HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/1997, 4 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM STATUS AND FUNDING, INCLUDING A POSSIBLE MANDATORY ""PERCENT FOR ART"" PROGRAM."council 11 1
j agenda REpoRt
C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director (;�fl
PREPARED BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Art in Public Places program status and funding, including a possible
mandatory "percent for art" program.
CAO RECONE IENDATIONS: Authorize staff to: 1) designate a staff public art
coordinator; 2) include additional incentives to encourage public art, as recommended in the
staff report; 3) seek community input on a possible expanded Arts in Public Places Program to
include a mandatory percent -for -art requirement for privately - funded development projects, as
generally described in Exhibit A, with staffs suggested changes; and 4) come back to the City
Council in one year to report on program effectiveness.
REPORT -IN -BRIEF
The report concludes that the City's current Art in Public Places Program has been less
effective than originally envisioned, and recommends that the City designate a specific staff
member as public art coordinator to improve the program's implementation. The City
Administrative Officer's (CAO) intention is to designate that the Assistant to the CAO, Wendy
George, fulfill this role. The report also concludes that there is significant precedence to
support the creation of a mandatory percent -for -art requirement which would apply to both
public and private development projects and that such a program should be considered; and
recommends additional incentives to encourage public art in public and private projects.
DISCUSSION
Background. Last year the City Council held a study session on public art. The session
featured a speaker from the City of Palm Desert, who explained how that city's public art
program was organized and funded. Initiated in Fiscal Year 1986 -87, Patin Desert's "Art in
Public Places" program has added over 66 public art pieces, with a public and private
investment of over $1.67 million. After learning about Pahn Desert's successes and those of
other communities, councihnembers asked staff to come back with a report that would consider
reactivation of the public art program along with a discussion of public art funding. Council
members expressed general support for an expanded public art program, and asked staff to
return with a recommendation regarding a mandatory percent for art component. This report
discusses the current funding method and alternative funding strategies, including a mandatory
"percent for program" endorsed by the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council.
The Existing Program. Council adopted San Luis Obispo's "Art in Public Places"
Program in May 1990 (resolution attached). Developed by a committee composed of SLO
Council Staff Report
Page 2
County Arts Council members, City advisory body members, and citizens -at- large, the City's
program is voluntary for private development and mandatory for most City projects. It
requires that one percent of the construction budget of most City capital projects be earmarked
for public art. To encourage public art in private development projects, Council members
included several incentives: matching City funding, waiver of all review and permit fees, and
flexible setback standards for public art. Despite these incentives, private development
projects have generally not included public art. Most public art in San Luis Obispo was
developed in the 1970s and 80s, before the program was adopted.
Public Art Production Since Program Inception. On the public side, two City
projects approved since the program's adoption have expended funds for public art — the new
Fire Station and the Palm Street Parking Garage. The station included an historic bell and
display area for an historic fire vehicle; the Palm Street Garage includes the Chinatown mural
"Love and Double Joy." While not yet completed, the Council has also funded public art for
the new Parks and Recreation Administrati on building.
The City's 1991 -1993 Financial Plan listed "in -lieu" public art contributions from City projects
totaling approximately $55,000, and another $47,000 to be used for public art in major capital
projects, including: the Recreation Administrati on Office ($6,500); Fire Station No. 1
Replacement ($30,000); Nipomo Street Bridge Replacement ($5,000); and French Park
($4,700). Public art was not included in the bridge replacement or park project, and art
funding was either used for other project- related construction costs or folded back into the
General Fund. A privately- funded "Gateway" public art project in Railroad Square was
allocated $39,000 in matching "in -lieu" public art funds, but wasn't built due to insufficient
funding.
In 1993, due to the City's constrained fiscal situation, the public art program was suspended
and in -lieu fees folded back into the General Fund. In 1995 -97, Council approved a 'h percent
art requirement, resulting in $15,000 being set aside for art in City projects. Of that, $5,000
was allocated to the Chinatown public art mural. The 1997 -99 Financial Plan re- establishes
public art funding at the 1 % level.
Clearly, public art has not been included in public or private projects as originally hoped.
Factors which may have discouraged public art include:
• economic woes in the early 1990s which affected both the private and public sectors' ability
to fund public art;
• inexperience of City project managers in dealing with artists and public art contracts;
• unclear lines of responsibility for administering the public art program; and
• no consistent, dedicated funding source for public art.
