Murrieta City Council
October 13, 2026

Presented by:

Tucker Wentz, Kelly Nuibe and Caneisha
Fortner
Presented to:

The City of Murrieta
University of Southern California
Sol Price School of Public Policy
Exploring Options for A
Municipal Arts Policy
1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research team wishes to express sincere gratitude to the following people and organizations who contributed their time, resources, and advice for the completion of this research project.

Thank you to Dominique Samario for the opportunity to contribute to the City of Murrieta. We appreciate your guidance throughout the research process, and for connecting us with various stakeholders.

The research team is also extremely grateful for the support provided by faculty advisor, Dr. Tara Blanc. We thank her for her endless support and advice.

Thank you to Scott Agajanian, Brian Ambrose, David Chantarangsu, from the City of Murrieta, Patrick Patrick Ellis Ellis, from Explore Murrieta, Steffany Johnson and Casey Jurado from the Murrieta Arts CCouncil, Monica ouncil, and Monica Guiterrez and Paul Diffley from the Murrieta Unified School District. Your i nsights insights helped shape our analyses and policy recommendations.

Finally, thank you to the City of Murrieta for the opportunity to initiate formal plans for the city’s very first arts and culture policy. We are touched by the city’s mission to support economic growth and increase community engagement. We look forward to seeing Murrieta flourish even further.
2 CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................. 1 Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 5 Issue Statement and Organizational Context............................................................................................. 7 Issue Statement 7
Problem Diagnosis ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Magnitude of Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 7 Organizational Context 9
Context of Public Art Policies Within Murrieta............................................................................. 11 Purpose and Method......................................................................................................................................... 12 Research Approach 13
Research Methodology 14
Open-Source Research ........................................................................................................................... 14 Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................................................. 15 Analytic Strategies 16
Stakeholder Analysis............................................................................................................................... 16 Thematic Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 17 Cross-Case Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 17 Options Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Findings and Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 20 Stakeholders and their expectations 20
3 Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 20 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 Potential Methods for Funding an Arts and Culture Policy 30 Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 30 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 What options for a public arts and culture policy would be most effective? 35 Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 35 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 39 Summary and Recommendations................................................................................................................ 44 Summary of Findings 44
Recommendations 44
Recommendation 1: Establish a Public Art Commission to Oversee Program Development.............................................................................................................................................. 45 Recommendation 2: Prioritize a Development of A Public Art Policy Including Criteria for Art Acceptance and Acquisition................................................................................................... 45 Recommendation 3: Fund Public Art Acquisition and Maintenance Through a 1% Allocation of Capital Improvement Project Budgets .................................................................. 46 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................. 46 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 47 Appendix A - Interview Schedule................................................................................................................. 60 Brian Ambrose, Community Services Director 60
Scott Agajanian, Economic Development Director 61
David Chantarangsu, Development Services Director 62
Jessica French Large, Downtown Murrieta 395 62
4 Patrick Ellis, Explore Murrieta | Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce 63 Connie McConnell, Murrieta Arts Council (MAC) https://www.macarts.org [email protected] 64
Appendix B - Interview Notes ....................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix C - Existing Public Art Policy Matrix ...................................................................................... 66 Appendix D - Sample Percent-For-Art Ordinances............................................................................... 67 5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Open Source Research: research that exhausts publicly available information, including the internet, social media, books, periodicals, etc.

Research Team: USC Graduate Team comprised of Caneisha Fortner, Kelly Nuibe, and Tucker Wentz.

Semi-Structured Interviews: a qualitative research method between researcher and participant, guided by a flexible interview protocol and supplemented by follow-up questions, probes and comments.

Placemaking: a multifaceted approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces.

Thematic Analysis: a qualitative analytic method applied to semi-structured interviews that is used for identifying, analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting themes found within a data set
Options Analysis: a structured way to evaluate alternative courses of action.

Stakeholder Analysis: an approach used to generate knowledge about individuals and organizations, to assist in the understanding of behaviors, intentions, and interests 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The presence of public art and culture has been an increasingly popular strategy for local and urban development to improve quality of life. Urban development strategies, such as designated cultural districts and tourist-targeted cultural investments, can help shape communities and governments (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Arts and culture programs reflect group interests and values, forming community identity (Jackson et al., 2003). The City of Murrieta focuses on goals to “provide a high level of innovative public safety,” to “aggressively pursue economic development, maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability, and organizational efficiency,” to “plan, program and create infrastructure development,” to “coordinate and deliver responsive, effective community services,” and to “foster and promote an engaged, connected and caring community” (City Council Murrieta, n.d.b). However, the City does not have an arts and culture department or policy to link interdepartmental resources such as education, parks and recreation, and economic development. Collaboration among departments and stakeholders is needed to increase civic pride in arts and culture and avoid government and market failure.

This Capstone consulting project team of three graduate students in the Master of Public Administration program sought to investigate and provide opportunities for implementation to the City of Murrieta for the creation of a formal public arts policy. The research team utilized two research approaches: open-source research and semistructured interviews. The data collection included literature reviews, case studies, economic reports, and interviews conducted between February - April 2023. The research team interpreted the results of this research via stakeholder and thematic analyses, crosscase analyses, and an options analysis.

As a result of data collection, the research team found that there is broad support for a public art policy among stakeholders although there has been a lack of formalized leadership in the production of such a plan. Further, the research indicates that a fee associated with capital improvement projects is one of the most effective methods for funding an eventual public art policy. Lastly, the team found that the presence of a public art commission as well as criteria for approval of public art that is either acquired or donated as the most prevalent components of public art policies that have been implemented throughout the country.

Based on these findings, the research team recommends that the City of Murrieta:
● Establish a commission to develop a public art policy for the City of Murrieta; 7 ● Include within that policy criteria for accepting donations or approving art projects in public places; and
● Implement a fee associated with capital improvement projects that can be used to fund the public art policy and acquire additional pieces of public art.

