Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Art Mural Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roscoe committee discusses covering mural at 10534 Main Street; seeks bids and legal review
Summary
Committee members reviewed three contractor quotes to paint over a mural at 10534 Main Street, discussed a hold‑harmless agreement with the Masons, and asked staff to research the Visual Artists Rights Act before proceeding.
The Village of Roscoe Committee of the Whole discussed options to remove or paint over a mural located at 10534 Main Street and asked staff to obtain legal clarification and solicit bids.
Troy, a staff member who presented procurement information, said the committee had received three quotes for painting over the mural: a low quote of $3,600, a middle quote of approximately $4,375, and a high quote of $8,950. Troy described the recommended process for paint-over work: power wash, drying, primer and two finish coats.
Committee members raised questions about ownership and artists’ rights after staff shared an email from John Brown, who flagged the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). A committee member summarized Brown's concern: the law can grant creators certain moral rights that may limit removal or alteration of an artwork. Staff said they would review the partnership agreement and the agreement with the artist included in the meeting packet to see whether rights were waived.
Members discussed two operational paths: (1) hire a contractor directly and obtain a hold‑harmless agreement from the Masons (the property/tenant group discussed in the packet) before work begins, or (2) authorize the Masons to hire a contractor and reimburse them on presentation of invoices. Staff said reimbursement after completion is a likely procedural approach so the village would not be the active contracting party on private property.
A public commenter, mural artist Michael Stifler, introduced himself and said in his experience artists paid for work generally will not object if the public regards the mural as unattractive. "If public sentiment is it's not an attractive mural, I don't think he's gonna argue to keep something that people don't like up because that's not a good representation of his work then," Stifler said.
The committee directed staff to draft a hold‑harmless letter for the Masons, to circulate bid information, and to examine the Visual Artists Rights Act and the village's partnership agreement with the artist. Staff said they would return with legal clarifications and the masonry group's response.