#-4
Council Staff Report
Page 3
These issues, along with recommended changes to enhance the program, are discussed below.
Economic Factors. In 1965, when the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was
created, there were only a handful of established public art programs in the United States.
During the 1970s' and 1980s the number of public art programs grew, with "percent for art"
programs becoming common in California. Several prominent public art pieces were
developed in San Luis Obispo through NEA funding, including the "Tankhead Fish" by John
Augsberger, 1960s; "Historic U.S. Flags" by Bob Nichols, 1976; and "Tequski Wa Suwa"
(Bear with Indian Child), by Paula Zima, 1988. San Luis Obispo adopted its public art
program in 1990, but by 1991 -92, national and state economic problems began to affect the
local economy. Faced with reduced development, State budget "grabs" from local government
and reduced revenue prospects, the City cut back public art funding in 1993 to maintain
essential municipal services. With an improving economic climate and more stable fiscal
condition, Council reinstated public art funding in the 1995 -97 Financial Plan at the 1/2 percent
level, and at the 1 percent level in 1997 -99.
Project Management. To minimise staffing impacts, the Art in Public Places program
relies on project managers to implement public art as part of capital projects. Public Works
staff is responsible for getting capital improvement projects built - from developing the project
concept to final inspection. The public art program adds another duty to the already wide
range of tasks the project manager deals with. Moreover, administering a public art contract is
a task for which project managers generally have little or no training or experience. Dealing
with artists and public art projects presents a new set of issues and procedures which differ
from the typical public works project.
Focused Leadership for Public Art Implementation. Cities with successful public art
programs usually designate a specific staff person who is responsible for program
implementation and art advocacy. A 1991 survey conducted by the California Arts Council
found that out of 87 cities with public art programs in California which responded, seventy-one
(82 %) had a full- or part-time public art coordinator. Another 14 programs were administered
by volunteer trustees or committees, usually with a city staff liaison.
Strong leadership and commitment is essential -- from the City Council through Administration
and staff -- if a public art program is to be successful. Staff responsibilities for implementing
the City's program have been decentralized among the various departments and apparently
have not been clearly understood. The program also relied, in part, on the Arts Council of San
Luis Obispo to provide volunteer technical input and advice on public art; however the Arts
Council's countywide responsibilities, coupled with financial difficulties, limited its ability to
take an active role in the City's program.
A designated public art coordinator could improve program implementation. Coordinator
//-3
Council Staff Report
Page 4
duties would consist of: training and assisting City project managers, decisionmakers and
developers with public art matters; serving as a liaison with artists and art groups, city staff
and decision makers and citizens; soliciting public input on a mandatory, private percent -for-
art program; coordinating the development of public art in City projects; advising developers
on public art requirements in new development; administering City public art contracts;
representing the City at countywide art meetings; and providing information on public art.
Depending on the amount of public art activity, the Public Art Coordinator may initially need
to dedicate an average of 2-4 hours per week to the program, possibly more as new public art
projects are undertaken.
Recommendation:
Staffing Approach. Due to fiscal constraints, the City has tried to limit the number of new,
regular employee positions created. Thus, staff recommends that the Council authorize the
CAO to designate the public art coordinator position from among existing staff, at least
initially. Under this approach, the CAO's intention is to designate the Assistant to the CAO,
Wendy George, to fulfill this role. To accommodate these added duties, responsibility for
developing and implementing the City's PEG Access program (public, educational,
governmental broadcasting) shall be transferred to the City Clerk, "freeing up" some of the
Assistant's time to serve as Public Art Coordinator without impacting her other regular duties.
Projects. Exhibit C lists the 1997 -99 capital projects which are eligible to include public art.
The next step shall be for the staff CIP Committee to develop recommendations relative to
which of the General Fund projects should be developed to include public art (the parking
funds should be invested in future parking projects). As noted in Exhibit C, approximately
$27,000 in General Funds are budgeted in the two -year Financial Plan period, based on a 1 °%
calculation against these projects. Given this level of funding, it will have greater impact to
limit the number of projects to include public art, rather than spreading funds thinly across
several projects, some of which do not readily lend themselves to art elements. Staff will
return to Council within 60 days with specific project recommendations.