ISSUE STATEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

ISSUE STATEMENT
The City of Murrieta’s General Plan 2035 includes a call for a public art ordinance (Action HC-A8) that 1) offers incentives for businesses to provide public art and 2) establishes a fee for commercial and industrial projects that do not wish to install public art (City of Murrieta, n.d.d). This action item is under the jurisdiction of the City Manager and is categorized as a long-term action ranging from 6+ years for full implementation.

At the moment, this target has not been met. The City of Murrieta has neither a formal public art ordinance nor an arts and culture policy that promotes interdepartmental collaboration and addresses diverse group interests and values that form the community (Jackson et al., 2003). As a result, the City is not able to thoughtfully guide public cultural output and realize potential gains related to economic growth, community-building opportunities through placemaking (a need driven in part by its large veteran and young family populations), and additional externalities (Allan et al., 2013, City of Murrieta, 2018; D. Samario, personal communication, January 23, 2023).

PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS
While the City of Murrieta is interested in developing an arts and culture policy, it has not yet begun the process of creating a sustainable and successful program (City of Murrieta, 2018). This presents an opportunity for Murrieta to develop and implement an arts and cultural policy that promotes community engagement, increased economic growth, and positive externalities (Strom, 2003; Loh et al., 2022; City of Murrieta, 2018; Allan et al., 2013).

MAGNITUDE OF OPPORTUNITIES
Research indicates the magnitude of opportunities for an arts and culture policy includes economic development, community engagement, and the creation of positive externalities in knowledge growth (ArtsMarket Inc., n.d.; Strom, 2003; Kuti & Marschall, 1992). 8 ECONOMIC GROWTH
The City has the opportunity to support economic growth by establishing designated cultural districts and tourist-targeted cultural investments that further increase job opportunities (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Achieving higher economic growth aligns with Murrieta's goals to bring in skilled labor, build a more robust business network, and increase levels of entrepreneurship and employment (City of Murrieta, 2018). According to the Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account (ACPSA) conducted by The National Endowment for the Arts and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the arts and culture sector contributed 4.3% to the nation's GDP in arts and cultural goods and services—close to a trillion dollars in contributions—and instated 5.2 million workers on the payroll in the arts and culture sector (National Endowment for the Arts, 2021). An arts and culture policy has the opportunity to spur economic growth in Murrieta.

Murrieta lacks an arts and culture policy that formalizes steps to leverage these potential economic benefits (City of Murrieta, n.d.a). The absence of a policy raises concern about the missed opportunities for Murrieta to reach its primary goals in economic development (Kasmoglu, 2012; Currid, 2010). While the economic-growth-focused organization Downtown Murrieta 395 promotes a "vibrant, thriving environment," no mechanism exists to successfully bring together all stakeholders with an interest in arts and culture to collaboratively work towards this goal (Downtown Murrieta Merchant and Property Owners Association, n.d.).

COMMUNITY BUILDING
Creative placemaking allows for community engagement in public spaces and relies on early involvement from locals (Loh et al., 2022). When creating an arts and culture policy, Hardy (2017) notes the importance of involving artists and community members in advance. Early engagement ensures the collaboration needed to create an inclusive policy that properly celebrates and protects the community's local art and cultural assets (Hardy, 2017). Involving stakeholders from the beginning allows for a strong foundation that forms the structure of public administration (Hill & Lynn, 2015). As a result, engagement in creative placemaking promotes community building.

Combining resources and spaces serves to benefit various community members. Arts and culture programs increase public utility and overall happiness through a visual display (Luo et al., 2022). Iconic art pieces can serve as gathering places, "spaces of collective memory," and symbolic representations of the city (Zitcer & Almanzar, 2020, p. 998). In addition, external cross-sector partnerships from the private and public sectors and 9 philanthropic organizations serve as valuable resources in reaching the common goal of promoting arts and culture (Hardy, 2017).

For example, in the City of Oceanside, there is an Arts Commission composed of key stakeholders from various sectors including Mira Costa Community College and the Oceanside Museum of Art (City of Oceanside, n.d.a). Mission Viejo’s Arts and Culture Department has a Friends of the Arts program to help with fundraising from the private sector (Arts Orange County, 2016). The Mill Hill Arts project, based in Georgia, relies on support from urban development experts, local hospitals, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the White House Strong Cities Strong Communities initiative (Macon Arts Alliance, 2020). The Mill Hill project offers insight into what kind of various stakeholders beyond the city are needed to provide value to a strong arts and culture community and a successful policy that is adequately funded and culturally appropriate for the city.

POSITIVE EXTERNALITIES
In addition to fiscal growth and community building, the realization of other positive externalities can also benefit a city (Allan et al., 2013). Kuti and Marschall (1992) refer to positive externalities in public goods as the benefits of cultural goods that are not directly consumed or bought. In an analysis of a worldwide happiness survey, Easterlin (2013) found that economic growth alone cannot guarantee citizen satisfaction and overall wellbeing. The knowledge gained from arts and culture programs provides an intrinsic value that benefits society. A culture-rich society leads to better urban planning development (Kovacs, 2009). Allan et al. (2013) note that positive externalities include "greater social cohesion and improvements to the democratic process" and further attract "high human capital workers and firms to a city that has vibrant arts, sports, and heritage sectors" (p. 1).

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
The City of Murrieta is a relatively small yet growing city with a population of over 110,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) and is governed by a council-manager system in which the City Manager, Kim Summers, oversees administration operations based on policy by a fivemember at-large City Council and rotating mayor. Additionally, the city has 14 departments that range from Administrative Services to Economic Development, the Library, and Parks and Recreation (City of Murrieta). All departments are tied to their dedication to public service, teamwork, and accountability (City of Murrieta). At present, there is no department for arts and culture.

