an arts organization

3 year term (no consecutive terms) 2 year terms – can sit for 1 more 2 year term


1.2 The Greater Victoria Arts Commission

The Greater Victoria Arts Commission was established in 1990 as an advisory body through bylaws and policy statement in the 4-core municipalities. Having a volunteer commission is valued by many in the general community, especially if its potential can be realized. As one elected official noted, “it fits with a traditional community structure – elected bodies receiving advice from appointed community volunteers”

1.2.1 Functions

When established the Arts Commission was expected generally to promote, support, advise and assist the arts in Greater Victoria. The specific mandate states that the Arts Commission is to foster and promote:

support for the arts in the community, public awareness of and involvement in the arts the creation, exhibition and performance of artistic works the development of artistic and other requisite skills, and shall advise the municipal councils through the Intermunicipal Committee of measures

which the Commission considers to be conducive to these ends.

The Arts Commission fulfills this mandate through adjudication, advocacy, policy development, community development, advisory services, study and research. 21 Advocacy is directed at the community as a whole: the Intermunicipal Committee, the individual municipal governments, other community organizations, individuals, the media, the advisory committees of the four core municipalities and others as seem appropriate.

1.2.2 Membership

The Commission has 12 volunteer members, whose terms are for 3 years, renewable after one term. A previous member is eligible for re-appointment if one year has lapsed since they last served. Appointment and removal is made by the Intermunicipal Committee, with recommendations from the Arts Development Office. Continuity is assured through staggered appointments.

Appointed members are required to have a personal background in and knowledge of the arts, as well as experience in the following: law, accounting, financial management, administration, education. Objective, critical judgment is required and communication skills are important. Board members and staff (paid or unpaid) of any organization applying for municipal funding cannot be appointed. Conflict of interest guidelines are in effect.

The Commission can establish standing or ad hoc committees as it deems necessary and can appoint individuals who are not members of the Commission, if they have the required expertise, increasing their ability to get informed input from the community.

21 For a more detailed description see Table A-4 in the Appendices.

1.3 Issues

VisibilityThere are many who feel that the Arts Commission currently lacks sufficient profile and visibility within the community. Some suggest that this a result of “not attracting high profile community leaders”, but it is also suggested that it is a result of not having the resources to carry out its mandated role – it has not been able to be “strong voice” or a “leader”, or to undertake activities to raise community awareness. In fact, the Commission has “not been even been asked or involved in some key issues of late”. In the years immediately following its establishment this was not the case; the Commission’s advice was sought on a regular basis.

Composition The Commission’s bylaws specifically exclude members of arts organizations boards and staff from membership. As has been shown above and in Section XX, practice in other cities and regions varies, with the majority including some arts organization board members and staff representation. In this region, this is a much debated issue.

On the one hand, some feel that the arts community in Greater Victoria provides too small a resource pool from which to draw commissioners without encountering bias and conflict of interest situations. On the other hand, others feel that “real knowledge of the arts organizations is needed, that experts are needed on the Commission”; that the Commission “needs a component of those people who are really knowledgeable about the arts – movers and shakers, with expertise, concern, commitment”.

Given limited professional staff advice available to the Commission, the addition of arts organizations and staff could be useful, not just for grant adjudication, but the whole range of Arts Commission activities and responsibilities. The City of Regina provides what appears to be a workable model – one that would address many of the concerns around possible conflict of interest and bias. Another way for the Commission to enhance its access to knowledgeable individuals, and one within its current authority, is to make additional appointments to standing or ad hoc committees.

The ProArt Alliance has suggested that the Commission include 3 senior staff persons from arts organizations. These individucals would be involved in adjudicating applications, but not in their discipline. ProArt also suggests that each member of the Arts Commission should act as liaison to at least one of the applying arts organization and “be responsible for gaining an intimate knowledge of that organization and its competition in its discipline and representing the client organization during the adjudication process."

Many arts commissions in other cities and regions include designated representatives, most often from the business and tourism sectors in recognition of the important linkages between the arts and economic development.


SizeMost of those interviewed feel that the size of the Commission (12 members) is appropriate as it can provide for broad community representation and communication and still be manageable. The size is within the range of commissions in other cities and regions.

RoleThe role of the Commission is broad – grant adjudication, advocacy, policy development, community development, advisory services, study and research – but not dissimilar to that of other local government arts commissions. However, it is difficult for the Commission to carry out its role. Resources do not match responsiblities.

The lack of professional staff support for the Commission is both frustrating to members and a concern to those the Commission is serving – “not following the official mandate now, quite limited in what they can do with lack of staff – only really doing adjudication now”. In fact, grant adjudication itself is being conducted without professional technical advice. Prior to the shift in function within the Arts Manager/Arts Development Office, the “Commission had a wealth of information available from the Arts Manager”. Now, the Commission’s work “relies on individual volunteer time and energy”. As one observer noted – “the Commission cannot be strong without a strong staff function”.

ResourcesWhen the Commission was established the Arts Manager was required to liaise with the Chair, work with the Commission to continue the development of the Arts Policy, provide professional and administrative assistance to the Commission in fulfilling its mandate, and advise the Commission in the development of its philosophy, goals and long-term objectives. With the hiring of the Arts Development Officer in 1999, administrative support was provided through the Administrative Assistant and the Arts Development Officer was only required to assist the Commission in the development of its philosophy, goals and long-term objectives.

The Arts Commission is currently operating without any professional support from the Arts Development Office; neither does the Commission have a budget to carry out its mandated responsibilities.

1.4 Conclusions

Most cities and regions have some form of citizen advisory committee as part of their arts support structure. They provide a way for the community to have input and for local government to benefit from the expertise of the members. Although the Greater Victoria Arts Commission’s role has been somewhat diminished over the last few years, primarily because of a lack of resources, it has considerable potential and value and should be maintained. An arts commission can fit easily within each of the structural options examined.

For the Commission to reach its potential it requires more visibility and resources. It needs to have sufficient profile that community leaders want to serve on it and it needs to be better connected to some key community organizations. If the Commission is to fulfill its mandate it


requires technical support from the Arts Manager/Development Officer and some financial resources to undertake programs, particularly those aimed at raising public awareness of the arts.

While the size and mandate of the Arts Commission are generally acceptable, membership is perhaps one of the most contentious issues. Opinions vary as to the need or desirability of including members from arts organizations’ boards and/or staff. The possibility of conflict of interest and bias are of concern to many. However, there are ways to deal with this. Regina, which uses a mix of voting and non-voting members, provides a model that could work in this region. The advantage gained is increased expertise and knowledge – something highly valued in those cities and regions that include members from arts organizations’ boards and/or staff on their commissions.

2. Staff


In the survey of other cities and regions across Canada and the United States, local governments provide assistance for the arts through professional staff. Even the smallest areas, those under 100,000 such as Kelowna and Kamloops have a base staff22 level of at least one professional supplemented by clerical support. Areas in the population range from 130,000 to 350,000 such as Regina, Tacoma, the North Shore, Halifax, and Ottawa have staff levels ranging from 2 professional + clerical to 6 full-time/2 part-time – and some of these, depending on their particular organizational structure, are further supplemented, by staff at the regional or municipal level.

Amongst the cities and regions surveyed, staff are part of a larger organization, whether it be an arms-length non-profit authority, commission, or a directly operated office within a regional/municipal government department. The advantages of the latter appear to be the ability to pool/share resources (particularly administrative and clerical), to work collaboratively (particularly with respect to economic development and recreation), and to have clear and responsive lines for supervision, reporting and accountability.

Typical functions include: providing technical assistance and administration for grants, funding, facilities, and

public art undertaking research, strategic planning, arts policy development providing assistance to the arts commission/advisory committees providing advice to arts organizations and artists developing programs that promote community development providing/undertaking communication, consultation, liaison and networking with local

organizations amongst government, community, business, education and arts organizations, and

raising public awareness and participation in the arts.

22 None of these staff levels include facilities management and administration.


Most agencies have an advocacy role in support of arts development. Advocacy is sometimes regarded warily, however it “depends on how it is done and how it is achieved”. Normally it takes the form of “conveying facts, figures, needs, issues and getting them on the political agenda” and being a “voice” and a “champion” for the arts.

Less common, but becoming increasingly important is cultural tourism, as recognition of the economic importance of cultural tourism grows. In cities such as Halifax, Tacoma and Kelowna, cultural tourism is a key focus. In fact, in the first two cases, arts administration and development is part of a regional/city government department that includes both the arts and tourism.

2.2 Existing Situation in the Capital Region

Under the Intermunicipal Committee system, dedicated staff consists of 2 full-time positions - an Arts Manager/Development Officer and an Administrative Assistant. The Arts Manager/Development Officer position is currently vacant. In addition, Saanich provides administrative services on an as needed basis through the Clerk’s Office for the Intermunicipal Committee, the costs of which are shared by the 4-core municipalities.

2.2.1 Background

Full time dedicated staff has existed in the 4-core municipalities since 1989. Establishing the position of an arts manager was one of the key recommendations of the Greater Victoria Arts Policy Study. The rational for the position included:

insufficient time paid to policy (too much time at the political level is spent on adjudication of particular funding requests);

lack of professional support to advise on policy issues and grant applications; missed opportunities– no one is responsible for monitoring and taking advantage of

funding available from foundations and other levels of government, opportunities for joint-programming are not being fully explored; and,

weak coordination and team building – between political leaders, arts organizations, business and the education committee.

Initially, the Arts Manager’s position was supported by a part-time Administrative Assistant, subsequently, in 1999, the position was changed to full-time. The benefits of having a full time administrative assistant were outlined in a report prepared by the Greater Victoria Arts Commission in October 1998:23

continuity of activity within the office, allowing more delegation of tasks; easing the administrative load on public art projects where continuity and attention to

detail are so important; better maintenance of information databases; enhanced service to the public with staff more available;

23 Greater Victoria Arts Commission. On Resources to the Office of the Arts Manager. October 1998, p. 4.


allowing the Arts Manager to undertake more in-depth work and initiate other areas of arts development.

2.2.2 Staff Roles

As originally conceived the Arts Manager was to:

act as staff support to the Inter-Municipal Committee administer the programs and activities of the Arts Commission provide advice to the Arts Commission liaise with all public and private organizations involved with arts development work closely with the Executive Director of the Civic Arts Facilities Board

Since the office was first established there have been two Arts Managers. In 1999, the position was altered and renamed – the Arts Development Office/r. In fact, as one observer noted: “The direction of the office depends on who has been arts manager – and this was evident when the arts manager changed – the emphasis and focus changed.”

The table below sets out the job descriptions for each of the positions.

Table 6: Job Descriptions – Arts Manager/Arts Development OfficerArts Manager Arts Development Officer

Report directly to the IMC Report directly to the IMC

Mandate Mandate Liaise with the Chair of the Greater Victoria

Arts Commission – provides professional and administrative assistance to the commission in fulfilling its mandate

Manage programs to develop, maintain and implement the Arts Policy for Greater Victoria

Facilitate the growth of arts and culture in Greater Victoria through:

Articulating to governments, the business sector, the tourism industry, and the larger community, a vision of the economic and community development opportunity to be realized through developing the arts

Proposing new investments in an infrastructure of facilities, policies and programs that supports the arts, advances economic development, and assists community development

Directing the implementation of the aboveDuties and Responsibilities Duties and Responsibilities

Work with the Arts Commission to continue the development of the Arts Policy

Manage activities required by the Arts Policy

Identify the facilities, policy and program needs of the arts community and its audiences

Advise the Arts Commission in the development of its philosophy, goals and long-term objectives

Advise the AC on its philosophy, goals and actions in support of the Mandate

Develops and implements communications strategies and programs

Devise and manage communications to governments, the business sector, the tourism industry and the larger community


Establish and maintain an on-going dialogue with representatives of a wide variety of community arts and cultural groups, business associations, educational institutions and government agencies involved in arts and culture

Work in cooperation with local, provincial, and federal organizations, institutions and agencies as appropriate

Build strategic partnerships and coalitions in support of the Mandate

Undertake research in response to specific requests by the IMC or AC

Manage and controls the arts managers budget

Manage and control the budget of the Arts Development Office

Prepare budget and reports on funding for the IMC as requested

Prepare budgets and reports on arts funding for the IMC

Carry out other duties and responsibilities as directed by the IMC and AC

Work in cooperation with municipal staff in the member communities as appropriate

As the table indicates, the role of the Arts Manager/Development Officer underwent a significant shift in focus in 1999, becoming more focussed on cultural tourism and the arts as an economic sector. This change resulted in an expanded role for the Administrative Assistant, with many of the administrative functions of the Arts Manger (e.g. secretary to the Arts Commission, administration of the operating grant process and some aspects of the special project grant process, and preparation of the arts events schedule) being reassigned. This change also affected consultation on public art policy and development which became a contracted service.

Reaction to the change amongst arts organizations, community representatives, and local government officials (elected and non-elected) was mixed. While many recognize that the arts have an economic impact and that this needs fostering, the majority of those interviewed felt that the shift in focus resulted in the loss of essential functions of a local government arts office.

“As the job was refocused, there was no communication with municipal staff about what the job was – huge loss in kinds of advice staff got, especially with public art in dealing with projects.”

“Need to put more emphasis on what the original job description called for – contacts, coordination, facilitation, the community.”

It was clear from the interviews that full-time professional staff is regarded as essential if local government is to provide support to the arts: “Amateurs and volunteers can do a lot, but they cannot do the work of professionals.” It was also strongly suggested that there is a difference between the role of staff within a government agency and staff belonging to an arts organization – the latter “cannot do the work of the Arts Manager”.