Following project identification, the "arts coordinator" will work with project managers and
others to establish concepts for the art that will be included in the project design. Artist and
artwork selection will follow guidelines in the City's "Public Art Policies and Procedures"
manual. The Architectural Review Commission reviews public art as part of City capital
projects to determine whether the projects meet the council- adopted guidelines for public art
and forwards its recommendation to the Council. The City Council will have the opportunity
to review the art concepts when approving projects for bid advertisement and accept or reject
the ARC'S recommendation. The coordinator will continue to monitor the process and work
with project managers to assure the smooth integration of public art plans in actual project
construction.
Council Staff Report
Page 5
Public Art Funding and Incentives.
Public art adds beauty, value and economic vitality to a community, but it can be expensive.
Funding public art must cover more than the creation of the artwork itself. For a program to
be successful, funding must also take into account long -range related costs:
- administering the program;
- installing artwork;
- maintaining the artwork;
- providing program information to the public.
To meet its on -going program needs, the City of Pahn Desert established a $1 million public
art set aside fund. Interest earned is then used to meet maintenance and special costs as
needed. Other communities designate specific funding sources or "set - asides" to meet
program needs. This "dedicated" source of funding is different from and augments "percent
for art" funds derived from public or private development projects. It allows the art program
to continue and artwork to be maintained without depending exclusively on new development.
A variety of funding options for public art exist in addition to a mandatory percent -for -art fee
program, although in recent years fiscal constraints have make these options more problematic.
Successful public art programs usually depend on a combination of public and private funding.
In recent years, the most common funding tool has been the "percent for art" ordinance;
however as discussed below, other funding tools are available.
• Private, not for profit organizations. Private, not - for -profit art organizations provide a
link between artists, citizens, local and state government, and they are often freer to raise
funds, hold special events, and experiment artistically than are government agencies. State and
federal art grants are often administered by these community arts organizations, represented
locally by the Arts Council of San Luis Obispo. These organizations raise funds by a
combination of state funding, corporate and individual donations, fund raisers, and in -kind
resources. Also, these organizations can serve as the advocates or "experts" who advise local
government, schools, historic preservation groups, and other public agencies on public art.
Not - for -profit organizations are in a position to muster the community resources which, as a
"match" with a mandatory percent -for -art program funds, make public art projects possible.
• Private Sector Donations. Most of San Luis Obispo's public art has been the result of
private donations, either by individuals, businesses or foundations. In San Luis Obispo,
private public art donations were more frequent during the 1970s and 1980s than in recent
years. Like the BIA's successful Bench Program, private donations of public art could provide
a forum for commemorating people or events along with a tax - deductible gift to the
�J
Council Staff Report
Page 6
community. Private public art donations are not solicited in any systematic way; however the
City has prepared and distributed a color brochure encouraging public art in new development.
• Community Development Block Grants. Public art is an eligible activity for funding
through the federal CDBG program. Federal rule 24 CFR Section 570.201[c] allows the use
of block grant funds for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and
improvements, including "...decorative pavements, railings, sculptures, pools of water and
fountains, and other works of art." While CDBG funds cannot be used for public art as a
separate program, some of the CDBG funds can be used for public art in connection with
eligible public facilities such as public buildings, parks or plazas.
• Developer Incentives. By reducing development costs or processing time, developer
incentives can encourage the installation of public art by freeing up additional funds and by
making it easier to include public art in development projects. The City already exempts
public art from all development review and permit fees. Other incentives might include:
1. Further streamline the public art review process; for example, by relaxing the requirement
for an "encroachment permit" for public art, since this duplicates the "public art contract"
already required for most public art projects;
2. Establish an award for visual arts in public places to recognize developer and community
art projects; and
3. Make display space available in City facilities at no charge, to highlight public art projects.
Recommendation:
While endorsement of the above incentives is recommended, staff does not recommend
establishing a specific, dedicated source of public art funding at this time, beyond the City's
1 % program. Instead, staff recommends a "wait and see" approach in order to evaluate the
impact of improved internal procedures and implementation of a mandatory program, assuming
some form of such a program is eventually adopted. Eventually, however, it may be necessary
for Council to consider added funding to cover on -going program administration, art
maintenance, matching art grants, and public information/interpretation costs which currently
receive no direct funding, depending upon the level and pace of program growth. This funding
would be in addition to the 1 percent now set aside for actual construction of public art in
capital projects. A dedicated source for on -going funding for program operation would
facilitate the installation of more public art, improve public art maintenance and encourage
more voluntary private participation in the program. However, a determination in this regard
is not recommended until the next Financial Planning period.
