Loading...
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