The prevailing view emerging from the interviews is that the base need is to have staff who can carry out the functions set out when the Arts Manager’s office was originally established. At the same time, there is a recognition that arts development functions (as described in the job description for the Arts Development Officer) are important and need to be provided, but not to the exclusion of the other functions and perhaps in some other way (see Part D Section 2).

There is concern that to incorporate these various functions into one position may be difficult. The skills required are not necessarily the same and the resulting workload may not be


reasonable: “Need both arts development and arts manager – may not get this in one person”; “One person is stretched in terms of time and skills – may not be able to bring all the skills needed.”

Over the last few years, staff have been increasingly involved in providing advice on public art policy and projects in the 4-core. Originally this was a function of the Arts Manager, however with the shift in 1999 with the hiring of the Arts Development Officer, this function was contracted out. Some concern has been expressed that this arrangement is too project specific, limits, the ability to develop longer term public art policy and programming, and requires other staff (often without sufficient expertise or training) to take on additional functions (see Part D Section 1).

2.3 Key Skills Required

From the interviews conducted, it is possible to set out a number of key skills required for professional staff. These include:

Knowledge base in the arts, to know what is possible and how it can be developed in the particular discipline and for a range of disciplines

Good communication skills to deal with different stakeholders Leadership skills – to facilitate partnerships and cooperation Knowledge of the community Maturity and experience to work with politicians

Just prior to the shift, the Arts Commission had outlined how the demand for the Arts Manager’s services had increased and become more diverse over the years24: Defined areas of responsibility continue to expand: e.g. funding issues, policy, and

community development. Both facility research and consultation and public art policy development and projects have resulted in considerable demands on the office.

Economic development, tourism and projects within municipalities will make major demands on resources.

The development of data bases requires a considerable commitment of time. Arts Commission activities have grown and place more demands on the office. The consultant role of the Arts Manager continues to expand: e.g. municipal staff, individual

artists and arts organizations, community groups, other levels of government, and other agencies (BC Cultural Services Branch, UBCM Arts and Culture Steering Committee, Assembly of BC Arts Councils, Business Improvement Association, Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission, and the media.

2.4 Governance Issues

24 Greater Victoria Arts Commission. On Resources to the Office of the Arts Manager. October 1998, pp.3, 8-9.


In terms of staff, there are mixed views as to whether or not the current governance structure works effectively. In a nutshell:

“the Arts Manager does not work for anyone, but everyone – no place in the lines of authority, even with a responsibility cannot execute anything”;

“the current structure is an advantage because every municipality feels the arts manager is a resource for everyone”; and,

“The office is an anomaly – out on its own, isolated”.

The stated preference amongst those interviewed is that staff need to be more directly and clearly attached to an existing government body. Failing that, however, for the current arrangement to work more effectively it will need some adjustment. Key areas of concern include: the lack of guidance and direction, the difficulty of planning and scheduling work when there are multiple masters, the lack of authority to make decisions, the “cumbersome” reporting structure, the fragmented administrative set-up that complicates and limits the ability to draw on other resources within a larger organization.

Exacerbating the situation is the physical location of the office and its separation from certain of the administrative functions of IMC. During the interviews a number of comments were made regarding the location of the office.

“Locating the office within the City of Victoria created the impression that it primarily served the City and not the other municipalities.”

“The physical separation from administrative services in Saanich uses up a lot of time for both staff and service users within the community.”

It was stressed many times that the Arts Manager/Development Office needs to have a “location with good visibility and easy access.” A central downtown location is a strong preference amongst key user and stakeholder client groups in the arts, senior government, and business communities. Many of these groups are located in the downtown area or nearby. It was suggested that a central location is overall easier and more cost/time effective, more practical and workable.

2.5 Costs

AdministrationFor many years the City of Victoria provided administrative services to the Intermunicipal Committee. In the late 1980s the District of Saanich took these over. At that time, the 4-core municipalities agreed to share the costs, allocated on the basis of the intermunicipal formula. The cost in 1999 was $23,445. As well, “there are likely some further hidden costs that Saanich absorbs”. Saanich has recently indicated that it is no longer prepared to provide the service and has put the IMC “on notice”. At the present time, it is not clear how this issue will be resolved.

Arts Development OfficeThe table below provides a budget breakdown of the cost of the Arts Development Office for 2000. Because the position of Arts Development Officer is vacant, the full amount will not be


spent this year. It should also be noted that the salary level for the Administrative Assistant will be rising to $31,668 in next year’s budget. Rent is provided free of charge by the City of Victoria.

Table 7: 2000 Budget for the Arts Development OfficeItem Amount ($)SalariesAdministrative Assistant 27,573Overtime/Special Assistance 500Benefits and WCB 3,000Manager’s Contract 68,750Sub Total 99,823

Services PurchasedOffice Rent 0Manager’s Expenses 4,500Telephone 2,020Miscellaneous Services Courier Administration Fee – Saanich

3503,500

Sub Total 10,370

Materials and SuppliesStationary/Office 3,250Misc. Materials and Supplies 1,700Capital and Equipment 600Sub Total 5,550Total 115,743

As is clear from the table, the budget does not include funds for unanticipated projects or programs, which might arise during the course of the year. Neither does the budget include funds for research or web site development (a tool used extensively in other cities and regions to make access to services easier for user groups and the public). There is no program allocation for the Arts Commission, other than the budget to meet administrative/orientation expenses. When need arises, either the Arts Manager or the Commission must appeal to the IMC for more funds. The Facilities Study of 1992 was funded through a special allocation of the IMC.

2.6 Conclusions

It is widely accepted practice for local governments to provide assistance to the arts through professional staff. Greater Victoria is no exception – in 1989, the first Arts Manager was hired by the 4-core municipalities. Typical staff functions in other cities and regions are similar to those originally set out for the Arts Manager: technical assistance and advice, research, policy and program development, coordination, networking, and raising public awareness. The


prevailing view that emerged from the interviews, is that the base need in the Capital Region is to have staff who can carry out those functions.

At the same time, there is a recognition that functions such as cultural tourism and economic development, as well as public art are important and need to be provided for – but not to the exclusion of other functions. It is difficult to combine all these functions in one person, the skills and expertise needed are different. Other options for their provision are possible, particularly if there is no desire to increase the number of staff positions. (See Part C, Sections 1 and 2.) The level of staffing in the Arts Manager/Development Office appears to be lower than in areas of a similar size, and even more so given the complexity of the existing governance structure.

The view that staff and the office need to be more directly and clearly attached to an existing government body and to have more visibility within the community is widely shared. The advantages appear to be the ability to pool/share resources (particularly administrative and clerical), to work collaboratively with others in the organization, and to have clear and responsive lines for supervision, reporting and accountability. This is more easily achieved with Option 2 – the CRD – than with the other options.

Currently the Arts Manager/Development Office does not include funds for unanticipated projects or programs, which might arise during the course of the year. Neither does the budget include funds for research or web site development (a tool used extensively in other cities and regions to make access to services easier for user groups and the public). If the Arts Manager/Development Officer is to fulfill the job requirements then some budget needs to be provided.


Part D – Programming

1. Public Art

The last few decades in North America have witnessed an evolution in the role of the artist in the definition and enhancement of public places: public art programs (or art in public places) have been developed in cities and regions across Canada and the United States. In a number of municipalities in the Capital Region the same trend has occurred.

Public art serves a number of purposes. Public art: reflects a community, its values and identity helps to define a sense of place is an integral part of its siting and geographical location – it responds to the natural,

social and built environment. is an economic engine for a city or region takes art out of the museum and puts it in our everyday life utilizes the creative energy of artists for public benefit increases public awareness of the role of art and artists in the community is a community resource is a collaboration between the public, public agencies, the private sector and the design

community.

King County in Washington State ….

“The reason so many governments have chosen to invest in public art is that artwork displayed or incorporated into civic buildings is a very small investment for a very large return. Studies have shown that public artwork can serve as a deterrent for vandalism and "tagging." Art projects created by local artists can tell a story about a specific place and involve local communities and facility staff in planning an environment they are proud to work in or visit. Visual images "speak" to many different kinds of people who may not be able to understand spoken or written English. Artwork serves as a landmark or wayfinding device (meet me at the Pike Market bronze pig or under the Hammering Man). And pragmatically, artwork in civic spaces can create a more memorable experience, ease fears and stress, provide humor and alleviate boredom.

Public art is also used as a way of mitigating the impacts of construction on surrounding communities. Public artists have found ways of turning potentially negative or disruptive projects into community assets. The parking garage on the corner of Boren Avenue in Seattle used an artist's designs on the concrete panels because the community wanted the parking garage to be a more


interesting and unique and less like a "big concrete box." In Renton, an artist served as the concept lead, turning a storm water retention/sewage treatment facility into 8 acres of open space, garden rooms and reclaimed wetlands. What was once unusable land has been turned into valued community open space.”


How Do Cities and Regions Define Public Art?Public artworks range from single artist commissions to collaborations with engineers, architects, and neighbourhood groups working on the overall design of a site or planning project. They can be small or large, permanent or temporary, indoors or outdoors.

Public art can take many forms: sculpture, in any material or combination of materials, whether in the round, bas relief, mobile, fountain, kinetic or electronic; murals, mosaics, fibre works, glass works, photography, paintings, or other art forms in any material or combination of materials; tableaux, or creative displays of an artistic/informational nature which interpret the heritage significance of a building site; architectural embellishments such as ornamental surface treatments, street inlays, or landscaping features with artistic intent.

How are Public Art Programs Financed?The most common way of financing public art programs is through a 1% share of the city or region’s capital budget. In some cases, the 1% is limited to the capital budget for publicly owned buildings, in other cases it includes all capital works. In some cases, funds derived from a particular project are allocated solely for that project, in other cases funds are pooled and allocated on an identified priority basis.

In other cases an additional amount may be set aside. In Kelowna, the “Public Art Reserve Fund” is used to provide for public art projects. The fund is annually augmented by a sum equal to 1% of the City’s annual capital budget from general taxation revenue to ensure a minimum of $100,000 per annum.

In Portland, the City and Multnomah County dedicate 1% of total construction costs of major capital improvement projects to be used for works of art, artist’s fees for design team work, semi-finalist proposals, materials necessary for the installation and/or security of a work, slides and other documentation, insurance, consultant fees, and a contingency at the beginning of a project. This sum is augmented by an additional .33% of the total construction costs for administration, education activities, collection management, maintenance, dedications and publicity, identification plaques and labels, and special projects.


In Vancouver, private-sector developments which require rezonings greater than 160, 000 ft2

may be required to contribute $0.95 per buildable foot to public art. This funding formula is similar to private-sector "percent for art" programs in other cities. Civic and Community projects are funded through the Public Art Reserve which is allocated by City Council. PAR is an interest earning City reserve that holds funds from public and private sources. Between 10 and 20% of all civic and private art project budgets are allocated to the City Public Art Maintenance Reserve.

In still other cases, voluntary private sector financial donations and gifts of art are encouraged, sometimes by the city or region providing matching funds to the private sector for providing artworks within publicly accessible portions of their developments.

How are Public Art Programs Administered?In most cases, cities and regions have professional public art staff to administer their public art program e.g. to co-ordinate an open selection process, maintain, display, and conserve art works. Frequently staff work with an appointed volunteer advisory committee in developing policies and goals for selection, placement and maintenance of public artworks. In areas where there is no staff, a volunteer committee assumes responsibility for the program. Members of these committees are usually made up of arts professionals who are artists, architects, landscape architects, developers, engineers, neighbourhood representatives, or individuals with considerable experience in the visual arts.

Selection of artists and artworks is usually carried out by 3 to 5 member panels or juries that typically include artists, arts professionals, designers, community representatives, engineer, planner, and the project architect. Others may sometimes be called upon to act as technical advisors to the selection process.

What Makes a Successful Public Art Program?Experience25 has shown that successful public art programs have a number of ingredients:

A commitment to leadership by public bodies; A broad community understanding of the policies that underpin public art; Identification of opportunities to create a sense of place through public art; A solid financial base; Early collaboration and involvement of the arts community in developing public art; Support and involvement of the private sector; Support and involvement of all sections of municipal government including engineering,

planning, finance, community services; Continuous effort to include and draw upon the support of the public.

1.2 Public Art in the Capital Region25 North Shore Arts Commission. 1998.


In 1989 the Arts Policy for Greater Victoria recommended that the Arts Commission develop and implement a public arts program; that each municipality should adopt a policy of designating 1% of the budget of any municipal construction or renovation project for commissioning, purchase, and installation of artworks at the site of the improvement or on other municipal property; and that each municipality should promote the use of public buildings and space for the performance and exhibition of art.

Since 1989, all the 4-core municipalities have adopted public art policies and developed some programming, using the 1% base for funding. Recently, the City of Victoria has supplemented this by providing a capital grant ($50,000) for public art on an annual basis and Saanich is currently looking at ways to enhance their policy and program further.

There are no official public art programs in place in other local government jurisdictions in the region, including the Capital Regional District. On occasion, however, some areas, such as Salt Spring, support art in public places through their parks and recreation commissions and some areas have indicated an interest in looking at establishing a program.

During the 1990s, the Greater Victoria Arts Commission and the Arts Manager organized a number of workshops on public art and as the decade progressed, the Arts Manager played an active role in the development of public art policy and programs within the 4-core municipalities.

When the Arts Development Officer was hired, professional support for public art development was contracted out and provided on a project by project basis. To undertake a successful public art program it is important not to be “always reacting, but be able to initiate”. The need to identify projects and obtain professional advice early in the process is key. To achieve this, good working relationships and creating a solid understanding of public art administration with senior staff are essential.

With the shift in focus in the Arts Manger/Arts Development Office (and the later vacancy in the position) support services to the Arts Commission have been primarily provided by the Administrative Assistant. Combined with the lack of resources within the Office for programming or research, the ability of the Arts Commission to undertake a public education/awareness role in the promotion of public art has been curtailed.