1f -6
Council Staff Report
Page 7
Mandatory Percent - For -Art Program.
When the City first considered adopting a public art program, it looked at both public and
private percent -for -art programs. The Council ultimately favored a percent-for -art requirement
for City projects, with the possibility of expanding the program later to include private
development. if the Council wishes to further enhance overall program results, then staff
believes it is timely to purse the implementation of a program to include private development,
similar to many other communities. However, prior to developing specific program
recommendations, Council direction is needed, followed by further consultation with the
private sector (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Building Industry Association).
As an example of how mandatory public art programs work elsewhere, the requirement for
public art ranges from 'h of one percent to two percent of the project's construction valuation,
although one percent (1 %) is most common. The City of Palm Desert uses a variable rate,
with City and redevelopment agency construction set at the 1 percent level, commercial
development paying 'h of 1 percent, and residential development paying % of 1 percent.
Individually built houses with a valuation of $100,000 or less are exempt from the fee. From
1989 to 1995, the City of Palm Desert's program received $907,000 in percent -for -art fees, or
about $161,000 annually.
Percent -for -art requirements have been used in many California communities, including
Pasadena, Culver City, Calabasas, San Diego, Fremont, City of Long Beach Redevelopment
Agency, San Francisco, Oakland Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and Los
Angeles. Of 87 cities polled by the California Arts Council, 31 % established public art
programs by ordinance; 13 % by resolution, and the other cities required public art as a
condition of project approvals on a case -by -case basis. The City of Palm Desert's program
was established by ordinance.
Percent-for -art requirements have withstood legal challenges. In its 1996 decision (Ehrlich v.
City of Culver City), the California Supreme Court upheld Culver City's Art in Public Places
ordinance, finding that the public art fee was not a development exaction subject to Nollan and
Dolan takings analysis, but rather that the fee was akin to traditional land use regulations
imposing minimum setbacks, parking, lighting, architectural and landscape requirements. In
upholding the ordinance, the court noted that 'such aesthetic control had long been held to be a
valid exercise of the cities' police power for public benefit.
• SLO Arts Council suggested program
The Arts Council of San Luis Obispo County submitted a draft percent -for -art program,
patterned after the City of Palm Desert's program (Exhibit A). The program would mandate
that most new development projects include public art in one of four ways:
#-I
Council Staff Report
Page 8
1. Place an approved artwork on -site;
2. Place an approved artwork off -site but within the City;
3. Donate an artwork;
4. Pay a fee in -lieu of art placement.
The program would be adopted by ordinance and would, by Council resolution, set a fee
schedule which would determine the minimum value of the art to be installed or the in -lieu fee
paid, based on the project's building permit construction valuation. The recommended
schedule is:
Type of Development Project Percent - For -Art
• Individual dwellings valued at less than $100,000 none
• Individual dwellings valued at more than $100,000 '/a % of value over $100,000
• Commercial/industrial projects, including multi- family '/z %, not to exceed $50,000
dwellings;
• Eligible City capital projects; 1 % of total project costs
If such a program had been in effect in 1996, for example, it would have produced about
$96,000 in Percent For Art funding and/or art projects built.
• Staff Recommended Changes to Arts Council Program
Staff supports the County Arts Council's proposed program, with some modifications. The
current program exempts "underground utility and drainage projects" from the public art
requirement, since these projects are not visible to the public, and staff supports retaining that
and other exemptions in the current City program. Also, the new program applies to
residential projects. Staff supports exempting individually -built residential projects from the
public art requirement; and to exempt qualified affordable housing projects from the percent -
for -art requirement to provide an additional incentive and minimise development costs.
Recommendation: Direct staff to seek community input and to return with a recommendation
for a mandatory percent -for -art program, similar to Exhibit A, including staff's recommended
changes. In developing the recommendation, staff will solicit input from developers, citizens,
business people, the Downtown BIA, SLO Chamber of Commerce, the art community, and
others with an interest in public art. Given this level of input, staff estimates that it will be this
Fall before a specific recommendation can be brought forward to the City Council.
1 4
Council Staff Report
Page 9
Program Evaluation.
Staff recommends that the Council re- evaluate the public art program one year from now to
gauge the program's effectiveness. At that time, the need for additional resources or program
changes could be considered.