Beyond the formal structure of the city, there is another organizational structure that includes key stakeholders and features the city’s citizens at the top of the organizational 10 chart (City of Murrieta, n.d.h). Such a structure aligns with the city’s goals to “aggressively pursue economic development, maintain a high-performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability, and organizational efficiency;” “coordinate and deliver responsive, effective community services;” and “foster and promote an engaged, connected and caring community” (City of Murrieta, n.d.a). The city’s comprehensive list of values and goals is indicative of the government’s culture and its dedication to putting its citizens first (Hill & Lynn, 2015; Gawthrop, 2005). In other case studies on art and culture policies, Strom (2003) found common trends in placing an economic value on policy making. Since Murrieta emphasizes "aggressive economic development," it is important to involve various stakeholders ranging from local officials to businesspeople, artists, and educators (City Council Murrieta, n.d.b; Strom, 2003). All policy recommendations as a result of this report fit within the context of these value statements with a particular focus on economic development
Figure 1: Simplified Organizational Chart for the City of Murrieta.

While the city is transparent in its structure and accomplishing its goals, there is no mechanism in place to enable interdepartmental collaboration for an arts and culture policy specifically. Creating a collaborative structure reinforced by the city’s working culture may enable effective policy making in public administration (Hill & Lynn, 2015).

Collaborative approaches are essential in producing “practical wisdom” and creative solutions to solving issues in policy design (Crosby, 2010, p. S69). Such approaches may be important to consider in the context of Murrieta’s General Plan, which maps out policies that include mandated use of land, regulation of recreation and open space, and economic 11 development, each of which involves various city departments. (City of Murrieta, n.d.d).

Murrieta's key priority is land use to promote business activity and employment opportunities (City of Murrieta, n.d.d). In its General Plan, the city notes intentions to increase employment among skilled labor and emphasize placemaking for tourism and community-building purposes (City of Murrieta, n.d.d).

Because Murrieta currently does not have a formal policy that dedicates funding for an arts and culture policy, a budget for pursuing the project is not readily available. However, the Murrieta 2035 General Plan Implementation Plan includes the possibility of passing an ordinance that incentivizes the installation of public art as well as creating a fee for development projects who do not wish to install public art which may form the basis for a future program budget (City of Murrieta, n.d.d).

CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ART POLICIES WITHIN MURRIETA
As noted above, The City of Murrieta’s General Plan 2035 includes a plan for the city to incentivize public art and establishes a fee for commercial and industrial projects that do not wish to install public art, though it does not include specifics for what those programs should look like (City of Murrieta, n.d.d). Beyond this document, in 2017 City Council adopted a separate Downtown Specific Plan which, in addition to providing guidance about the siting and design of public art, authorized the Director of Development Services to approve an additional story in mixed-use developments in exchange for “[t]he commitment of one percent of total construction costs to a public art fund or the provision of a physical art piece of the same value on- or off-site within the Specific Plan area” (City of Murrieta, 2017, p. 35).

This approach was affirmed by voters of Murrieta through the passage of Measure T in 2018, which imposes a special 1% sales tax for the purposes of funding “street maintenance and improvements; parks and recreation; maintenance of public facilities, such as graffiti removal, etc.” (City of Murrieta, 2018). It is possible that funding from this tax could be allocated to public art. More recently, the Murrieta City Council’s 2022 Legislative Platform included a priority under the category of Parks and Recreation Programs to “[s]upport legislation that provides funding to support public art, both performing and visual” (City of Murrieta, 2021, p. 14).

Taken together, this suggests a specific art policy context within the City of Murrieta whereby the city’s government and citizenry have affirmed their desire for a sufficiently funded public arts policy but have, thus far, been unable to produce an ordinance or associated policy to facilitate its enactment.
12 PURPOSE AND METHOD
Based on input from the city officials, the research team conducted extensive research on arts and culture policies to form a set of art policy options customized for Murrieta. As the city does not have a current arts and culture policy, the research team aimed to collect and analyze data pertinent to policymaking at the municipal level and draw upon existing art policies as a basis for options.

The research team proposed the following researchable questions to develop data and analysis:

1. Who are the stakeholders and what are their expectations for an arts and culture policy?

2. What are potential methods for funding an arts and culture policy in Murrieta?

3. What options for a public art policy would be most effective for the City of Murrieta?
These questions were developed to create an iterative framework for developing next-step recommendations for a public arts and culture policy in the City of Murrieta. By engaging with stakeholders first, the research team gained important insight into the priorities and administrative realities of the City that provided the context for any proposed policy (Bardach & Patashnik, 2020). According to Straus (2002), the power of collaboration comes from the inclusion of stakeholders, not exclusion.

The results of the stakeholder analysis guided the research team in identifying additional partners and collaborators who may be interested in an arts and culture policy, such as investors or donors. The stakeholder analysis also provided an overview of stakeholder positions, level of influence, and related resources. Stakeholder comments were then analyzed within the context of common themes across a cross-section of example public art policies to determine which options might best suit the City of Murrieta. The research group asserts that knowledge of reasonable funding models is important to avoid the pitfalls that can occur when well-intentioned policies do not receive adequate financing (Tani et al., 2021). Thus, the combination of stakeholder involvement, funding mechanisms, and best practices informed research options for an effective yet comprehensive arts and culture policy for the City of Murrieta.

The information was synthesized to develop a series of recommendations for the development and implementation of a public arts and culture policy that was tailored to the unique needs of the City of Murrieta.
13 RESEARCH APPROACH
Policy research requires a holistic approach to understand the change impact from implementation (Etzioni, 2008). Research is meant to aid in identifying a practical problem that can reveal the condition and costs of the condition to those affected (Bahng et al., 2023). The research has been conducted through two research approaches: open-source research and semi-structured interviews. Open-source research focused on existing arts and culture policies in other cities, scholarly articles focused on placemaking and traits of effective public art policies, as well as effective funding options for specific public programs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders of a potential arts policy and included various City departments and adjacent partners of the City. The data collected through this research has been analyzed using stakeholder and thematic analyses, cross-case analyses, as well as options analyses. This research study design is presented in Figure 2 on the following page.