1.3 Conclusions

Public art programs are common in cities and regions throughout North America and, since 1989, in this region all 4-core municipalities have adopted public art policies and developed some programming, generally on the basis of using 1% of the budget of any municipal construction or renovation project for the commissioning, purchase, and installation of artworks. Outside the core, and including the Capital Regional District, there are no official public art programs in place.


During the 1990s, the Greater Victoria Arts Commission and the Arts Manager organized a number of workshops on public art and as the decade progressed, the Arts Manager played an active role in the development of public art policy and programs within the 4-core municipalities. When the Arts Development Officer was hired, professional support for public art development was contracted out and provided on a project by project basis. With no resources, the ability of the Arts Commission to undertake a public education/awareness role in the promotion of public art has been curtailed.

Because of the way public art is funded, by each local government jurisdiction, it makes sense to administer the program at that level. The role of the Arts Manager/Development Officer would be to advise on public art policy and ways to implement a public art program, and possibly to train staff in the various jurisdictions on how to carry out a public art program. The Arts Commission could assist, perhaps by once again assuming responsibility for public education.

This arrangement would work for any of the options examined. However, with Option 2 – moving to the CRD – there is an enhanced opportunity for the Arts Manager/Development Officer and the Arts Commission to assist in the development of a public art program for the Regional District. The CRD, as a significant property owner of public space and buildings in the region, might well consider adopting a public art program.

2. Cultural Tourism and Economic Development“The merging of ‘tourism’ with culture represents an opportunity for a symbiotic relationship that can benefit both. Tourism provides the cultural sector with an opportunity to develop new audiences, not only to understand and appreciate their product but also to help generate additional revenues. Culture provides tourism with a ‘new’ product offering, one for which there is a substantial market. Culture represents ‘complementary inducements to travel’ that meet the need of travellers seeking ‘symbolic variety and meaning in their tourism experience.”26

Cultural tourism occurs when participation in a cultural activity is a significant factor in a traveller’s trip. It involves visitors in a cultural experience that is authentic (and not created solely for the purposes of attracting tourists); it must be sustainable and ensure that the quality and integrity of the cultural resource/experience are conserved; and it is based on a mutually beneficial partnership that produces revenue for both the culture and tourism sectors.

Cultural tourism can be interpreted to include almost all tourism activity, however the more-commonly-accepted definition includes both arts and heritage. Aspects of culture and heritage that create tourist products include:

26 This quote and much of the information presented in this section is derived from a report prepared by Jim Lee and Peter Williams for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and Tourism British Columbia entitled - Strategic Directions for Culture and Heritage Tourism in British Columbia.


The performing arts (theatre, dance, music) Visual arts and crafts Museums and cultural centres Historic sites, villages and interpretative centres Festivals

There is considerable potential for developing cultural tourism in BC and in the Capital Region where tourism is the major economic sector. Surveys indicate that: 51% of travellers to BC have an interest in culturally based travel and 27.6% of all BC residents place importance on experiencing cultural attractions or events during their travel. The da Vinci Exhibit at the RBCM generated 135,000 incremental overnight visits to Victoria and 60,000 day trips. According to Stephen Thorne, the former Arts Development Officer, “approximately $72 million in new visitor revenue would be realized if Victoria’s arts product were as well developed and marketed as Vancouver’s. Allowing for a 20 percent “leakage” outside the local economy, this $72 million in new visitor revenue could generate approximately 1,500 new local jobs.”27

Despite the fact that Victoria has a number of high quality professional performing and visual arts organizations and that provincial government run operations such as the RBCM offer a quality, authentic experience and in the past have worked successfully within the tourism industry, there is a large gap between interest in culture and actual tourist participation that represents an unfulfilled opportunity.

2.1 Issues

In the report Strategic Directions for Culture and Heritage Tourism in British Columbia prepared for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and Tourism British Columbia a number of issues were identified that affect the ability to fully realize the potential of cultural tourism in the province. Many of these have application to the Capital Regional area.

Many organizations in the cultural sector are uncertain about the costs and benefits of tourism - there is a lack of information about the market demand for cultural products and cultural products themselves.

Culture and heritage are not commonly recognized by the tourism industry as a product line and are not well integrated into the tourism infrastructure.

The primary beneficiary of an enhanced cultural and heritage product is not culture and heritage organizations, but the tourism industry. The tourism industry gains a “free product to sell”, but the financial responsibility for product development resides with the cultural and heritage sector, many of whom have limited budgets and lack the resources to enhance their product or to take part in marketing programs intended to increase tourism traffic.

There may be a lack of tourism marketing expertise within the cultural sector – few organizations have marketing staff and fewer have marketing staff with an understanding of tourism marketing. There is an “open the doors and they will come” syndrome in the

27 Stephen Thorne. Cultural Tourism and the New Economy: Realizing Victoria’s Potential. Executive Summary. October 1999.


culture and heritage sector – it takes an understanding of marketing to develop and present a product that will appeal to tourists and visitors.

Culture and tourism organizations and staff have different mandates that can create barriers to partnerships. Cultural organizations are usually non-profits with limited resources and a mandate to provide programs and activities to meet local; the tourism sector on the other hand is usually profit oriented, interested in generating revenue from outside the community.

2.2 Addressing the Issues

In addition to outlining key issues, the report, Strategic Directions for Culture and Heritage Tourism in British Columbia, suggests a number of approaches or strategies that should be considered to enable the tourism and culture sectors to make the most of available and potential opportunities. Some of the approaches or strategies having potential in the Capital Regional area are outlined below.

The tourism industry needs to examine the nature of the product they are currently selling and the market potential of culture and heritage. This should lead to an investment in the development of the product and incorporation of the sector into tourism marketing.

Organizations that have the desire and capability to participate in tourism will need to ensure that the quality of their product and their management resources have the capability to meet the needs of tourists and they are able to work with the tourism industry.

Market-ready cultural organizations need assistance to develop their marketing plans and find the resources necessary to implement marketing activities in co-operation with the tourism industry and to form networks to assist in developing co-operative marketing opportunities, both regionally and provincially.

Those organizations that are not market-ready need to be encouraged to get listed with local visitor information centres and their regional tourism association and to have basic information available for distribution.

Organizations that are currently attracting some tourists can be provided with materials and assistance to allow them to identify whether or not they should further enhance their product for tourism and what actions are required for them to do so.

Organizations such as the RBCM can serve as focal points for regional development and may help to bring other cultural and heritage organizations in their region into co-operative marketing activities.

Short term marketing strategies could focus on ensuring that visitors to BC have the opportunity to purchase cultural products. Information technologies are available which would allow community and regional arts organizations to offer better information to tourists and residents alike.

The marketing of culture needs to be organized on a regional basis to provide a sufficient number of organizations within a geographic area to co-operate in marketing as well as to provide a sufficient number to attract tourists to a region.


There needs to be more discussion and liaison between the three sectors (culture, heritage, and tourism) at a provincial, regional and community level to create a better understanding of the mandates, issues and opportunities in each sector.


Cultural tourism is only beginning to be developed in a concerted fashion in most cities and regions. In some cities and regions, the arts and tourism are combined into a single local government department, as in Halifax and Tacoma. In cities, such as Tacoma, a cultural tourism plan and private, public partnerships are being developed and pursued as a way to realize the potential that cultural tourism can provide for both sectors.

Kelowna has made substantial investments in cultural infrastructure and is working on the development of a cultural district that will provide the city with the infrastructure to develop a marketable cultural product. In addition, the city, pursuing both an economic and a social agenda related to the arts, provides operating and project grants more than twice the per capita level of the 4-core municipalities in the Capital Region.

For a number of years, the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board has been examining a regional approach to cultural development. A number of strategic directions have been identified, one of which is to facilitate cultural economic development initiatives – to ensure that the opportunities for growth in the cultural sector are fully realized as part of maintaining a healthy and diverse regional economy. They have also identified four priority actions, two of which include:

developing a “Greater Vancouver Cultural Information Network” to improve the region-wide flow of information about arts and culture;

developing and implementing a cultural tourism strategy to increase, and enhance regional distribution of, the economic and social benefits of cultural tourism.

In addition to these initiatives in the Lower Mainland, the Alliance for Arts and Culture (an organization established in 1986 to promote the activities of the arts through programs, services, and marketing strategies; and to increase public awareness of, and accessibility to, arts and culture) has been working in partnership with Tourism Vancouver on a cultural tourism initiative. The Alliance is a non-profit organization with some 270 individual and organization members.

Vancouver's Cultural Tourism Initiative, funded in part by the Canadian Tourism Commission Product Club program, is a joint program between the Alliance and Tourism Vancouver whose primary goal is to provide arts groups with ways to deliver their products to tourist audiences. The program assists members in a number of ways: product development, market research, travel media relations, and inter-industry communication. One of the products of the Initiative currently being developed is a web site listing and booking system for arts activities in the Greater Vancouver area. Another product, recently announced is the hiring within Tourism Vancouver of a cultural tourism director.


In addition to the Initiative, the Alliance’s partnership with Tourism Vancouver allows non-profit Alliance members to join Tourism Vancouver at discounts of up to 50% off annual membership rates and benefit from the organization's member programs. Alliance members may also reserve space on the Tourism Vancouver/Alliance display panel at the Vancouver Tourist InfoCentre.

2.4 Cultural Tourism in the Capital Region

Like many other cities and regions, cultural tourism development in the Capital Regional area is in its infancy. While a number of arts organizations and local governments in the Capital Regional stage activities that draw tourists, cultural tourism is in a developmental phase. One of the prime exceptions is the RBCM. Over the years, the Museum has developed considerable capability and experience with cultural tourism. Exhibitions such as da Vinci and Ghengis Khan have demonstrated the potential, if the resources are in place.

Traditionally within the Capital Region, economic development and tourism have resided outside local government – except for use of the hotel tax and relatively small operating and special project grants to organizations such as Tourism Victoria and the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission, usually from the 4-core municipalities. However, there are signs that the situation is changing: several municipalities have established committees whose focus is economic development; the City of Victoria has dedicated staff; the region’s mayors recently met in at an economic summit to discuss development strategies; and economic development is one of the six strategic elements of the Regional Growth Strategy.

Both Tourism Victoria and the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission are interested in developing cultural tourism and the arts in the region. As part of the Smart Victoria Project, the Economic Development Commission has organized a number of meetings to look at developing a web pool that would provide information about arts events and activities and booking-on-line to the local public and visitors. It has been estimated that to launch this initiative approximately $10,000 will be required. Funding has not yet been become available.

Tourism Victoria is currently re-vamping their Tourism Victoria Planner for 2001. The Planner is the major piece of material that goes out to promote Victoria. The new Planner will have more information about major arts events. As well, Victoria Tourism is “on the verge of having an annual event with the RBCM, one which other organizations can participate in.” Marketing dollars may also be available to promote events from October to March. The interviews revealed a number of issues that need to be addressed before cultural tourism can reach its potential in this region.


A Stronger Regional Economy“Develop a Regional Economic

Development Strategy that focuses on the Capital Region’s

environmental advantages and quality of life as a means of keeping

exiting businesses and jobs and attracting new firms and employment

in skilled services, tourism, advanced technology, film making

and the arts, higher education, specialized agriculture, and value-

added forests.”

CRD Regional Growth Strategy

70

“It takes 2 to 3 years to develop a cultural tourism product, but most arts organizations are not able to plan this far ahead, given their precarious financial situation.”

The product base needs to be further developed – “cultural tourism has to follow from a solid local base – local organizations are not in the business of creating a tourism product – their mainstay is the local audience.”

“The tourist off-season does not coincide with the arts off-season. It is sometimes difficult to obtain tickets to major arts events during their season – the very time that tourist operators would like to see efforts focussed on bringing in more tourists.”

“The major potential for cultural tourism exists within the professional organizations.” “Arts organizations need to develop a business plan to fit within tourism promotion.” “The lack of adequate, easily accessible facilities limits the ability for anything significant

to happen. “ “There is a need to develop a network of partnerships – one-offs are too exhausting.” There is a lack of resources, within both tourism and the arts, to devote to the

development of cultural tourism – “everyone is stretched within existing resources”.

2.4.1 Staff Support for Cultural Tourism

In 1999, the focus of the Arts Manager’s office underwent a significant shift. The change placed a greater emphasis on the economic and cultural tourism development of the arts than had existed before. There is no question that the economic impact of the arts and the potential of cultural tourism are significant. However, in many quarters there are concerns that there are some aspects of arts development and support cannot be addressed by solely focussing on cultural tourism.

“Cultural tourism does not replace why there should be arts support – it is another function.”

“Need to develop the product base.” “By adding on cultural tourism – do not throw everything else away.” “The arts exist for this community – tourism is only part of the answer.”

On the other hand, the view exists that “you can’t solve the problem of the arts without thinking of economic development.”

2.5 Conclusions

There is clearly an opportunity waiting to be grasped, an abundance of issues to be dealt with and a variety of agencies with an interest in cultural tourism and economic development of the arts. The central question is how to bring the various interests together to deal with the issues. Local government can play a role. The nature of that role will be affected by the direction that the Arts Manager/Development Office takes. If the office reverts to its original functions, and there is no desire to increase staff levels, then a different approach needs to be taken for cultural tourism and the economic


development of the arts. The Cultural Tourism Initiative in Vancouver and the evolution of a regional arts framework in the GVRD provide two examples of possible approaches.

Some local governments within the Capital Region provide funding to Tourism Victoria and the Economic Development Commission and local council representatives sit on their boards. The Mayors’ Summit and the Regional Growth Strategy are both addressing economic development issues. These are opportunities to get the arts on the agenda.