FISCAL E14 PACT
No fiscal impacts will result from the recommended action. After one year, the program's
results and costs will be evaluated and depending on results (and possible adoption of a private
percent -for -art program), additional funding may be considered and fiscal impacts will be
evaluated at that time.
ALTERNATIVES
1. An alternative to allocating current or new staff resources is to retain an independent,
outside contractor to provide these services on an as- needed, time and materials basis.
Although such an arrangement could bring focused, expert attention to the City's program
while limiting current staff`' hours needed to administer the program, the downsides are: 1)
uncertain costs to administer, and 2) possible increased difficulty for an outside "contractor"
to coordinate staff f}' activities. This approach may prove necessary, depending upon the growth
of the program, possibly to include a mandatory, private percent-for-art program. However, it
is not recommended until program demands are better understood, in light of the staff
recommendation to improve internal program management and whether or not a private
program is implemented.
2. Do not direct staff to pursue a mandatory, private percent -for -art program at this time.
This approach affirms the current public art program and would not involve a mandatory
requirement for private development, nor initiate a community workshop on such a program.
ATTACBMENTS:
Exhibit A: Art Council's proposed public art program
Exhibit B: City of San Luis Obispo Art in Public Places program
Exhibit C: 1997 -99 Capital Projects eligible to include public art
Council Reading File: City of San Luis Obispo Public Art Policies and Procedures
I:pubart6.rpt
y•9
EXHIBIT A
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
From: San Luis Obispo County Arts Council
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC ART
February 7, 1996 -
RECEIVED
FEB 71991
c� a ""mNe"Mo r
The purpose of this presentation is to demonstrate the value and desirability of art in
public places and then to recommend your consideration of amendments to the City's
existing public arts policy.
It is not the intent of the Arts Council to prescribe a single way to accomplish a public
arts program. It is rather our intent to encourage each public agency to more
aggressively pursue public art as a way of enhancing their communities both
aesthetically and economically.
Successful public arts programs in other cities and counties, however, appear to have
various similarities which our report will recommend for your consideration. Beyond
that, the Arts Council's Art in Public Places Committee will assist any jurisdiction within
the County implement or alter their public arts policy upon their request.
Why should we encourage art in public places?
Art in public places is not a new concept. One has only to look to the fountains of
Rome, the bridges of Paris, or even the ruins of ancient Mexico to answer this
question. It is largely by their art that these places are remembered today. Public art
has provided a lasting quality to their urban civilization which not only made them
unique but also provided a sense of personal pride to their residents and their
//-/40
2
descendants.
The installation of art in public places can accomplish the same objectives today.
Public art is educational, can provide a sense of focus, attracts attention, and tends to
provide a character which enriches the lives of residents and visitors.
Without enthusiastic support, however, little if any public art is apt to be realized. Until
public art becomes a way of life in each of our communities, property owners, business
people, developers and decision makers are apt to merely overlook the potential that
an art dimension can provide.
People generally aren't against, public art, they merely assign it such a low priority that
it seldom happens. Of course there are exceptions but the potential sites for public art
inSan Luis Obispo are virtually unlimited and to settle for art being installed randomly
and infrequently is unfortunate because public art increases vitality and naturally
attracts tourism, business, and consumers.
What qualifies as "public Art"?
Visual art, as distinguished from the performing arts, media arts, literary, or cultural
arts.
Original, creative work by an individual or group, as distinguished from conventional
architectural finishes, ornamentations, landscaping , lighting, etc.
Permanent in nature and installed. on public property or on private property which is
generally in public view.
How would it be funded?
We recognize the current contraints on general fund budgets and the declining
availability of state and federal block grants. Unfortunately, it therefore seems that
public art won't be realized without government regulations requiring its installation. It
3
is recognized that such additional government requirements will face opposition from
segments of the population who see art as an unnecessary expense being tacked on
the already overburdened development process. Thus, neither will public art be
realized without a strong official commitment to the concept.
In numerous other cities, that commitment, and the funding, would come in the form of
an ordinance which offers the following options:
1. The placement of an approved artwork on -site
2. Placement of an approved artwork off -site
3. Donation of artwork
4. Fees in lieu of art placement.
The program would establish a fee schedule from which would be determined the
minimum value of the art to be installed or the in -lieu fee to be paid. This new
development fee would be levied on new construction based on the total building
permit value of the construction.