Figure 2: Research Matrix

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
14 The below provides an overview of the research methodologies that were used to answer each of the three above-described researchable questions.

OPEN-SOURCE RESEARCH
Wilson (2019) defines open source research as research that exhausts publicly available information, including the internet, social media, books, periodicals, etc. The internet provides the research team with broad capabilities to locate subject-specific information using keywords. Through this open source research, the research team gained insight into each of the three research questions using available information and literature.

Specific keywords and phrases utilized during the initial research phase includes:

Arts policy, arts policy implementation, arts policy funding, arts policy for mid-sized cities, the impact of arts, arts education, the importance of arts policy, visual arts, urban sustainability, sustainable community development, stakeholders support of the arts, placemaking, arts planning commissions
Open source research was evaluated based on its currency, relevancy, authority, accuracy and the reason for which the information exists. In evaluating the currency, the research team verified that the information published has not been rendered outdated or inapplicable due to recent changes or revisions (Richard Brand College Library, n.d).

Ensuring relevance evaluates if the research collected is appropriate and useful for the intended audience, while authority establishes the qualifications of the author or organization (Richard Brand College Library, n.d). Lastly, accuracy and purpose evaluate the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the contact and the reason that research exists (Richard Brand College Library, n.d)
Primary limitations of open source involve the application of evaluative criteria. If criteria are not appropriately defined, information that is inapplicable or misleading may be included in results and reduce their value. Similarly, if parameters are not expansive enough there is the possibility that the open-source research will miss potentially valuable sources of information (Yang & Miller, 2008).

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
Semi-structured interviews were used to gain insights into stakeholder opinions on arts and culture policy outputs. By extension, outputs inform the recommendations. Data collection methods for researchable questions included interviews of community services members, stakeholders, and experts including the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Economic Development Director, Murrieta Arts Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and 15 Explore Murrieta. Interviews were analyzed using thematic coding of responses and evaluated based on respondents' perceived openness to a public arts and culture policy as well as attitudes toward the necessary policy-making process (Hammer & Wildavsky, 1993).

The research team developed an interview guide with proposed open-ended questions.

Doing so allowed stakeholders to engage in two-way communication. Data evaluated from this research approach included the stakeholders’ desired outcomes for a public art policy and what they view as potential challenges in policy formation. Further, stakeholder data was evaluated based on the perceived support that the stakeholder in question has for the program generally. Data also came from notes that were taken by the research team during the interview process (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). While the research team was not able to interview all key stakeholders due to time constraints, the data gathered formed an initial analysis of an arts and culture policy for Murrieta.

Limitations of semi-structured interviews were from the open-ended nature of the questions which allow recipients to answer as they see fit rather than within the framework of questions with predefined answers, such as a Likert scale. As a result of this open-ended nature, coding responses were challenging, particularly with the limited number of interviews conducted and, as such, responses were compared thematically, a method that allows for more variation in response type (Kallio et al., 2016).

ANALYTIC STRATEGIES

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Stakeholder analysis is an approach used to generate knowledge about individuals and organizations, to assist in the understanding of behaviors, intentions, and interests (Varvasovsky & Brugha, 2000). Inputs included semi-structured interviews as well as open-source research into additional stakeholders while the primary output is a matrix used to organize data as collected (Varvasovsky & Brugha, 2000). This output matrix includes both individuals who were interviewed as well as those who were identified through additional research. This method allowed the research team to identify stakeholders' preferences and potential options for the City.

Evaluative criteria encompassed more generalized sentiments related to the City of Murrieta’s potential public arts and culture policy. The data was evaluated with a focus on stakeholder level of influence, stakeholder priorities, stakeholder contribution, and policy impact on stakeholders.
16 Stakeholder analyses only provide “snapshots” of consistently evolving contexts that may be affected by external or internal influences and possibly the analysis process itself (Varvasovsky & Brugha, 2000). Additional considerations in conducting stakeholder analysis included the position of the stakeholder and whether or not the position is provisional; that the responses reflect individual views which may contradict or run counter to those of the organization; and the degree to which a stakeholder has implicit or covert positions on an issue (Varvasovsky & Brugha, 2000).

Stakeholder management plays a critical role in the success of a project (Jankauskaite, 2014). Creating a stakeholder analysis aided the research team in narrowing down the scope of policy recommendations (Hoory & Bottorff, 2022).

THEMATIC ANALYSIS
Thematic analysis is a qualitative analytic method applied to semi-structured interviews that is used for identifying, analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting themes found within a data set (Braun & Clark, 2006). The thematic analysis begins by taking an initial data set that often draws from interviews or interview transcripts, descriptively capturing the data’s contents through a coding or tagging process, then attempting to identify patterns that emerge through the coding process (Newcomer et al., 2015). Thematic analysis is often conducted with partial data sets, something that was of particular use in this instance since a complete accounting of all relevant stakeholders could not be conducted within the course timeframe. Ultimately, this analysis allowed the research team to identify both consistencies and inconsistencies across stakeholders’ desires and perceived obstacles in a public art policy.

As noted by Newcomer et al. (2015), thematic analysis is often an iterative process in which new themes are revealed as more data is collected. The research team discovered themes focused around desired policy outputs, expected obstacles, funding sources, and suggested stakeholders. Interview themes were evaluated primarily through comparison with other interviews in an attempt to determine on what issues stakeholders are most likely to agree and differ.