As the primary beneficiary of an enhanced cultural product is not cultural organizations, but the tourism industry, some other possible approaches to consider include: making the arts and their relationship to cultural tourism and economic development the focus of a workshop or meeting; putting together a working group (including provincial representatives) to facilitate the development of a cultural tourism strategy; providing seed money to ProArt and/or tying existing (and possibly new) local government grants and funds to Tourism Victoria and the Economic Development Commission to develop a cultural tourism strategy. The arts manager/ development officer could be asked to facilitate and coordinate, at least in the initial start-up phase. Progress reports back to the local government body responsible for arts development in the region would be a requirement.

Any or all of these approaches could be achieved under any of the options examined, although a coordinated regional approach is easier to achieve, at least theoretically, under Option 2 – moving to the CRD.

3. Facilities

Arts facilities have long been a thorny and contentious issue in the Capital Region. As Stephen Thorne, the former Arts Development Officer stated: “an infrastructure of dated facilities, along with an infrastructure of facilities that has simply never been built” is one of the most “pressing problems” in the region28. It is well recognized in the community that the Royal Theatre and McPherson Playhouse require major upgrading and a proposal has been developed. As well, it has long been recognized that there is a lack of available small performance space.

However, even as this report was being prepared, a group of prominent community business leaders announced the formation of a “blue-ribbon panel” to help make the development of a new multi-use arts centre in downtown Victoria a reality – to move it from “concept to reality”.29 At the same time, consultants are reviewing previous studies concerning the Royal Theatre to help determine a course of action.

It is outside the scope of this project to provide an answer to the future of arts facilities in the region, except to examine the governance framework as it works now and to consider the issues that need to be resolved.

28 Stephen Thorne. Culture, Tourism & the New Economy. November 17, 1999.29 Times Colonist. August 19, 2000, p. E5.


Dedicated arts facilities vary, commonly including theatres and concert halls for the performing arts, art galleries and artists studios for the visual arts, and education institutions for teaching skills and nurturing the development of artists. In addition there are many local community facilities, such as schools, churches, recreation centres and community halls that provide venues for the performing and visual arts and instruction. Ownership is mixed – some public, some private, and some a combination of the two.


The traditional approach to providing facilities has been civic construction and ownership – putting public funds into public facilities and ensuring management of the facility in the interests of the community as a whole. However, privately developed or public/private ventures are also common and becoming increasingly common. In most cities and regions in North America there is a mix of public, private, and jointly financed/owned facilities.

Management of arts facilities usually rests within a local government agency or is provided by a non-profit organization contracted by local government. When located within local government, management of arts facilities is part of a larger civic property management division or part of a recreation department. While the day to day management operations are carried out by staff separate from staff dealing with arts policy, programming and support, there is usually some linkage and coordination. Facilities exist, in part, to provide space and opportunity for artists to display their work and infrastructure (type, quality, availability, and cost) has a significant impact on their ability to deliver their product.

Facility funding is handled in a variety of ways. Normally, for those facilities owned by local government, operating costs are part of the annual civic budget and substantial capital costs are determined on an as need basis, separate from operating costs. Some cities and regions (e.g. King County in Washington State) use part of the hotel/motel tax to fund facilities. In other cities, costs are partly recovered from user groups. Many cities and regions provide subsidized rents to local users: in Tacoma, groups pay to use civic facilities but the cost is based on labour and maintenance cost; in Ottawa, the Arts Court is provided at 75% of the current market value of space in the downtown area; in Toronto, the City provides low-cost access to performing spaces at a number of facilities; in Vancouver rent is provided “free” or in lieu of comparable civic funding to major organizations based at particular facilities and density bonusing has been used to provide space for organizations.

3.2 Facilities and the Capital Region

Some major arts organizations within the Capital Region own and operate their own facilities (e.g. the Art Gallery, the Belfry Theatre, and the Conservatory); some rent space in publicly owned facilities (e.g. the Victoria Symphony and Pacific Opera); some rent space from school districts, private owners, and churches. This mixed set of arrangements produces an unlevel playing field: some arts organizations are burdened with mortgages and maintenance costs, some receive municipal grants more or less equal to their space rental costs.


As a result of this situation, the 1989 Arts Policy for Greater Victoria recommended that the cost of civic theatre rental and the operating cost of other arts facilities, including visual art facilities should be addressed through operating grants to arts organizations. To provide large facility subsidies, it was felt, would bias assistance to those organizations who use civic facilities.

The Arts Policy concluded that “since the root cause of the problem is the inadequate level of funding of arts organizations in Victoria, a more direct and balanced remedy is through an increase in the operating grants to organizations, who would then decide on the most appropriate use for those funds. This approach keeps the question of appropriate public operating support separate from theatre management and rental. It also ensures equitable treatment for the visual arts organizations in Greater Victoria that have high facility costs.” It further concluded that as “municipal support to the arts increases, consideration can be given to instituting Vancouver’s “grant-in-lieu of rent” scheme without fear of diverting limited funds from organizations who do not benefit from the facilities.”30

3.2.1 The Royal and McPherson Theatres

In 1997, a task force composed of the senior municipal administrators in Saanich, Oak Bay and Victoria was struck to examine the existing governance structure of the Royal Theatre and to look at alternatives for remedying its shortcomings. The Task Force concluded that:

the existing governance model creates a complex organizational environment for theatre management – two governing bodies and three municipal councils;

the decision-making structure, under which unanimous approval is required, makes it difficult to manage the facility effectively, especially with respect to long range planning and capital budgeting;

the lines of responsibility and accountability are somewhat obscured for theatre management, contributing to a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities.

The Task Force recommended that ownership of the Royal Theatre be moved to the CRD, and outlined the benefits that might accrue. It was felt that the new governance model would:

unite the three charter participating municipalities in their commitment to support the operations of the Theatre while allowing for other CRD member municipalities to support the Theatre on a fair and equitable basis in the longer term.

provide a more streamlined decision making structure that would enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of Theatre operations by decreasing the diffusion of fiscal accountability.

provide a greater possibility to obtain consensus on the priority that should be assigned to capital upgrades. 31

The Task Force suggested that the success of the new model would depend on the CRD member municipalities accepting a new function for the CRD and making a financial commitment 30 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, pp. 25-26. 31 Executive Summary, Royal Theatre Governance Task Force, December 15, 1997.


It is interesting to note that during the interviews with elected officials throughout the Capital Region, there was wide agreement that the Royal Theatre and the McPherson Playhouse are “regional” facilities serving a “regional” audience.

74

to the Theatre. Success, so measured, has only been partly achieved: in 1998, ownership of the Royal Theatre was transferred to the CRD with financial support provided by Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay – as yet, the transfer has not brought any other funding partners on board.

Another measure of success – the development of a more focussed rational longer-term planning approach – has only been partly achieved. Operating subsidies and capital funding have been increased and a $20.5 million upgrade proposal has been developed, although support for this plan is uncertain within the community and amongst some elected officials.

When the Royal Theatre was transferred a new governance structure was put in place. The Royal and McPherson Theatres Society, a non-profit organization with its own board, receives a grant to manage and operate the theatre. The Society reports to a sub-committee of the CRD Finance and Administration Standing Committee composed of all the Board Directors from the participating municipalities (3 from Victoria, 5 from Saanich, and 1 from Oak Bay).

The Society also manages and operates the McPherson Playhouse, whose ownership is in the process of being transferred to the CRD. The McPherson is financially supported solely by the City of Victoria.

In 1989, the Arts Policy envisioned the establishment of a Civic Facilities Board to integrate the management and operation of regional arts facilities into a more rational administrative structure. It was suggested at the time, that although “some Councils may have difficulty accepting the financial implications of joint ownership, this arrangement is desirable both for existing facilities and for any new major arts facilities that may be constructed.”32

In many respects, the current CRD structure is not dissimilar to what was proposed:

the McPherson Foundation should be re-constituted as the Civic Arts Facilities Board and would manage both the Royal Theatre and McPherson Playhouse

all facilities would be jointly owned by the municipalities who sit on the inter-municipal committee

the board would be responsible for managing the construction, financing, and operation of any new regional civic facility.

However, it is worth noting that the Arts Policy also recommended that the Civic Arts Facilities Board would work with the Arts Commission to advise the Intermunicipal Committee on the need for facility upgrading and new facilities and that the Board should include the Chair of the Arts Commission. Currently there is little or no linkage between the Arts Development Office, and the new structure. As one observer noted – “the Arts Commission and the Arts Development Officer could be used to facilitate discussion by bringing together the different interests to make sure key issues are addressed and people know what is going on, to help to establish a common vision to cut across the community.”

32 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, pp. 37-38.


3.2.2 Other Issues

In addition to the issues that have been discussed above, there are some who believe that there is a need for the development of a community arts centre similar to Harbour Front in Toronto or Artspace in Winnipeg. Possible uses for such a centre could include: affordable studio space for individual artists, affordable office space for arts organizations, a resource centre, meeting space for arts groups and artists, space that is available on a rental basis for classes, workshops, and lectures, theatre and rehearsal space.

As well, the need for smaller performance facilities is well recognized in the community. Space that was available, such as the Herald Street Theatre, is no longer available. Further, the inability of local government to respond to this need and to deal with facility issues besides the Royal and McPherson is of concern to many. Many arts organizations in the region are struggling with facility issues, and struggling alone. With the change in focus in the Arts Manager/Arts Development Office, the ability for local government to respond and provide support/facilitation in finding solutions, is lacking.

3.3 Conclusions

In the early 1990s the Arts Manager and Arts Commission had a recognized responsibility for identifying and addressing facility needs and issues. In fact, they undertook a facilities study. Over the years, however, this involvement appears to have diminished. Yet there is no question that facilities and arts funding are connected. The current discussion about the Royal Theatre and, the possible advent of new civic facilities, as well as the continued lack of a strategy to deal with facilities generally, underline the need to address this issue. Very simply, local government is a major funder of both arts organizations and civic owned facilities. Funding decisions in one area can impact the other.

There is a need to re-establish the linkage. Consideration could be given to including a member of the Arts Commission on the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society Board. This could be accomplished under any of the options examined. However Option 2 – moving to the CRD, provides the possibility for having both the Arts Manager/Arts Development Office, the Arts Commission and the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society reporting to the same body of elected officials, particularly now that the Royal (and soon the McPherson) has been transferred to the CRD.

The issue of how to respond to facility issues generally (in addition to the Royal and McPherson) needs to be considered. Again, Option 2, provides an opportunity to create a mechanism for this to happen – all of the key players are at the same table.

4. Funding


Very few arts organizations can operate without public and private support. This reality is rooted in the underlying economics of artistic endeavours33. It is not based on a lack of financial or managerial skills – “no industry squeezes a dime like the arts do”. The arts cannot be supported by earned income alone: for a regional theatre to break even at the box office without government support, it would have to increase ticket prices to a level unaffordable for most of its audience. The arts are labour intensive: “can you imagine Madame Butterfly with 1 diva and 3 chorus members?”; “it takes as long to rehearse an orchestra today as it did 200 years ago”. 34

In these respects, the arts are very like recreation: revenues from fees do not cover the cost of programs, staff, or the maintenance of facilities and it is well recognized that fees can only be raised so far before participation rates are affected. At the same time, it is also well accepted that local government will provide operating and capital support to their recreation departments. The net operating cost of the Oak Bay Recreation Centre alone, one of nine major recreation facilities within the four core exceeds the total of arts grants in Greater Victoria.35


Funding BaseThe funding base varies from place to place, although the most common way of providing local government operating support to the arts is through grants using revenue derived from property taxes. American cities/regions are more likely to use sales taxes (e.g. Denver where 1 cent of every $10 spent is dedicated for the arts), or hotel/motel taxes (e.g. King County). 36

Types of Programs FundedThe typical profile of local government programs for support to the arts includes: operating grants to non-profit arts organizations, project grants for specific undertakings, festival grants, grants for emerging/developing arts organizations, community group grants, public art funding, and facility funding. Some cities and regions also provide funding for travel, individual artists, technical assistance for organizational development, arts education, facility rental subsidy, and tourism marketing.

King CountyKing County provides core funding for grass-roots community based organizations (e.g. libraries, community centers, community councils, and parks and local arts agencies

33 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, p. 13.34 Mary Desprez, Belfry Theatre and Stephen Smith, Victoria Symphony.35 Stephen Thorne. An Investment Strategy for the Arts in Greater Victoria, October 1999. 36 For a discussion of how facilities and public art are financed refer to Part C, Sections 1and 3.


All of the cities and regions surveyed included both professional and community arts in their funding programs.

The foundation for funding the arts, is the same as for recreation: public support is a purchase of valuable services on behalf of the community and, simultaneously, an investment in the community.

77

involved in the presentation of free public concerts, performances, festivals, workshops and arts-related events within other community activities). They also provide start-up funds for arts organizations and support the development and implementation of cultural curricula in partnership with public schools.

ReginaRegina has a program – Community Arts Initiatives – that supports such activities as International Artists Day, a Business and Arts Council, street murals, an artist garden project, the Common Weal Community Plan, arts directories, a high school student art program, and exhibitions of art in City Hall. As well, visual art, some performing and literary art opportunities are provided through the city’s Neil Balkwill Centre. The Centre also provides direct art programming to residents, for the facilitation of programs offered by community based art organizations, and a physical focus for community arts activity development through resident artist and open studio programs, facility rental and provision of display spaces for arts groups.

PortlandRACC has Neighbourhood Arts Program to provide arts and cultural services to special constituencies, including children, youth-at-risk, families, seniors, and ethnic specific communities. The program has fostered new partnerships with almost 60 social service providers and other community oriented organizations. The Arts in Libraries program provides for workshops, performances, and presentations. The Arts Education Program provides leadership, funding and resources to support high quality partnerships between the arts and education communities (e.g. artist residencies, grants to schools and arts organizations, workshops and conferences). The Regional Development Program assists regional cities and towns to develop arts and culture models appropriate to each unique community.