In our studies, the City of Palm Desert has what appears to be the fairest "% for the
arts" policy. Their rates are shown in the following fee schedule.
1. All individual residential units whose building permit valuation is in excess of
$100,000 shall be charged 1/4 of 1% of that portion of the valuation in excess of
$100,000. Individual residential units with a building permit valuation of less than
$100,000 are exempt from any "Art in Public Places" development fee.
2. All commercial and industrial development , including multi - family residential
developments, shall be charged the rate of 1/2 of 1% of the building permit valuation,
said charge not to exceed $50,000.
3. The City and other governmental jurisdictions building within the city shall be
charged 1 % of the total project cost for all public facilities, excluding all street, sewer
ff -/09-
2
water and drainage projects.
If such a % for the arts" policy were to have been in effect duting calendar 1994, it
would have produced the following amounts.
EXHIBIT I
ESTIMATED AMOUNTS THAT WOULD
BE PRODUCED BY THE RECOMMENDED
PERCENT FOR THE ARTS SCHEDULE
City of San Luis Olbispo (1994):
64 Residences totaling $8,744,626 - $6,400,000
x 1/4% = $5,861
Commercial and multi - residential totaling $5,090,892
x 1/2% = 25,791
Public construction and Commercial alterations totaling
$6,030,364 not included -------
$31,652
How would it be administered/ enforced?
No Certificate of Occupancy would be issued by the city for any structure unless the
"Art in Public Places" development fee is paid or requirements for an "in lieu fee" have
been met. The city may elect to allow a development the option of installing its own
art in lieu of paying a fee as long as the art contributed is reasonably commensurate in
value to that of the required fee.
As in -lieu fees are collected, they would be placed in a special fund and could only be
used for related public arts purposes. As soon as amounts are sufficient, public art
would then be commissioned and selected through one of a variety of processes. See
the following flow chart used in the City of Palm Desert. .
� /3
EXHIBIT
RESOLUTION NO. 6811 (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOP'nNG A VISUAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Title and Content. The City Council hereby adopts the "Visual Puts
in Public Places" program as described in Exhibits 'A' and 'B" of the Community
Development Department staff report dated May 1, 1990.
SECTION 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this resolution, the following terms
are defined as follows:
(1) "Visual Art in Public Places" or 'Public Art" means any visual work of art
displayed in a publically visible location: (a) in a City -owned area, (b) on the
exterior of any city-owned facility, (c) within any city-owned facility in areas
designated as public area, lobbies, or public assembly areas, or (d) on non -city-
owned property if the work of art is installed or financed, either wholly or in part,
with city funds or grants procured by the City; and if on private property, secured
by a public art agreement between the City and the landowner.
(2) "Work of Art' includes, but is not limited to, sculpture, monument, mural, fresco,
bas- relief, mobiles, photography, drawing, handcrafts, painting, fountain, landscape
composition, banners, mosaic, ceramic, weaving, carving, and stained glass. "Work
of art" is the creative result of individual or group effort, and is either unique or of
limited -issue nature, and is normally not mass - produced or intended primarily for
a commercial market. "Work of art" does not normally include landscaping, paving,
architectural ornamentation, or signs as defined by Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal
Code.
(3) 'Capital Construction Project" means any project listed in the City's Financial
Plan Capital Improvement Program, and paid for wholly or in part by the City of San
Luis Obispo for public benefit. "Capital construction project" includes, but is not
limited to building construction, addition, and remodel; parks; plazas; creek
improvements and flood protection projects; bridges; streets, sidewalks, bikeways,
trails other public transportation improvements; parking facilities, and similar public
facilities as determined by the Community Development Director.
(4) 'Construction Cost' means the cost in doIIars, as approved by the City Council
or the City Administrative Officer, to construct a project "Construction Cost" shall
not include land acquisition, design, operation, or maintenance costs.
Resolution No. 6811 0990 Series)
Page 2
(5) 'EIigible Project' means a capital construction project which is not exempt under
the provisions of this resolution, or by City Council or City Administrative Officer
action.
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. After City Council review and
consideration, the Community Development Director's decision to grant a negative
declaration pursuant to the City Environmental Procedures and the California
Environmental Quality Act is hereby affirmed.
SECTION 4. Percent For Art. One percent (1 9ol) of the tots] approved construction
cost of eligible capital construction projects shall be expended for the design and
installation of public art.