An advantage of using this analytic strategy is that it is a more accessible form of analysis that can be easily grasped and is useful for examining the perspectives of different research participants, and for summarizing key information of large data sets (King, 2004). Thematic analysis is flexible; however, its flexibility may lead to inconsistency when developing a theme. Both consistency and cohesion may be applied by developing a position that clearly describes the study’s empirical claims (Holloway & Todres, 2003). 17 CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS
Cross-case analysis entails extensive research on existing arts and culture policies to identify patterns and potential trends. Such analysis is beneficial in interviews and participant observation (Ridder, 2017). Comparing results from different cases leads to the synthesis of new knowledge (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008).

Cross-case analysis was used to determine what can be considered “standard” practice in public arts and culture policies. To develop a cross-case analysis, the research team coded over 40 existing municipal art policies to identify which policy components were common across examples. The research team found patterns in cities with similar population sizes in Murrieta, such as Temecula, Carlsbad, and Oceanside, and Boulder, Colorado, though also looked at policies of both larger and smaller municipalities to explore both maximalist and minimalist policy scopes. Oceanside, for example, has an arts commission composed of stakeholders from various sectors who contribute to policy implementation (United States Census Bureau, n.d.; Murrieta Arts Council, personal communication, February 24, 2023; City of Oceanside, n.d.). The data was organized by city population size and coded for levels of fiscal and administrative support necessary for implementation.

While a cross-case analysis aims to form a general framework in public arts and culture policies, it is important to note policies are not always a “one size fits all” solution and so further analyses drawn from other research methods are also needed to propose alternatives that are feasible in Murrieta (Nauwelaers & Wintjes, 2022). Limitations of this analysis include resource constraints to visit with stakeholders involved with existing municipal art policies in other communities across the United States. The research team hopes the cross-case analysis will form a point of reference for Murrieta to consider what to expect in future years of fiscal planning.

OPTIONS ANALYSIS
Often used as a structured way to evaluate alternative courses of action, the options analysis provided the research team with a way to predict what will occur as a result of different actions (Pitman, n.d.) An options analysis is concerned with both objective and normative questions and relies heavily on the values, morals, and interests of the community (Pitman, n.d.). The goal of using options analysis as an analytic methodology is to provide policy preferences in a way that will gain more support and to also shape policy options that are cost-effective while meeting the needs of stakeholders within the City of Murrieta. Interviews with key stakeholders from the city, business, and nonprofit sectors aided in establishing a chain of evidence that reveals levels of legality and political acceptability (Yan, 1998; Bardach & Patashnik, 2020).
18 Options for funding were evaluated based on the likely scope of the art policy they would be able to fund from development to implementation in Murrieta. They also were assessed based on the likely stability of the funding source and the likelihood that it will be opposed politically upon introduction.

In addition to funding options, potential art policy components were also assessed using an options analysis. These options were assessed based on themes that presented frequency of appearance in stakeholder interviews and frequency of appearance in existing art policies in other jurisdictions. Themes included defining the scope and coverage of an arts and culture policy, a statement of values and goals, having an arts commission, acquisition guidance and donation acceptance plans, funding and stakeholder engagement, location guidance, maintenance plans, and deaccession guidance, and having an equity and diversity component. Such themes were assessed based on the likelihood that they could be applied to Murrieta.

Often used as a structured way to evaluate alternative courses of action, the options analysis provided the research team with a way to predict what will occur as a result of different actions (Pitman, n.d.) An options analysis is concerned with both objective and normative questions and relies heavily on the values, morals, and interests of the community (Pitman, n.d.).

A limitation of options analysis is that they are often complex and require “a high level of geographical detail, a large number of future scenarios and inclusion of stakeholders preference” (Kind et al., 2018, p. 3018). It is possible that the evaluative criteria presented above did not paint a complete picture of all considerations that needed to be evaluated in the construction of an options analysis. Additionally, options analyses are fundamentally limited by options analyzed and, as such, may miss out on assessing an option that would prove to be most likely to meet policy goals (Bardach & Patashnik, 2015).

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The research team has the responsibility to report findings matching the data collected.

The team will act in accordance with the University of Southern California’s policies and procedures regarding human subjects and will align with University ethics codes. The data collection process requires interviewing public employees and other community stakeholders. In accordance with USC policy, this suggests that the proposed research falls under Category 2 of Exempt Research which is described as: “Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior and […] any disclosure of responses outside of the research would NOT reasonably place subject at risk (criminal, 19 civil liability, financial, employability, educational advancement, reputation)” (USC Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, n.d.).

This is supported by federal regulations regarding IRB considerations found at Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46.104(d)(ii)(2) (Code of Regulations, n.d.). Interviews will be limited in scope to questions related to public art policy, and no interview questions will be asked related to participants' personal or employee information or data. Personal information about employees will not be requested, and all interview questions will exist entirely within the scope of their professional duties and responses will not be reported in a way that is attributable to specific individuals.

Based on the definitions above, the team has determined that this research approach does not fall under the category of Human Subject Research.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR EXPECTATIONS
The research team gathered qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders to develop a narrative about current views on a public arts and culture policy for Murrieta (Alshenqeeti, 2014). As the research team could only speak with six stakeholder groups, the data collected is limited to a small pool, does not present an exhaustive list, and is not generalizable to the city’s population. However, findings from the interviews are useful in understanding common expectations of an arts and culture policy and initiate dialogue among stakeholders in Murrieta to ensure successful implementation.