Funding MethodCities and regions use a variety of methods for allocating funds. Several cities/regions use tiered funding. Denver has 3 tiers – regional institutions, mid-size arts organizations, and smaller and community based organizations; 90% of funds are formula based and set aside for the first two tiers and 10% are discretionary, used for the third tier. Saskatoon allocates 55% of funding to major arts organizations, 20% to festivals, and 25% to community arts and heritage groups. Regina allocates 85% of funds to professional arts organizations (those providing year round programming and with full time staff) and 15% to community groups. Some cities such as Ottawa provide funding on a multi-year base for 50 to 60% of the organizations they fund.

Aside from requiring organizations to be non-profit, resident and having a programming track record, typically criteria used for assessment includes: artistic quality; level of attendance; audience diversity and development; financial management (fiscal responsibility and administrative competence); need and access to other funding sources; external recognition, and cultural and economic impact. Some cities and regions such as Portland and Edmonton assign weights to different categories of criteria.


Funding LevelsComparisons can be not only odious, but a mine field. However, to appreciate the level of contributions that other cities and regions make to the arts, the following provides some useful information, and at the very least, some idea of the ballpark. In 2000, Regina, with a population of 187,500 provided operating grants amounting to approximately $3.50 per capita; in Ottawa, with a population of 323,000, the level is $3.60 with an additional $1.12 from the region; and in Kamloops, with a population of 81,000, the level is $10.30 (with an additional $1.25 for the City’s arts programming and special events).37 In 1998, in Kelowna, with a population of 95,000, the level for operating and project grants was $7.67.38 The levels tend to be even higher in large metropolitan areas such as Seattle, Toronto, Montreal Portland and Vancouver. In the GVRD in 1996, municipalities on average spent $11.79 per capita on cultural programs and cultural infrastructure.39 (See Appendix A-8 for a breakdown by municipality.)

In a paper presented in November 1999, the former Arts Development Officer for Greater Victoria noted that:

“… where governments are pursuing economic as well as social agendas related to the arts, you’ll find per-capita grants to arts organizations of at least $6…. Where governments have been …investing in a social agenda – creating and presenting our cultural heritage, building the social fabric of the community, strengthening civic identity and pride, providing opportunities for cultural recreation – you’ll typically find per-capita grants of between $3 and $6. Finally, where governments are pursuing neither economic nor social agendas, you won’t find investment. Instead, what you’ll find is charitable giving, rooted in the philosophy of “noblesse oblige”. On a per-capita basis, the amount will typically be $3 or less.”

4.2 Existing Situation in the Capital Region

4.2.1 Funding Levels and Participants

The bulk of local government funding for the arts in the Capital Region is provided by the 4-core municipalities. In 2000, the 4-core municipalities provided $595,250 in operating grants to 22 arts organizations, and $18,750 in special project grants through the Intermunicipal Committee. Appendix X provides a breakdown by organization of the grants as well as a history of IMC operating grant funding. This level of funding amounts to $2.76 per capita. Cost-sharing amongst the 4-core is apportioned on the basis of the Intermunicipal Formula – 50% population/50% converted assessment. 37 Information obtained from interviews conducted in July 2000. 38 Stephen Thorne. Culture, Tourism & the New Economy. November 1999.39 Regional Cultural Plan Steering Committee. Arts &Culture in Greater Vancouver: Contributing to the Livable Region. July 1997, p.14.


In addition, the owner municipalities also provide capital and operating funding to the Royal Theatre (Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay) and the McPherson Playhouse (Victoria). For 2000, the Royal operating grant was $100,000 and the McPherson grant was $235,000; the respective capital grants were $235,000 and $350,000. The 4-core also support the Arts Development Office, whose budget in 2000 is $115,743.

Each of the 4-core municipalities also provides funds on an individual basis to arts organizations. The amount varies from year. To some extent this is because those applying varies, but also because council decisions can be affected by other budget issues or political considerations. In 1998, the 4-core provided “other” grants amounting to $228,560 or just over $1 per capita. This amount included grants for debt reduction to Kaleidoscope, capital grants to the Conservatory and the Belfry, and grants to a number of festivals, small local community groups and schools.40 The City of Victoria also provides property tax exemptions to organizations such as the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria.

Outside the 4-core, local government support for the arts is significantly lower.

Table 8: Support for the Arts Outside the 4-core Municipalities in the Capital RegionJurisdiction Arts FundingCentral Saanich Has a 1% ($50,000) for grants, but very little goes to the arts, a few

hundred dollars at most. Colwood NoneHighlands $400 (25 cents/capita) for the Western Communities Arts Council - first

time.Langford Provides funding for the Isabel Reader Theatre – 25 cents/capita is the

target.Metchosin Contributed to IMC, roughly on the basis of 25 cents/capita, although

amount reduced from $1,200 to 1,000 in 2000 budget. Provides council chambers to community groups to stage plays, readings, art.

North Saanich Provides funding ($3,500) to the Peninsula Community Arts Council. Through a non-binding referendum, public approved North Saanich providing funds for a new Sancha Hall - up to $500,000 capital/$50,000 operating. Twice a year (once with tax notice) encourage residents to make donations to arts organizations using pre-tax dollars for which they will receive a tax receipt

Sidney Provides funding ($3,500) to the Peninsula Community Arts Council. Has committed up to $500,000 capital and up to $80,000 operating for Sancha Hall.“Little bits and pieces - $100 grants here and there on an irregular basis.”

Sooke Has recently put a grants policy and procedure in place.View Royal Has a no grants policy – only fund local school and library. Juan de Fuca n/aOuter Gulf Islands Provides $7000 to Trincomali Arts Council $7,000 and $3, 000 to

Galiano Museum.

40 Saanich and Victoria, in particular, provide funding for local community based arts events and groups, e.g. Community Arts Awareness Week, Centennial Square Concerts, Greater Victoria Festival Society, and the Victoria Harbour Festival Society.


Parks and Recreation Commission also sponsor events through their budgets.

Salt Spring Provides $1,500/month operating grant to Artspring. Provides and $3- 4,000 annually to the Gulf Islands Community Arts Council.

Source: Interviews with Mayors/Electoral Area Directors – July/August 2000.

The level of municipal funding for the arts in the Capital Region is significantly less than in many other cities and regions. On a per-capita basis, IMC operating grants are one-quarter that of the City of Vancouver, and one-third that of the City of Kelowna.

Table 9: 1998 Per Capita Municipal Support

Municipality Operating/Project Grants*

Total Operating/Project Grants**

Victoria $3.39 $9.73Esquimalt $2.34 $2.83Oak Bay $2.45 $3.42Saanich $2.18 $3.054-core Aggregated $2.64 $5.42City of Vancouver $9.59 $12.00City of Kelowna $7.67 $10.72

* Excludes one-time capital grants and expenditures ** Includes IMC grants, grants by individual councils, operating grants to Royal Theatre and McPherson Playhouse, civic arts programming, civic arts staff, public art, permissive property tax exemptions; excludes one-time capital grants and expenditures Source: Stephen Thorne, Culture, Tourism & the New Economy, October 1999

4.2.2 Funding Process - IMC Operating Grants

The decision-making process and the timing of municipal operating grants cause considerable problems for arts organizations. The application process begins in September, recommendations from the IMC to the 4-core councils are made in November, but the final decision by Councils may not come until the municipal budgets are finalized in May. The first installment on grants comes at the end of March, with final payment occurring in July, once property taxes are collected. Each municipality cuts separate cheques and issues them accordingly to the various receiving organizations.

Table 10: Adjudication Schedule - IMC Arts Operating Grants 2000Task DateApplication deadline Sept. 15/99Arts Commission (AC) consideration of global budget Sept. 22Arts Development Office prepares financial information and pertinent adjudication materials

Oct. 15

AC Meeting - adjudication materials distributed to adjudicators Oct. 18IMC Meeting - Arts Commission recommendation on size of budget Oct. 20Adjudication sessions with applicants Oct. 28/Nov. 1Commissioners submit adjudication sheets to Arts Dev. Office Nov. 4AC Meeting - Arts Commission sets individual grant recommendations Nov. 8


Notification to applicants of Commission recommendations By Nov. 12Appeal hearings Nov. 18IMC Meeting - Recommendations to IMC Nov. 24Member councils decisions of recommendations Nov. – May 15Payment of first installment March 31/00Payment of second installment July 31, 2000

The timing of the decisions and the disbursements creates some difficulties for arts organizations: the grant amount is not known until the organization is well into its fiscal year; and, only part of the funds are made available during that fiscal year. For municipalities to address the latter issue and move up the payment dates so that all decisions are made in advance of an organization’s fiscal year would require municipalities to make a double payment in one year to begin the new payment schedule. Given the financial constraints on municipalities, this is unlikely to happen.

The new Local Government Act gives municipalities more flexibility with respect to the timing of property tax collection, and this could make it possible for adjustments to be made in the payment schedule, if collection occurred earlier than July. The CRD operates on a slightly different budget timeline than do municipalities, with final approval at the end of March as opposed to mid-May. If the arts were transferred to the CRD, the amount of payment would be known sooner, making it easier for arts organizations to plan with more certainty. However, payment itself would not likely be made until July, after municipalities have collected property taxes and sent their regional requisition on to the CRD.

Following a recommendation of the Arts Policy, the 4-core decided in 1990 that payments would occur in two installments – one at the end of March and the other in July. CRD policy on advance payments (before they collect the requisition from municipalities) is to charge interest at prime rate (or if an existing surplus is used, interest at prime minus 2). This policy, unless changed would make it unlikely that funds dispersed by the CRD would be available sooner than the end of July.

Guidelines for Operating Grants

EligibilityUnder IMC guidelines, grants are provided to not-for-profit arts organizations with an operating budget in the preceding year in excess of $50,000 and with 2 years public programming in Greater Victoria, prior to their first application for operating funds. Grants must be used for annual operating and program costs – major capital needs and special projects are not eligible under this program.

Assessment Criteria


Grants are assessed on the basis of artistic quality of the program and the contribution of the organization to the artistic life of the community (e.g. meeting the public need for a quality artistic experience, appeal to special audiences, audience development, especially for young audiences, use and development of local talent, and public acceptance as reflected through attendance).

Each applicant must demonstrate an awareness of developments within its art form, demonstrate financial responsibility, a need for public funds, an acceptable level of administrative competence (organizations showing accumulated deficits from past operations must present a realistic plan of deficit reduction to qualify for support). Each applicant is expected to obtain a preponderant share of its operating budget from earned revenue and active fund-raising.

4.2.3 Funding Process – IMC Special Project Grants

This grant program is designed to assist not-for profit arts and social service organizations with projects or special activities, or to allow them to take advantage of development opportunities and events. Groups or organizations whose projects involve only one municipality must apply directly to that municipality for funding.

Eligible Organizations There are three categories of eligible applicants: groups who receive operational funding from the Intermunicipal Committee but who require assistance with a special project or activity; groups who do not receive operations funding but who wish assistance with a particular activity or project on a one-time-only basis; and, groups or organizations wishing support for one-time-only projects or activities in areas of public service, social or humanitarian concern.

Projects will be considered eligible if they are directly related to: sport and recreation, the arts, public safety, community welfare, events/non-capital projects/programs of a provincial, national or international level where there is a high degree of local involvement. Projects will be considered ineligible if they primarily relate to: tourism promotion, economic development, health, education, events/non-capital projects/programs sponsored by organizations of businesses or professional groups, hosting of food and beverages, capital expenditures, touring and/or travel expenses.

Application Deadlines/AdjudicationApplication deadlines are January 1 and June 1 with review at the Intermunicipal Committee meeting immediately following the application deadline. Projects are assessed on their quality and excellence, the demonstrated ability of the applicant to carry out the project, and the anticipated impact on the community of Greater Victoria and/or the impact on the development of the arts in Greater Victoria. Funding recommendations of the Intermunicipal Committee are forwarded to each participating municipal council who individually make a final decision on the grant request. The applicant will not receive the full amount if one or more municipal councils do not ratify the recommendation for funding.


BudgetTable A-6 in the Appendices provides a breakdown of special project grants for 2000. While the grants are available to both arts and social service organizations, over the years the bulk have gone to the former. The size of the Special Projects Fund ($20,000) has remained constant for years. While it has not always been expended, as Table A-6 in the Appendices indicates, requests usually exceed the amount available and granted. When the Special Projects Fund was proposed in the Arts Policy, it was envisaged that the fund would start small, but would grow over time. Further, it was recommended that any monies not allocated at the end of a fiscal year would remain in the fund for allocation in subsequent years.41 This has not happened.

4.2.3 Who is Funded?

Differences of opinion exist about who should receive funding: professional organizations and/or developmental and community based organizations. Some professional arts organizations worry that their resources are reduced to service the needs of the community-based arts groups; some community-based arts organizations worry that their needs are over-shadowed by those of professional arts organizations.

In 2000, IMC provided operating grants to 22 organizations. Of the $595,250 available in 2000, 17.30% went to theatre, 44.94% went to music, 0.64% went to dance, 33.85% went to the visual arts, 1.17% to the literary arts, and 2.10% went to others (including the Community Arts Council of Greater Victoria).