SECTION s. Responsibility For Implementation. The Community Development
Director is responsible for administering the program. City departments responsible for the
Planning, design, and construction of eligible capital construction projects shall include
public art in their projects, or shall otherwise meet the requirement through allocation of
funds to the Public Art Program as described in Section 6.
SECTION 6. Public Art Program. (1) Small capital construction projects,
or projects in which the City Council or City Administrative Officer determines that it is
not feasible or desirable to include public art due to site limitations or the project's location
or design, may meet this requirement through allocation of one percent (1 %) of their
construction cost as an in -lieu contribution for citywide public art; (2) The Finance
Director shall establish and maintain a Public Art Program in the Capital
Improvement Plan for such a purpose; and (3) Program funds shall be used for the design,
fabrication, and installation of public art, pursuant to the Visual Arts in Public Places
Program, Exhibits 'A' and B'.
�f /S
Resolution No. 6811 (1990 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 7. Exempt Projects. The following types of projects are exempt from this
percent for art requirement: (1) Utility projects, such as public water or sewer system
improvements, pumps, and wells; (2) Underground projects, such as storage tanks and
storm drains and similar items; (3) The City Council or the City Administrative Officer
may exempt other projects from this requirement upon finding that: (a) installation of
public art would be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; (b) the project is not
suitable for the inclusion of public art; or is not visible by, used by, or accessible to
the public; or (c) The project is itself a public art project
SECTION S. San Luis Obispo County Arts Council. The San Luis Obispo County
Arts Council shall assist the City by evaluating the technical and artistic merit of proposed
public art projects by forwarding its comments to the Community Development Director
or Architectural Review Commission. This is recognized as an appropriate function for the
Arts Council, a non -profit agency, and no City funding is allocated for this advisory service.
SECTION 9. Program Evaluation. The City Clerk shall schedule the public art
program for Council review within one year of the date of this resolution. At such review,
the Council may modify or suspend the program.
0 *0
On motion of Councilman Roalman , seconded by
Councilwoman Pinard , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Roalman, Pinard, Rappa, Reiss, and Mayor Ikazin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6`'/6
Resolution No. 6811(1990 Series)
Page 4
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th
Ma day of
1990.
ATTEST-
* s o s s s s s s s•• t
I
Resolution No. 6811 (1990 Series)
Page 5
D /)'h /pub- art5.wp
1997 -99 Financial Plan EXHIBIT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROGRAM: Cultural Services
REQUEST TITLE: Public Art
Project Description
Under the City's public art policy, I% of the construction component of capital improvement plan (CIP) projects
is to be allocated forpublic arc Excluded from this 1% requirement are underground projects, utility infrastructure
projects, funding from outside agencies, and costs other than construction such as study, environmental review,
design, site preparation and acquisition.
Generally, it is preferable for the public art component to be integrated directly into the project. However, in some
cases, this is not practical or desirable. In these circumstances, an "in-lieu" contribution may be made to a generic
public art account that can be used to fund public art in conjunction with other projects or locations where it can
have a greater public benefit than if it was arbitrarily installed with a project to which public art was not well-
suited
To ensure that funds are adequately budgeted for public art regardless of whether public art will be directly
incorporated into the project, funds for this purpose are identified separately in the CIP. After the Financial Plan is
adopted, the CIP Review Committee will review the approved projects, and make recommendations to the Council
regarding the allocation of public art funds to specific projects. Following Council approval, briefings will be held
with affected project managers on the most effective process for incorporating public art into their project
Project Objectives
Provide funding for public art in accordance with City policy.
Existing Situation/Project Rork Completed
Due to the serious fiscal difficulties facing the City at that time, no funding for public art was included in the 1993-
95 Financial Plan; and the finding provided for public art as part of the 1991 -93 Financial Plan was eliminated.
As part of the 1995 -97 Financial Plan, public art was fimded at 'r4% versus the 1% policy level ($9,200 for 1995-
96 and $5,800 for 1996 -97). Since that time, public art finding has been made to the Palm street parking garage
project ($5,000); and a funding proposal for the new Parks & Recreation offices is anticipated in the near future.
A Council study session is planned for May or June of 1997 to review the status of the City's art-in-public places
policy.
Goal and Policy Links
■ Public art policy
■ Public art policies and procedures manual
■ Financial Plan policies
Project Phasing, Costs and Funding Sources
The following reflects construction costs for those projects that meet the City's requirement for a 1% public art
allocation, and the resulting public art budget request.