FINDINGS
Stakeholder identification and engagement: Part of what makes a policy successful are the individuals and groups who can effect change (Jegere & Zemite, 2018). Stakeholders positioned in public, private, and non-profit positions aid in decision-making and in carrying out mission plans (Wieble, 2007). Stakeholder engagement is an integral part of policy design as the strategy brings together experts from various fields. Informing stakeholders about policy design from the very beginning helps to reinforce policy goals (Musso, 2013). Colebatch (2006) notes: “it is not so much about how to record a diversity of policy practice but rather how to respond to the diversity of accounts of practice” (p. 320). Including representatives from the public, private, and non-profit sectors create a set of diverse perspectives that address change and impact for the city. See figure 3 for internal and external stakeholders for the City of Murrieta.

Figure 3: Internal and External Stakeholders for the City of Murrieta 20 Internal stakeholders may assist in the development of a budget and resource management, while external stakeholders may assist in project scope setup and objectives (Martins, 2023).

For the City of Murrieta, internal stakeholders include positions that impact or may be impacted by an arts and culture policy. Internal stakeholder groups for Murrieta include:
● City Manager: The city manager oversees daily operations, implementation of policies, and all city departments (City of Murrieta, n.d.c). Given the high position, a city manager plays an important role in policy feasibility (Bardach & Patashnik, 2020).
● City Council & Mayor: Murrieta operates on a rotating mayor system from a 5 member council (City of Murrieta, n.d.b.). While they do not oversee policy implementation directly, the council is responsible for approving any proposals brought forward by the city manager (D. Samario, personal communication, March 9, 2023).
● Community Services Director: The Community Services Director is responsible for the operations and maintenance of public spaces, including all parks and recreation, the Murrieta library system, and homeless services (City of Murrieta, n.d.e). The department also provides services in the education and culture sector to enrich the quality of life in the community, and further provide economic value that encourages visitors and tourism (City of Murrieta, n.d.e.). Such services align with the city’s goals of community engagement in public spaces and overall economic 21 growth, which also align with the expected opportunities of having an arts and culture policy.
● The Economic Development Director: This director oversees economic development of the city through the growth of small businesses and city expansion (City of Murrieta, n.d.f). Placing physical art pieces in public spaces throughout the city can lead to city branding and serve as iconic meeting places or points of interest to visitors, which then leads to an increase in tourism and job placement (Richards & Duaif, 2018).
● The Development Services Director: is responsible for overseeing public and private development projects and code enforcement for land use (City of Murrieta, n.d.g). An arts and culture policy can potentially impact the Development Services Department by increasing the need for code enforcement and permit distributions to land developers who incorporate physical art in their projects.

External stakeholders also provide valuable insight into policy design (Martins, 2023).

Representatives of external sectors include:
● The Murrieta Arts Council (MAC): This nonprofit organization is dedicated to supporting and celebrating arts and culture in the city of Murrieta (MAC, n.d.). The Council’s coordination and or promotion of local events requires its members to interact with artists and community members on a regular basis. ● The Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVUSD): The local school district oversees kindergarten through twelfth grade, and includes a visual and performing arts program that is funded by the state and local sources (Murrieta Valley School Unified District, n.d.). The district’s interaction with artists and young community members presents a different perspective on how an arts and culture policy affects community members of various ages.
● The Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce: The Chamber of Commerce brings together the business communities of Murrieta and its neighboring city, Wildomar (Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce, n.d.). Its expertise in the business world provides insights into how arts and culture policy can support economic growth.
● Local community and visitors: This stakeholder group includes local artists, community residents, and tourists or visitors to Murrieta. Art in public spaces and placemaking form a city identity that is not only of significance to local residents but also may entice visitors to the area in search of elements that make Murrieta distinct (Richards & Duaif, 2018).
● Developers: Should the city decide to support an arts and culture policy through city funding, an increase in commercial development fees could impact developers. 22 ● Taxpayers: Local residents will want to know how an arts and culture policy will affect their tax paying dollars, whether through local taxes that fund the program, or through access to physical art placed in public spaces.

Each stakeholder group identified will play a critical role in developing a future arts policy due to expertise in economic development, city management, a background in advocating for arts and culture within the community, and or their level of experienced impact from funding plans, and or potential to experience influence through city branding (Bryson, 2004).

POWER-INTEREST LEVELS OF STAKEHOLDERS
Since policies can affect multiple people, groups, and organizations, the input of many individuals and groups is needed to effect change (Bryson, 2004). The level of impact that a stakeholder experiences or possesses can be assessed with a power-interest matrix (Slaba, 2014). The power and interest matrix is a tool for identifying, categorizing, and managing stakeholders. The matrix is divided into four categories according to level of interest and influence and the actions that are needed for engagement: manage closely, keep informed and or collaborate, monitor, and keep satisfied (Eden & Ackerman, 1998).

The level of stakeholder power and interest was determined by reviewing the city's organizational structure, existing information documenting individual and organizational activity in arts and culture, and semi-structured interviews (Zabala, 2022). The following order identifies stakeholders from high-power, high-interest to low-interest, low-power and are visualized in Figure 4.

1. High-power, high-interest: These stakeholders include decision-makers who have the highest influence on policy success and thus require close management of stakeholder expectations (Bryson, 2004).
○ City Manager: Given the city manager’s high position in Murrieta’s organization chart, and the authority to drive implementation, the city manager is given the highest rating in the level of power. Her interest in pursuing an arts and culture policy for many years also indicates the highest level of interest (D. Samario, personal communication, April 3, 2023). ○ Community Services Director: Given the department’s regular interaction with the community, the department plays a major role in community engagement and placemaking, which is discussed further in this paper (Richards & Duaif, 2018). Since any physical art would be placed in public parks and spaces, the community director is a key stakeholder who should be kept well-informed and involved in the design process.
23 ○ Economic Development Director & Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce: Both stakeholder groups influence Murrieta’s economic sector.

As one of the city’s main goals is to achieve economic growth, these two stakeholder groups are important to keep informed and involved in the policy design process (City of Murrieta, 2018).