In 1989, the Arts Policy recommended that 2 categories of funding should be established. Category A would include the established professional organizations – those that provide on-going programming of a professional standard, employ a significant number of artists and arts administrators, and pay their staff a wage that reflects their training and skill. Category B would include all other groups, including those community groups who never expect to reach full professional status, as well as those organizations who hope, some day to be in Category A.42

ProArt Alliance has suggested a similar, but more detailed basis for differentiating between professional arts organizations and community arts. They suggest that the following criteria be used: must be a not-for-profit society; must have an established history of receiving funds from the Canada Council, the BC Arts Council, or have been receiving IMC operating grants for the past 5 years;43 must be a member of an association that represents professionals in artistic disciplines; must have at least one paid employee who’s principal source of income is from that organization; must be producing on an annual basis; and must show a diverse funding base; and artists must be paid. Both the Canada Council and the BC Arts Council have similar criteria.

41 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, p. 16.42 Ibid., p. 15.43 The intention here is that the organization has a programming track record with some longevity. In Vancouver the requirement is 2 years.


The Arts Policy recommended that the majority of funding should continue to go to Category A, with a minimum of 10% going to Category B. This recommendation was never adopted, although in actual practice the bulk of IMC grants have gone to major professional organizations. In 2000, the Victoria Symphony, Pacific Opera, the Greater Victoria Art Gallery, the Conservatory, and the Belfry Theatre, received $450,500 in IMC operating grants or just under 77% of the total operating grants available, with most of the remainder allocated to other smaller professional organizations. Both community and professional arts are important. The situation is similar to sports – not everyone is a professional athlete, there is still a need for community recreation. The argument for support of community arts is based on their role in community development and participation, social interaction, the development of skills and talents, building audiences and raising public awareness by broadening the base of appreciation and support.

During the interviews a number of needs were identified for special project funds, beyond those currently being supported: professional organizations require support to undertake special events or projects (e.g the first Symphony Splash); new and developing groups need support for programming; other groups, that operate on a project by project basis, need support to undertake these projects.

As well, there is a need to encourage the development of “regional” programming, to develop arts and culture models appropriate to each part of the region. Mindful that arts organizations collectively have a role to play in terms of arts development, there is a need to support those organizations, such as ProArt, that provide a unique advocacy and coordination role to professional arts in the region and which the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and Culture provides a potential model.

Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and CultureThe Alliance was established in 1986 to project a strong voice for the local arts community. Since then, the Alliance has grown to include more than 270 members. The Alliance's goals are to promote the activities of the arts through programs, services, and marketing strategies; and to increase public awareness of, and accessibility to, arts and culture.

FundingThe Alliance for Arts and Culture receives funding from the City of Vancouver, BC Arts Council, BC Gaming Commission, Canadian Heritage, Human Resources Development Canada, Western Economic Diversification, Canadian Tourism Commission, and Tourism Vancouver.

Programs and Services Financial - Members may receive financial planning advice and set up group

RRSPs; apply for comprehensive group insurance benefits at low group rates; business insurance (including property, crime, directors and officers liability and event cancellation); and credit card merchant rates.

Office Supplies - Members are guaranteed large discounts on 75 commonly ordered items, low prices on standard white photocopy paper, and 40 percent discounts on catalogue items.


Communications - Arts Hotline (a 24-hour service detailing arts and cultural events in Greater Vancouver); the Arts Calendar lists events on this web site; Arts Information Centre (displays members' pamphlets, handbills, brochures and posters; Arts & Media FaxNets (links both members and nonmembers with 130 local PSA media contacts); Internet Web pages (members publish brief descriptions of their organizations on individual pages on this website); Hotsheets (members learn time-sensitive information about arts issues); Newsletters (members, media, funders and government receive Synergy, the Alliance's bimonthly newsletter that covers Alliance developments, events and programs; arts news and issues; advocacy topics and workplace ideas).

Boardroom – suitable for meetings, receptions, readings, seminars, workshops and similar events.

Desktop Publishing Centre – equipment loans (e.g. folding chairs and sandwich boards).

Job Postings - members and nonmembers may provide arts-specific job postings for Alliance staff to place in a public binder, broadcast over the Arts FaxNet and announce on the jobline.

Reference Library - members and the public may peruse the Alliance's 650-plus reference titles on the arts and related topics, resources include information on grants, workshops, conferences, artist calls and education, as well as more than 130 newsletters from arts organizations.

Publications for Sale Training and Human Resource Development - Professional Development -

members and non-members can develop knowledge and skills on topics pertinent to cultural workers by participating in monthly workshops; Employment Programs - the Alliance advocates to ensure that people in arts and culture have access to government-funded programs for training and employment; SEARCH - a four-week program to help cultural workers create sustainable incomes through better employment and self-employment skills.

Outreach - advocacy – the Alliance consults with members to identify and to advocate on areas of specific concern to the arts community; publishes the Arts & Culture Advocate; forums and roundtables - members are invited to attend forums and roundtables to encourage the sharing of ideas on arts issues; tourism (see Part D, Section 2).

4.3 Regional/Local Organizations

One of the issues raised during the interviews was whether or not there are some arts organizations/facilities that serve a regional function and some that serve a more local function. Such a division was determined in 1990 in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, where municipalities collectively agreed to contribute funding to a number of organizations identified as “regional”, even though their operational base was in the City of Vancouver.

In the Capital Region, those organizations and facilities most often perceived to provide a regional function include the Victoria Symphony, Pacific Opera, the Greater Victoria Art Gallery, the Conservatory, the Royal Theatre, the McPherson Playhouse, the Belfry Theatre, the College of Art, and the Youth Orchestra. The rationale provided during the interviews for this


breakdown is that these are “one of a kind and, for the most part, likely to remain one of a kind” and are “used by people throughout the region”.

Yet, the reality is that all of Victoria’s professional arts organizations - from Intrepid Theatre to Open Space Gallery to the Victoria Jazz Society - serve audiences drawn from throughout the region. Moreover, their regional service would be enhanced significantly if an appropriate level of local government investment were being made.44 Suggestions that some professional organizations in the Capital Region are more “regional” than others are frequently met with concern – the distinction is felt to be artificial and not based in fact.

The Capital Region with a much smaller overall population and many small municipalities (all but 2 under 20,000) is significantly different from the GVRD. With a population in excess of 1.7 million and the majority of municipalities with populations over 40,000 (6 over 100,000), the GVRD has a much more developed arts infrastructure than the Capital Region and the ability to provide considerable support at both the local municipal and regional level (see Table A-8). Even then, municipalities within the GVRD are currently moving forward on developing new regional arts initiatives, recognizing that working together and sharing resources will strengthen their arts organizations.

4.4 Funding Formulae

The Intermunicipal Committee has used the 50% population/50% converted assessment formula for decades – it is well entrenched. As one observer noted, “I would not want to be in the negotiations if you try to change the formula”.

The formula is a compromise. There are those who believe services should be funded on a per capita basis, and those who think they should be provided using the property tax. In multi-jurisdictional areas where costs are shared, there can be significant differences between funding partners, some with a high level of property assessment, some with a large population. The 50/50 formula “evens out” some of those differences.

In addition to the IMC, this formula is used to fund the Greater Victoria Public Library whose partners include the 4-core and much of the Western Communities. Apparently, consideration is also being given to using the formula to fund Juan de Fuca Recreation.

There are currently 25-30 different cost sharing formulae in use at the CRD – there is certainly no lack of examples of possible alternative funding arrangements. As was discussed earlier in Part B Section 3, if new funding partners are to be found to support the arts in the Capital Region, incentives need to be identified and flexibility needs to be built into the funding arrangement. As the Arts Policy recognized in 1989, if other local government jurisdictions are “not ready to assume equal partnership in the present funding arrangement they should be encouraged to begin contributing to major arts organizations…”45

Table 11: Per Capita Contributions by Areas Outside the 4-Core

44 Ibid. 45 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, p. 19.


Jurisdiction Population 25 cents/capita 50 cents/capita $1/capitaCentral Saanich 15,931 3983 7966 15,931 Colwood 14,665 3666 7333 14,665 Highlands 1,703 426 852 1,703Langford 19,388 4847 9694 19,388 Metchosin 5,102 1276 2551 5,102 North Saanich 11,094 2774 5547 11,094 Sidney 11,540 2885 5770 11,540 Sooke 9,218 2305 4609 9,218 View Royal 7,812 1953 3906 7,812Juan de Fuca 4,578 1145 2289 4,578 Salt Spring 10,122 2531 5061 10,122Outer Gulf Islands 4,656 1164 2328 4,656

Total* 115,809 $28,955 $57,906 $115,809 *There are slight differences due to rounding.

At $1/capita the amount generated would be $115,809 from the areas outside the 4-core. This compares to $595,250 form the 4-core. On this basis, the population ratio is almost 2 to 1 (core/other areas) and the funding ratio is more than 5 to 1. Needless to say, higher contributions by areas outside the 4-core would decrease the discrepancy in the level of support.

Local governments frequently feel that it is difficult to take on the funding of a new service or absorb new costs. It is not uncommon, therefore, for local governments to phase in costs or spread costs over a number of years. Core municipalities have often done this to meet capital funding requests from arts organizations. A similar approach could be taken in the areas outside the core municipalities. Over a 5 year period, areas outside the 4-core could consider building their contribution in 25 cent increments, starting at $1/capita, so that at the end of the period they would be contributing $2.25/capita, a level just under what the 4-core contribute now. At that time, the funding base could be re-visited and, of course, other increments could be substituted. Alternatively, the 50/50 share basis for the IMC Formula could be adjusted, perhaps starting at a lower level (e.g. 25/25) with a gradual build-up over a number of years.

4.5 Other Potential Revenue Sources

Local government contributions lever contributions from other levels of government, foundations and private donors.

Senior GovernmentsIn 1998, local government support for the arts in Greater Victoria ($521,000) brought an additional $1.7 million in provincial and federal tax dollars to the area46 - even with British Columbia being one of the lowest contributors to the arts amongst all of the provinces in the

46 Stephen Thorne. Municipal Funding for the Arts. October 1999.


country. While arts groups in Greater Victoria generate a high proportion of their revenue from non-governmental sources (80%), without local government support federal and provincial funding would be at risk.

FoundationsFoundations, in partnership with provincial and local governments and arts organizations have played an important role in developing arts stabilization funds. They exist in several provinces across the country (see below for a description of the Alberta Fund). In BC, only Vancouver has a stabilization fund. The process to establish such a fund has to be “locally driven”. Provincial officials have indicated a willingness to provide advice to interested parties in the Capital Region and some effort is underway.

The Alberta Performing Arts Stabilization Fund

The Alberta Performing Arts Stabilization Fund was formed in 1995 to empower the arts community through best business practices.Arts stabilization is an international movement: groups have acted to create new forms of funding and other support for the arts and heritage in the face of a general erosion of funding from government sources.

The goal of arts stabilization is to aid in strengthening, not merely sustaining, cultural organizations. The objectives of arts stabilization programs are achieved by providing both technical and financial support.

Grants are made to organizations to improve their management, financial, planning, marketing and development practices. These improvements must be with a view to making a strategic difference to the effectiveness of the company's operations, addressing the balance between earned and unearned revenues, and contributing to sustainability over the longer term.

APASF consultants work closely with each company applying to the Fund to assist in conducting a comprehensive self-evaluation and review process including: identification of risks; development of realistic strategic and business plans; and establishment of balance sheet targets.

The stabilization process is a five-year partnership between the APASF and the participating organization. Companies work with the APASF to develop benchmarks for assessing annual progress, and the release of yearly funds is linked to meeting these objectives.

Endowment FundsDuring the interviews some interest was expressed in establishing an endowment fund, perhaps something similar to that in the GVRD. There, municipalities outside the City of Vancouver, making an annual contribution to “regional” organizations, contributed half their funds to building an endowment fund over a 10 year period as a way of working towards a sustainable level of funding. In Ashland, Oregon and King County, Washington endowment


funds have also been created to provide greater sustainability. However, the idea needs further exploration and more information needs to be made available to interested parties. While the “Vancouver model would have some appeal” for some and “our children will receive the benefit “; others see it as “taxing today’s tax payers for tomorrow’s audience” and “ we don’t want to do too much of that”.

DonationsArts organizations in the region are remarkably successful in obtaining donations from private donors. However, private donors cannot and do not provide enough support to sustain a vital arts scene. While private donors can receive tax reductions, the uncertainty of donation levels from year to year makes it difficult for arts organizations to plan. Further, if a special project arises, e.g. a capital construction project, arts organizations can expect that operational donations will be affected.

The Business Community While many businesses contribute to the arts, many don’t. During the interviews, the need to work with the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce was identified – both in the promotion of the arts and in the identification of potential donors.

The Hotel TaxThe 1989 Arts Policy also suggested that consideration be given to using the hotel tax to raise revenue, particularly for cultural tourism purposes and particularly in a community where there are few corporate headquarters. Cultural tourism (see Part E, Section 2) requires a solid base of high quality arts activities and facilities. The Arts Policy suggested that it “would be reasonable to direct some of these funds to creating and expanding the range of artistic experiences available in the region”. It went on to say, that it would “not be reasonable, however, for the City of Victoria to provide all the funding. Other municipalities should be expected to contribute through their own hotel room tax…”.47 One of the constraints with respect to the hotel tax in the City of Victoria is that their rate is already the highest in the province (2%).

LotteriesIn 1974, the original allocation formula for the use of lottery revenues was 25% each for sports and recreation, heritage, contemporary arts and cultural development, and foundations to support those three areas. In 1991 when the Province revisited lottery revenue allocations, they decided that 50% should go health and 50% for general revenues. Last year alone an estimated $44 million was realized in “unanticipated lottery revenue”. Acquiring lottery revenues for the arts will take time at best. ‘Culture Acts Now’ is currently advocating and working to change the situation.48 Interestingly, Saskatchewan provides lottery revenues in support of the arts.

OtherDuring the interviews, the recent $10 parcel tax for parks funding was frequently raised as both an example of the willingness to fund certain activities and a way in which additional

47 Loc.cit.48 Mary Liz Bayer


funds can be secured. Casino revenues, if shared, were also seen as a way for local government jurisdictions to raise money to support the arts – both for facilities and organizations. Some estimates of the revenue to be derived from a new casino in the region are as high as $5 million.