188 11-I9
Public Art (Continued)
General Fond
Construction Costs
1997 -98
1998 -99
1999 -00
2000 -01
Fire station no. 3 bathroom repair
14,000
65,000
15,000
15,000
50,000
Neighborhood traffic mitigation
20.000
40,000
40.000
40.000
Street reconstruction and resurfacing
825,000
850,000
875,000
900,000
Orcutt road widening
100,000
Creek bank stabilization
100,000
100,000
Minor bicycle transition projects
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
Pedestrian circulation improvements
700,000
Mitchell Paris improvements
135,000
Park renovations and repairs
40,000
77,000
36.000
Throop park restroom replacement
67,000
Mission plaza renovations and improvements
150,000
50,000
Sinsheimerparkc improvements
35,000
54,000
120,000
320,000
Swim center renovations
40,000
Laguna lake dredging
100,000
Jack House improvements
17,500
22,500
20,000
20,000
Rodriguez adobe
100,000
Building renovations and repairs
94,000
86,000
40,000
Corpo ration improvements
90,000
150,000
Total
1,287,500
1,396,500
2,133,000
1,711,000.
Public Art Funding 1 %Contribtion
$M900]_
$14,000
$21,300
$17,100
Parking Fund
Construction Costs
1997 -98
1998 -99
1999 -00
2000 -01
Marsh street parking garage expansion
Parking garage renovations and repairs
Railroad square resealing
3,700,000
75,000
65,000
15,000
15,000
50,000
Total
3,775,000
65,000
15,000
65,000
Public Art Funding 1 %Conte -btion
$37,800
$700
$200
$700
Other Projects
■ Multi -modal transportation terminal. The multi modal transportation terminal project will be solely
funded through outside sources, and accordingly, no foul budget allocations for public art have been
proposed for this project Nonetheless, it will be our goal in finalizing finding and design of this project to
incorporate public art at the 1% level, or about 514,900 based on estimated construction costs of
$1,490,000 for this project
■ Community development block grant (CDBG) projeeft Generally, public art is an eligible cost under
CDBG guidelines. Because this is an outside funding source, no formal budget allocations for public art
have been proposed for CDBG capital projects. Nonetheless, it will be our goal in finalizing funding and
design for CDBG projects to incorporate public art at the 1% policy level wheneverpossible.
Implementation
As noted above, after the Financial Plan is adopted, the CIP Review Committee will review the approved projects,
and make recommendations to the Council regarding the allocation of public art funds to specific projects. This
189 //-VW
ETINL :AGENDA ,�!
r g�_-aITEM� �--
�
(COUNCILC ""j CDDIDIRF
L9SCAo�` !O FIN1DIi'_
1pCAO•. s I0 FIREfCC �IEF
�. I1 ATfORNEYk O PWjDIRJ -.
�CLEflK10RIG �O POLICEIIC_HF
yTnTEA11y O FIW ;DIR
G UTIL DIR!
mLj4`•r
u I , MI,
b�tr, A t tug .' {'- r mrtt ke • a" ul _... a bu
Volume 1 JuneY1'997 �Number�2:
de +a w r { 1. � ( �
L' etteraoa�Pub 'Iirc�Art,Acfiikv1ists.
r
May )28;'1997. maylnot gojdownJn
�= Ioca�tiistoryas allandmark bdp a v
:n
t.
Ing::
ofel `
ro•
r•.
:to
'nlpomolane rlsmo srreersys� : ;cnaracterrotitne eommunity5lmaginativ_W
CI Hof Atascadem ado is a Publlcr `
oty . p __ street signs, and pavinglstonesYand:
-. 'ArtlP.or! —, r ✓ knewspaperracks. MhOnfeGloue
b:a h ~City ofrGrovenBeach inslallsYa piecel' ;excitement that surrounds4Ma'rsh'Street's
of�pubfic artJln new.traln stetlon: ;Rowntown Centre coulpieadnoith,� _
r hopes to�lnwryoreta more Into_ south, east and westjaastl Than in ,the
- v.,... Y 9.9
community developmen plan� lives o .San LuiObispans nd•
jj z •'' °SLO City, Council schedul` Ya(butlget� 'county -wideI
Zrinn""rwith ubllc ert _ - rem on Don't let this o , ortunItZ oy
r g. P F preg I q Pp _ Y gr by
n