2. High-power, low-interest: This quadrant represents stakeholders who have decision-making power but may not have high involvement (Bryson, 2004). ○ The City Council and Mayor are identified as stakeholders who approve policy and thus need to be kept satisfied with policy implementation in Murrieta.

3. Low-power, high interest: These stakeholders include members who demonstrate high-interest but may not have authority in formal policy design. Byrson (2004) refers to such stakeholders as subjects who should be kept informed and involved in the decision-making process.
○ Murrieta Arts Council (MAC): Given MAC’s regular interaction with local artists and the community, the research team identifies them as a highinterest entity that can bring community insight to policy design. ○ Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVUSD): Since the education district is separate from city management, MVUSD is identified as a lowpower subject. However, MVUSD’s regular involvement with youth development and arts programs indicates the potential to collaborate on policy design and engage the community more.
○ Development Services Director and Developers: This group of stakeholders can be affected by funding policies and art installations in public spaces. Thus, continuous communication is important. ○ Local artists: Local artists can be affected by policy regulations on art display and content, and funding support. Such cases occur in Kingston, New York, and Atlanta, Georgia (Department of Art and Cultural Affairs & the Kingston Arts Commission, n.d.; City of Atlanta, 2001).

4. Low-power, low-interest: This quadrant represents the “crowd” and the general public who do not need excessive communication in the policy design process. They do require occasional monitoring given any potential impacts a policy may have on the general public (Bryson, 2004).
○ Taxpayers: are residents of Murrieta who experience the effects of any policy design.
○ Tourists/ visitors: This group may not have any power over policy design.

However, they are impacted by policy design as the “crowd” that views and experiences public art in Murrieta.

Figure 4: Stakeholder Analysis
24 STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six key stakeholders to determine expectations and obstacles related to policy implementation. Due to time constraints, not all stakeholders listed on the power-interest matrix could be interviewed or surveyed.

However, findings from the research serve as an initial overview of expectations from key stakeholders who exhibit high interest and varying levels of power. Interviews were held with:
● Community Services Director Brian Ambrose
● Economic Development Director Scott Agajanian
● Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce CEO Patrick Ellis ● Development Services Director David Chantarangsu
● Murrieta Arts Council members Steffany Johnson and Casey Jurado ● Murrieta Unified School District representatives Monica Guiterrez and Paul Diffley The below table, identified as Figure 5 demonstrates the responses received from stakeholders.

Figure 5: Interview Response Matrix
25 Expectations for physical art: Of the six interviews conducted, 100% mentioned physical art in an arts and culture policy and mentioned expectations for physical art to appear in public spaces such as downtown Murrieta, Townsquare, the City Hall Area, and even restaurants. Physical arts, also identified as "visual art," are "art forms that create works that are primarily visual in nature, such as ceramics, drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, crafts, photography, video, filmmaking, and architecture" (Unbound Visual Arts, n.d.). All stakeholders indicated expectations of physical arts to generally encompass statues and murals. By incorporating statues and murals in locations around the city, such as in parks and in the downtown area, stakeholders believe that the city will be able to appropriately represent the community's cultural aspects (C. McConnell, personal communication, February 24, 2023; S. Agajanian, personal communication, February 22, 2023).

Examples of places to display physical art in public spaces included downtown, where there is space for such installations and the regular marketplace events attract community members on a regular basis (D. Chantarangsu, personal communication, February 16, 2023).
26 Expectations for an arts commission: Threeof six stakeholders interviewed noted the importance of an arts commission in policy design (B. Ambrose, personal communication, February 17, 2023; P. Diffley, personal communication, March 23, 2023; P. Ellis, personal communication, March 24, 2023). Having a leadership body in public administration that incorporates public opinion can aid in identifying impacts on various groups and thereby influence the decision-making process (Mitchell, 1997). An Arts commission is typically responsible for promoting and supporting the arts (Commission on the Arts, 2022). While the specific responsibilities of an arts commission may vary, typical duties include:
administering grants and other funding opportunities to artists, art organizations, and cultural institutions within a region; developing and supporting arts education programs and different community settings; overseeing public art programs, which also involves the commissioning and installation of artworks in public spaces (California Arts Council, n.d.).

Arts commission may also be involved in developing cultural plans and policies for their region, identifying priorities and goals for cultural development, and collaborating with other stakeholders to implement strategies for supporting the arts. Finally, an arts commission may also engage in advocacy efforts to raise awareness of the value of arts in society and promote policies and funding that support the arts (California Arts Council, n.d.)
Expectations for tourism and economic growth: One of the city’s goals is to support economic growth (City of Murrieta, n.d.d). Economic Development Director Scott Agajanian (personal communication, February 22, 2023), noted that an arts and culture policy can promote tourism and job placement. Other cities such as Oceanside, California, share similar sentiments (City of Oceanside, n.d.). Additionally, MAC mentioned the need for cultural district designations that feature local events and artists (MAC, personal communication, February 24, 2023). Such incorporations can aid in tourism growth.

Expectations for Community Collaboration: Murrieta’s general plan is dedicated to increasing community engagement (City of Murrieta, n.d.d). Such engagement is only possible if access is increased. Paul Diffley (personal communication, March 23, 2023) noted the importance of increasing access to physical art installations, and also increasing support for local artists and children’s arts.

Obstacles: Stakeholders voiced varied concerns about the development of an arts and culture policy. Of the six interviews conducted, 50% noted funding as a major obstacle in policy planning. “Yes” responses came from Development Services Director David Chantarangsu (personal communication, February 16, 2023), Community Services Director Brian Ambrose (personal communication, February 17, 2023), and Economic Development Director Scott Agajanian (personal communication, February 22, 2023). 27 Concerns were also raised about policy regulation on age and content appropriateness (B.Ambrose, personal communication, February 17, 2023). This concern contributes to the 67% percent of the stakeholders who noted the need for a policy code, protocol, or infrastructure to regulate public art content.