4.6 What Level of Funding is Needed?

Operating GrantsThe 1989 Arts Policy recommended that municipal operating support should increase by a minimum of 7% per year plus an allowance for inflation and that by the year 2000, municipal operating grants should reach a level sufficient to provide, on average, 9% of the operating revenue for arts organizations.49 By 1998, the achieved level was only 4.5% of the revenues of IMC-funded organizations.50 If the grants had been increased by 7% per year plus an allowance for inflation, the funding level would have reached $920,105 by 2000, or approximately $4 per capita. Instead it is $595,250 – less than two-thirds the recommended level.

Table 12: IMC Operating Grants 1989-2000Year IMC Grant Total ($) % increase/decrease1989 331,764 -0.011990 366,555 10.491991 429,550 17.191992 461,598 7.461993 475,446 3.001994 494,037 4.541995 503,850 2.001996 491,000 -2.551997 501,823 2.201998 503,375 0.041999 544,950 8.262000 595,250 9.23

It would appear that in the few years following the completion of the Arts Policy, there was an attempt to follow the recommended funding level. However by the-mid 1990s, increases fell, and in 1996 funding levels actually decreased. It wasn’t until 1999 that funding levels again exceeded the level provided in 1995.51 This pattern of funding gives credence to the notion that “the arts in Greater Victoria have been chronically under funded”. National comparisons of municipal funding levels support this view.

49 An Arts Policy for Greater Victoria. 1989, pp. 13-14.50 Thorne, op.cit.51 It should be noted that, beginning in about 1996/97, provincial government grants to municipalities were reduced, in some cases very significantly, placing considerable pressure on municipal budgets.


Establishing funding levels is not a scientific exercise. History, geography, demographics, need, ability to fund, values and priorities all affect the determination. To bring operating funding levels for arts organizations in the Capital Region closer to the Canadian average for similar types of organizations, an infusion of $1.25 million above the existing IMC level, phased in over 5 years, is required.

This level of funding would permit arts organizations in the Capital Region to continue with current levels of programming. It would also act as a spur for fundraising: it would assist in levering higher levels of senior government, foundation, and donor funding. It would increase the ability of arts organizations to reduce their accumulated deficits and to participate in arts stabilization programs. For the 4-core municipalities, funding at this level by 2005 would require an expenditure of approximately $ 7.80 per capita – still below what other BC centres such as Kamloops, Kelowna, and many municipalities in the Lower Mainland are providing now.

Special Project GrantsThere is clearly a need to increase the size of the special projects fund to meet the needs of professional arts organizations, new and developing groups, and other groups, that operate on a project by project basis. If the level of operating funding was increased as suggested above, the needs of professional arts organizations for special project funding could be absorbed, perhaps by setting an amount out annually for special projects within that funding program. In fact, ProArt has suggested that “only those who are not receiving operating funds should be eligible” for funding out of the Special Projects Fund.

Under current funding practices, new and developing arts groups have considerable difficulty obtaining operating funds. Groups with annual budgets of less than $50,000 are referred to the Community Arts Council for funding. Yet the Council only receives $9,500 from IMC from which to fund such groups and their own operating costs. This prejudices developing organizations working with professional artists and in community development who operate on smaller budgets and growing slowly and responsibly. The Arts Development Officer in 1999 suggested that the special projects fund should be increased annually by $47,800 per year, building to a total of $250,000 by 2005.52 However, a more modest approach would be to start by doubling the current size of the fund, with half going to new and developing groups and half to community groups that operate on a project by project basis and provide a service that attracts an audience from more than one municipality. Based on the experience of the first year, the program could be assessed and any needed funding adjustments made. Eligibility criteria should also be reviewed.

Even at this level, funding is unlikely to be sufficient for developing cultural tourism programs, including tourism marketing and festivals in the shoulder seasons and off-season. However, consideration could be given to establishing a policy for special project grants that encourages the creation of festivals in the shoulder seasons and off-season as a strategic priority.

52 Thorne, op. cit.


4.7. Conclusions

By comparison with many other cities and regions in North America, funding for the arts in the Capital Region is low. The 4-core municipalities provide the bulk of operating funds for major arts organizations and special project funds, 3 of them contribute capital and operating funds to civic facilities, and generally each supports local community based arts groups and activities. Outside the core, funding is sparser, although there is some support for local community arts activity. Over the years, only Metchosin has contributed to the IMC, but on a limited basis.

There are a multitude of issues with respect to funding, e.g. amount, timing, purpose, method, and potential recipients, and a multitude of alternatives. How funding decisions are made and by whom are also key issues.

Establishing funding levels is not a scientific exercise. However, there is considerable evidence and agreement, that the arts in the Capital Region have been “chronically under funded”. The Arts Policy in 1989 set out a schedule for raising operating grants. If it had been adhered to, the level provided by the 4-core by the year 2000 would have been $920,105 or over one-third more than they are currently providing. At his level, operating funding within the 4-core would be in the range of just over $4 per capita. To bring operating funding levels for arts organizations closer to the Canadian average for similar types of organizations, an infusion of $1.25 million above the existing IMC level, phased in over 5 years is required.

Special project grants were established in the 4-core in 1990. They are needed particularly to assist new and developing arts groups and groups that operate on a project by project basis. The fund for special projects has remained unchanged for a number of years. A modest approach would be to start by doubling the current size of the fund, and based on the experience of the first year the program could be assessed and needed funding adjustments made. This amount, however, is unlikely to be sufficient for developing cultural tourism programs and it would not provide for the establishment of an arts stabilization fund. Partnering with community organizations is one possible approach that could be taken to address these needs.

If local government jurisdictions outside the 4-core are not ready to assume equal partnership in the present IMC funding arrangement, they could be encouraged to contribute at levels they feel comfortable with. Various approaches are possible, including an adjusted share of the IMC Formula or a per capita formula (at $1/capita the amount generated would be $115,809 from the areas outside the 4-core). In both cases, the possibility for starting at a lower level and building to a full contribution over a number of years could be considered.

All of the cities and regions surveyed include funding for both community and professional arts organizations on the basis that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two – they each contribute to the strength of the other. In regional structures, commonly local community arts are supported at the municipal level, with major arts organizations supported at the regional level.


None of the options examined precludes dealing with the various funding issues as outlined. However, Option 2 – Moving to the CRD – would probably better facilitate the development of a regional funding base, if for no other reason than all of the potential participants are present. Experience over the years suggests that growth is difficult to achieve within the existing IMC framework.


Part E – Recommendations and Implementation

1. Implementation

1.1 Communication and Information

There are a number of issues that need to be dealt with before changes in governance, structure, staffing and programs can be implemented.

There is a high degree of interest in the report. Once it is received and reviewed by the Intermunicipal Committee, it should be forwarded to the 4-core Councils. Copies should be made available at that time to other interested parties, e.g. the other local government jurisdictions within the Capital Region; arts organizations; community organizations such as Tourism Victoria, the Economic Development Commission, and the Chamber of Commerce; the media; and the public.

The report recommends a number of changes to the current structure. A process needs to be established to deal with the recommendations and to determine a course of action. The Intermunicipal Committee, with representation from each of the 4-core municipalities, should coordinate this process. One of first issues to be dealt with is to determine whether or not there is interest amongst the 4-core councils for moving the arts to the CRD.

As the report makes clear, there is limited support outside the 4-core at this time for moving the arts to the CRD. If there is interest amongst the 4-core in making a request to establish a new arts service and for expanding participation in the service, it will be essential to provide information to the other jurisdictions in the region. This can be done in a number of ways.

A regional summit, with contributions and participation from all areas, could be organized to discuss the findings of the report and future directions for the arts in the region.

Members of the Intermunicipal Committee and the mayors of the 4-core municipalities could undertake to make presentations to and meet with each of the councils and electoral area directors outside the core.

Staff from the 4-core could use meetings with their colleagues from other parts of the region to provide information and discuss the arts and the role of local government in support.

As part of the discussions with jurisdictions outside the 4-core, it will be important to ascertain on what basis new partners would be prepared to participate in the new service.

If sufficient interest in establishing a new arts service at the CRD is identified, a formal request could be initiated. Informational material should be sent in advance for


distribution to all directors and when the request is made, time to make a presentation should be sought. At that point the process, set out in Part B, Section 2 would be set in motion.

Throughout, support should be sought from key community and arts organizations.

2.1 Timing

If the experience in other jurisdictions is typical, establishing a regional structure for the arts with full participation takes time. Given the large number of consultations that must take place and the considerable obstacles to overcome, the process to establish a new arts service at the CRD will take several months.

The table below sets out a tentative timeline – manageable under the best of circumstances, otherwise possibly tight.

Date Action September IMC/4-core Council discussion of report and determining the

degree of interest in moving to the CRD October - November Presentations to/meetings with jurisdictions outside the 4-core Late October Regional Summit Mid-November Request to the CRD to establish a new service December – April/May Preparation, processing and adoption of bylaw

As the process outlined above unfolds over the next several months, decisions about hiring a new Arts Manager/Development Officer, funding, and cultural tourism initiatives will also need to be addressed.

2. Recommendations

2.1 Structure Arts programming and policy development should be transferred to the CRD – Option 2. A new division should be established within the CRD, with its own identity but within

Administration, similar to the Community Relations Division. For reporting purposes, a new CRD Board Arts Committee should be established.

Membership would be from the participating members. The new Committee would also have responsibility for the Royal Theatre and McPherson Playhouse, once the latter is transferred.


Over the next months, and before a request is made to establish the arts as a service at the CRD, those interested in this option should provide potential participants with information and opportunities for discussion.

The Intermunicipal Committee should be disbanded if the new service is established at the CRD; if the new service is not established, Option 1- a Modified IMC should be considered as the “fall-back alternative”.

2.2 The Arts Commission The Arts Commission, as an advisory body, should be retained. Under Option 2 it would

report to the new CRD Board Committee. The composition of the Commission’s membership should be re-structured to include a

minimum of 3 board members and staff of arts organizations as non-voting members. Consideration should be given to including representatives from Tourism Victoria and the Chamber of Commerce on the Commission. No significant changes should be made in the overall size of the Commission.

The mandate of the Commission is generally acceptable, but activities within the mandate should be reviewed and prioritized on an annual basis.

Professional and clerical staff support from the Arts Manager/Development Office should be provided to the Commission, as well as a small budget (up to $3,500) to undertake educational programming.

1.3 Staff With the establishment of an arts division in the CRD, the existing staff of the Arts

Manager/Development Office should be transferred. The Arts Manager/Development Officer and Administrative Assistant would be under the

general supervision of the CRD Executive Director, but would report to the new Board Arts Committee.

The Arts Manager/Development Officer’s job description should include: providing technical assistance and administration for arts policy and programming; undertaking research and strategic planning; providing assistance to the arts commission; providing advice to arts organizations; providing/undertaking communication, consultation, liaison and networking with professional and community arts organizations, government, business, tourism, and educational institutions; and raising public awareness through educational programming.

The Arts Manager/Development Office should be provided with a programming budget to undertake identified projects and research with a contingency for unanticipated requests.

Funds should be made available for the development and maintenance of an arts web site.

2.4 Public Art


Public art programs should be the responsibility of each local government jurisdiction within the region and the CRD should consider establishing its own public art program.

The Arts Manager/Development Officer could provide advice to local government jurisdictions on public art policy and ways to implement a public art program, and possibly assist in the training of staff in the various jurisdictions on how to carry out a public art program.

The Arts Commission could assist and encourage the development of public art programs by sponsoring educational activities.

2.5 Cultural Tourism Local government should take a lead role in establishing a working group (including

Tourism Victoria, the Economic Development Commission ProArt, and provincial representatives) to facilitate the development of a cultural tourism strategy. Consideration should be given to providing seed money to ProArt and/or tying existing (and possibly new) local government grants and funds to Tourism Victoria and the Economic Development Commission for this purpose. The Arts Manager/Development Officer could be asked to facilitate and coordinate, at least in the initial start-up phase. Progress reports back to the local government body responsible for arts development in the region should be a requirement.

2.6 Facilities The reporting mechanism for a new Arts Division within the CRD and the Royal and

McPherson Theatres Society should be the same – the proposed CRD Board Arts Committee.

Consideration should be given to identifying the arts facility needs of the community and developing a long-term capital plan. The development of a mechanism to respond to facility issues generally (in addition to the Royal and McPherson) should be also considered.

The Arts Manager/Development Officer and the Executive Director of the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society should be expected to consult on a regular basis.

Consideration should be given to appointing a member of the Commission to the Board of the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society.

2.7 Funding The level of operating grants funding from the 4-core municipalities should be increased

from $595,250 in 2000 to $1,850,000 by 2005. The level of special project grants funding from the 4-core municipalities should be

doubled to $40,000 in 2001, and based on what happens that year; the program should be assessed and needed funding adjustments made. Consideration should be given to awarding special project grants to new and developing arts groups and groups that operate on a project by project basis. Consideration could also be given to adopting a policy for special project grants that encourages the creation of festivals in the shoulder seasons and off-season as a strategic priority.


For both operating and special project grants, the IMC Formula (50% population/50% converted assessment) should be used as the basis for allocation amongst the funding partners.

The criteria for funding should be retained, although they should be reviewed, particularly for new and developing groups.

Local community arts organizations whose primary base of operation and audience is located within a single government jurisdiction should continue to be funded by that jurisdiction. Organizations meeting the current IMC criteria for funding should be transferred to the CRD under Option 2.

Local government jurisdictions outside the 4-core should be encouraged to participate in funding arts organizations and facilities. If necessary, incentives should be provided. These could include: using an adjusted share of the IMC formula (e.g., 25% population/25% converted assessment) or a per capita formula. In both cases, the possibility for starting at a lower level and building to a full contribution over a number of years should be considered.

Local government should explore the feasibility and implementation of establishing an arts stabilization fund for the Capital Region with foundations and provincial government officials.

Funding for the development of cultural tourism (see Cultural Tourism recommendations) and project funding for the Arts Manager/Development Office and Arts Commission (see Staff and Arts Commission recommendations) should be considered.

Other potential revenue sources should be investigated, as well as such issues as the establishment of an endowment fund.


Appendices


Table A-1: List of Persons Interviewed

Organization Contact Persons DateOther Cities

1. City of Edmonton John Mahon July 11, 20002. City of Calgary Judy Drucker July 14, 20003. North Shore Arts Commission Lori Phillips July 18, 20004. City of Toronto Terry Nicholson July 18, 20005. City of Vancouver/GVRD Burke Taylor July 19, 20006. Denver - SCFD Mary Ellen Williams July 20, 20007. Seattle Arts Commission Susan Trapnell July 20, 20008. King County Michael Killoren July 20, 20009. City of Kelowna Ian Forsythe July 21, 2000

10. City of Saskatoon Regine Haensel July 24, 200011. City of Kamloops Ron McColl July 24, 200012. Portland Arts Commission Mike Pippi July 25, 200013. City of Ottawa Dennis Landry July 25, 200014. City of Regina Glen Gordon July 25, 200015. City of Tacoma Josie Emmons August 1, 2000 16. Regional Municipality of Halifax Barb Nehilley August 9, 2000

Local Interviews Contact Person/s Date1. Working Committee June 12, 2000

July 20, 20002. ProArt Alliance Mary Desprez, Deirdre Ross,

David DevanJune 14, 2000

3. CRD Diana Loken June 26, 20004. CRD Bill Jordan June 27, 20005. IMC Louise Alvarez June 22, 2000

Arts Commission Rick Duckles, Denise Heap, Elizabeth Wagner, Robyn Quinn, Nancy Keehr, Terry Waller, Jack Jeffrey, Michael Levin, Gail Scott, Robert Thompson, Michael Boyle

July 12, 2000

6. Former Arts Manager Bess Jillings July 12, 20007. Former Arts Manager Lydia Kasianchuk July 14, 20008. Maltwood Gallery, UVIC Martin Segger July 24, 20009. Times Colonist Diane Dakers July 24, 2000

10. City of Victoria Wendy Zink July 25, 200011. Victoria Community Arts Council Erika Kurth July 25, 200012. White Hamar Inc. Stephen White July 25, 200013. Tourism Victoria Lorne White July 26, 200014. Culture Acts Now Mary Liz Bayer July 27, 200015. ProArt Member Boards July 27, 200016 Capital Region Housing

CorporationAmy Jarsma July 28, 2000

17. District of Saanich Carrie McPhee July 27, 200018. Greater Victoria Economic

Development CommissionKen Stratford July 31, 2000


19. News Group/Shaw Cable David Lennam July 31, 200020. Victoria Community Arts Council Paul Scrivener July 31, 200021. Victoria Symphony Stephen Smith July 31, 200022. Pacific Opera Jane Heffelfinger July 31, 200023. Victoria Chamber of Commerce Glen Terrell August 1, 2000

Elected Officials Contact Person/s Date1. City of Colwood Mayor Beth Gibson July 25, 20002. District of Metchosin Mayor Karen Watson July 26, 20003. District of Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard July 26, 20004. District of Highlands Mayor Karel Roessingh July 26, 20005. District of North Saanich Mayor Linda Michaluk July 27, 20006. CRD Director – Outer Gulf Islands Director Richard Dalon July 27, 20007. District of Central Saanich Mayor Wayne Hunter July 28, 20008. CRD Director – Saanich Councillor Judy Brownhoff July 28, 20009. CRD Director – Saanich Councillor Bob Gillespie July 28, 2000

10. CRD Director – Victoria Councillor Jane Lunt July 28, 200011. District of Sooke Mayor Ed MacGregor July 31, 200012. District of Langford Mayor Stu Young July 31, 2000 13. Intermunicipal Committee Councillors Karagianus,

Pickup, Boulton, Madoff, Holland

August 1, 2000

14. Town of Sidney Mayor Don Amos August 2, 2000 15. Town of View Royal Mayor Bill Camden August 2, 200016. City of Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe August 2, 2000 17. District of Oak Bay Mayor Christopher Causton August 3, 200018. CRD Director – Salt Spring Director Kelly Booth August 3, 200019. CRD Director - Saanich Councillor Carol Pickup August 10, 200020. CRD Director – Langford Councillor Denise Blackwell August, 18, 200021. CRD Director – Victoria Councillor Denis Savoie August 29, 200022. Township of Esquimalt Mayor Ray Rice August 31, 200023. Written comments were submitted by Councillors John Herbert and

Caroline Macey-Brown, Oak Bay September 5, 2000

Others Contact Person/s Date1. Cultural Services, BC Richard Brownsey July 24, 20002. Vancouver Cultural Arts Alliance Laurie Baxter August 1, 2000

A number of other people were contacted but were not available or did not return calls.

Table A-2: CRD Population 1986-2000

Area 1986 % 1991 % 1996 % 2000 %Core 182,280 68.7 200,818 67.0 208,908 65.7 222,101 64.8Peninsula 28,881 10.9 34,921 11.7 37,44 11.8 41,111 12.0Western Communities

45,150 17.0 52,332 17.5 58,225 18.3 64,727 18.9

Gulf Islands 9,075 3.4 11,479 3.8 13,407 4.2 14,77 4.3Total 265,386 100.0 299,550 100.0 317,989 100.0 342,718 100.0


Table A-3: Arts Organizations’ Budgets, Attendance, and Employees

Organization Budget 98/99 Attendance 98/99 EmployeesArt Gallery of Greater Victoria

$1,553,900* 47,446 Admin./Tech./Instruct.- 75Other - 3

BelfryTheatre $1,258,686 39,090 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 40 Artists/Musicians - 48

Community Arts Council of Greater Victoria

$64,026 n/a Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 2

Victoria College of Art $404,366 715 students Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 21Intrepid Theatre $342,224 37,750 Admin./Tech./Instruct. -17

Artists/Musicians - 230 Other - 45

Victoria Conservatory of Music

$1,719,107 1,750students

Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 157

Victoria Jazz Society $568,199 33,589 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 14 Artists/Musicians - 309

Open Space $156,218 12,709 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 2Kaleidoscope Theatre $387,552 20,522 Admin./Tech./Instruct.- 3

Artists/Musicians - 33 Other - 2

Literary Arts Festival $155,167 1,650 Admin./Tech./Instruct.- 7 Artists/Musicians - 19

Pacific Opera $1,984,848 23,277 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 40 Artists/Musicians - 73

Palm Court Orchestra $76,286 2,747 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 2 Artists/Musicians - 32

Rogue Art $94,200 20,142 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 3Story Theatre $297,112 107,280 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 3

Artists/Musicians - 15Victoria Symphony $2,441,207 133,763 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 12

Artists/Musicians - 89Victoria Operatic Society $182,673 8,600 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 4

Artists/Musicians - 12Theatre Inconnu $129,242 5,423 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 3

Artists/Musicians - 38Xchanges $59,168 n/a Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 17

Other - 15Victoria Youth Choirs $64,922 4,850 Admin./Tech./Instruct - 6

Artists/Musicians - 4Greater Victoria Youth Orchestra

$84,200 3,250 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 11 Other - 4

Greater Victoria Performing Arts Festival

$78,297 no statistics provided

0

Victoria Independent Film & Video Festival

$187,805 3,750 Admin./Tech./Instruct. - 7 Artists - 60

TOTAL $12,289,405 508,303 Admin./Tech./Instruct - 446Artists/Musicians - 962Other - 69


Table A-4: Arts Commission Mandate

Adjudication Adjudicate and review grant applications for both operations and special project funding on

behalf of the Intermunicipal Committee. In the process of this review, the Arts Commission acts as jury to assess the artistic, management and service potential of the applicants.

Make recommendations for specific grant allocations. Participate in the grants appeal process.

Advocacy The provision by municipal budgets of an appropriate and adequate funding base for the

arts organizations of Greater Victoria. The provision of adequate facilities to house the arts. The provision of increased access for all segments of the community in terms of physical

access, appropriate program access for all ages, affordability and geographical access. The provision of quality, diversity, innovation and experimentation, skill development in

artistic, technical, administrative and organizational areas.

Policy Development The Arts Commission can develop policies consistent with its mandate and the Greater

Victoria Arts Policy Study of 1989. The 1989 study identified the broad areas for consideration - funding, facilities, administrative structure, community development and public art - taking into consideration the mandate of the Commission, the direction given by the Intermunicipal Committee and the needs of the community.

Community Development The Arts Commission actively promotes public awareness of the arts, targetting community

development to education, planning, community beautification, tourism, special events, and recreation, through public gatherings, conferences, and workshops.

Advisory Service The advisory and consultative services through the Arts Commission are directed towards:

the Intermunicipal Committee, Senior administrative staff of the municipalities, other levels of government, citizens, artists and administrators, and arts organizations. Advice can involve the assessment and interpretation of issues, material, legislation, events, trends, actions and implications.

Study and Research The Arts Commission can support and initiate studies relating to the promotion,

development, funding, facilities, public awareness, economic impact, audience development, demographics and all other areas which further the development of the arts in the community.


Table A-5: Intermunicipal Arts Operating Grants: An Historical Survey - 1979 - 1999

Year Amount ($) Year Amount ($)1979 179,164 1990 366,5551980 225,959 1991 429,5501981 244,791 1992 461,5981982 248,000 1993 475,4461983 275,716 1994 494,0371984 281,886 1995 503,8501985 275,475 1996 491,0001986 295,950 1997 501,8231987 310,553 1998 503,3751988 332,210 1999 544,9501989 331,764 2000 595,250

Table A-6: Intermunicipal Grants 2000

Organization 2000 ($)Art Gallery of Greater Victoria 170,500Victoria College of Art 4,500Open Space Gallery 17,500Rogue Art 4,500Xchanges Artists Gallery/Studios 3,500Suddenly Dance Theatre 3,800Belfry Theatre 55,500Theatre Inconnu 11,500Intrepid Theatre 13,000Kaleidoscope Theatre 10,500Story Theatre 12,500Greater Victoria Youth Orchestra 3,500Pacific Opera Victoria 56,500Greater Victoria Performing Arts Festival 1,500Victoria Conservatory of Music 35,500Victoria Jazz Society 20,500Victoria Symphony Society 142,000Victoria Youth Choirs (VIVA) 2,500Palm Court Orchestra 2,500Literary Arts Festival 6,950Independent Film & Video Festival 3,000Community Arts Council 9,500

Total 595,250


Table A-7: 2000 Special Project Grants

Organization Request ($) Recommended ($)BC Festival of the Arts 5,000 0Cedar Hill Junior Secondary School Society 2,000 0Kaleidoscope Theatre Productions 2,500 500Mt. Tolmie Festival Society 1,000 0Open Space 2,750 0RootsFest – Capital Region Festival Society 10,000 5,000Theatre InConnu 2,000 1,000Tic.Toc Festival of New Performance 5,000 3,000Victoria Ballroom Dance Society 2,800 0Victoria Buzavirag Hungarian Dancers Society 5,000 0Victoria Dance Series 4,000 1,500Victoria Independent Film & Video Festival 5,000 1,000Victoria Military Music Festival Society 15,000 1,000West Bay Residents Association 2,500 0Island Repertory Company 2,000 1,500Other Guys Theatre Company Society 2,000 1,550Rogue Art/Runnymede Enhancement Society 3,000 2,700Total 64,550 18,750Total available $20,000Note: $1,250 given to Community Council

Table A-8: Net Per Capital Cultural Operating Support in the GVRD, 1995

Jurisdiction Population Net Per Capital Cultural Operating

Support ($)Burnaby 175,811 19.95Coquitlam 100,946 2.53Delta 96,870 4.83Langley City 22,673 0.26Langley Township 80,708 6.92Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows 70,613 9.95New Westminster 47,149 15.53North Vancouver City 41,584 9.98North Vancouver District 81,848 8.75Port Coquitlam 45,695 0.00Port Moody 20,459 3.03Richmond 143,700 14.33Surrey 292,431 5.34Vancouver 521,048 18.01West Vancouver 41,778 29.74White Rock 17,603 6.58

Source: Regional Cultural Plan Steering Committee, Arts and Culture in Greater Vancouver: Contributing to the Livable Region, 1997. Vancouver Cultural Investment


Table A-9: Web Site Contact Information for Other Cities and Regions

Area Web Site AddressVancouver www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvsc/socialplanning/oca/ocaindex.htmlGVRD www.gvrd.bc.caDenver [email protected] www.racc.orgNorth Shore www.dnv.org/nsarts/index1.htmSeattle www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/seattle/sac/home.htmOttawa www.city.ottawa.on.ca/ottawa/city/web/b/b5/b5-arts.htmlKelowna www.city.kelowna.bc.caRegina www.cityregina.comKing County www.metrokc.gov/recreate.htmHalifax www.region.halifax.ns.caSaskatoon www.city.saskatoon.sk.caCalgary www.gov.calgary.ab.caToronto www.city.toronto.on.ca/culture.index.htmEdmonton www.gov.edmonton.ab.caTacoma www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/econdev/tedd/culture/tacomaart/welcome.htmKamloops www.city.kamloops.bc.ca


Documents

ARTS POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - · Web viewDeveloping a structure for local government arts policy and program development is an intricate balance of roles, responsibilities,