Additional identified obstacles included concerns about art maintenance, lack of infrastructure to support the policy, and a lack of current communication among stakeholders.

What makes Murrieta unique: When asked what makes the City of Murrieta unique, responses varied from the community itself (P. Diffley, personal communication, March 23, 2023), to the hot springs (S.Agajanian, personal communication, February 22, 2023), and the sunsets and mountain ranges (B. Ambrose, personal communication, February 17, 2023; P. Ellis, personal communication, March 24, 2023). Due to the nature of the semistructured interview, not all interviewees were asked the question of what makes Murrieta unique.

ANALYSIS
The aim of this analysis is to produce a general theme in regards to stakeholder expectations. Using inductive coding, themes were selected by reviewing raw data provided through a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. Responses were then grouped into themes and an interview responses matrix was created to compare similarities of responses among stakeholders. Through this method, the research team has identified three major themes:
● A focus on physical art
● A need for funding
● A need for infrastructure to support the policy
Figure 6: General Themes from Stakeholder Interviews
28 Theme 1: Focus on Physical art
The aesthetic value of physical arts appealed to 50% of city stakeholders, with several stating that both murals and paintings would benefit the city. Literature on the effects of physical art on the public demonstrates that exposure to physical art can increase positive emotions, improve mood, and reduce stress in individuals (Sherman & Morrissey, 2017). In addition, physical art can inspire creativity and imagination, encouraging individuals to think in new and innovative ways (Sherman & Morrissey, 2017). The inclusion of physical art can also serve as a means of cultural expression and communication, allowing communities to share their stories and values with others. It can promote social cohesion and unity by providing a sense of camaraderie (Sherman & Morrissey, 2017). Lastly, physical art has the potential to promote education and learning; through it, individuals have the opportunity to learn about history, culture, and social issues, and it can provide a means for individuals to explore and express their own identities and experiences (Sherman & Morrissey, 2017)
Theme 2: Need for Funding
A potential lack of funding was a frequently occurring response during interviews with half of interviewees mentioning it as a potential obstacle to art policy success in Murrieta. This concern aligns with scholarship regarding the negative effects that underfunding can have on a program’s success (Tani et al, 2021). Further, depending on the type of art that is being funded, additional funding could increase the levels of public engagement with the art (Feder, 2020).
29 Funding is not without political risks however. Lewis and Brooks (2005) note that certain, more controversial, types of publicly funded art projects can prompt significant public pushback from groups who find the work exceptionable. Beyond concerns related to the content of a specific piece of art, public funding of art can also lead to opposition from those who view it as excessive government spending that should be minimized in favor of balanced budgets (Harsell, 2013).

Theme 3: Need for Formal Infrastructure
The six interviews conducted with internal and external stakeholders reveals a diverse set of expectations in an arts and culture policy. While differing opinions may present a challenge, Murrieta has the opportunity to thrive from diverse perspectives. Diverse ideas provide a rich pool of knowledge and resources that aid in proper decision-making. Even in public administration, factions provide a set of diverse skill sets, knowledge, and beliefs that benefit the community (Madison, 1787). Collaboration leads to improved project performance (Doberstein, 2016).

Projects that rely on collaborative governance have a leading group to ensure government participation and stakeholder engagement (Bianchi et al., 2021). Collaboration among key leaders forms the decision-making structure needed to set standards on policy (Klievink et al., 2016). Through proper leadership, collaboration among stakeholders can lead to the free and safe exchange of different ideas stemming from diverse backgrounds, and a policy plan that sets standards in public art acquisition (Williams & Duckett, 2020).

Infrastructure also refers to the mechanisms for decision-making, which includes administrative rules and practices (Klievink et al., 2016). In public art, ordinances often include rules on funding, acquisition standards, and installation requirements (Cohen, n.d.).

Standardization in rules reinforces the decision-making structure and supports policy regulation.

POTENTIAL METHODS FOR FUNDING AN ARTS AND CULTURE POLICY This research question compared methods for funding public art programs that have been implemented in a variety of municipalities to determine which one would be most likely to achieve the City of Murrieta’s goals for a public art program.

FINDINGS
Through a review of available literature and interviews with stakeholders, several methods emerged as potential funding sources for the implementation of the City of Murrieta’s Public Art Policy. One such example is a percent-for-art whereby some amount of construction funding for public or private works is allocated to the acquisition and 30 maintenance of public art (Modica, 2006). According to Polat and Gokchen (2022), “The percent for art strategy is one of the most common methods used to finance the production of artworks and to increase the presence of art in cities” (p. 190).

Percent-for-art programs typically fall under two distinct categories based on the projects with which they are associated. In some instances, such as in the city of Golden, Colorado, 1% percent of the project value of city-funded capital improvement projects over a certain dollar amount is allocated to a fund dedicated to acquiring and maintaining public art (City of Golden, 2022). Other cities, such as El Cerrito, take a more expansive approach to funding their public art program and assess the same 1% fee on “1. commercial, industrial and municipal projects, and residential projects that create five or more residential units 2.

An existing building that is remodeled with a construction value equal to or more than fifty percent of the replacement cost of the building shall be subject to the requirements of this section” (City of El Cerrito, 2013, p. 8).

In both cases, such payments could be considered types of impact fees of the sort discussed by Nelson (2017), who notes their effectiveness in funding social infrastructure such as public art while also noting that critical to their success is political and legal defensibility.

Challenges to the second type of fee, which is centered on commercial development generally rather than capital improvement projects funded by the government, were recently challenged in Oakland, California, where developers sued the city to block passage on a 1% development fee (California Planning and Development Report, 2015). In considering the public’s opinion on impact fees, the literature is unclear on what demographic features suggest support for impact fees though there is evidence to suggest that there is general support for increased government support of the arts (York et al, 2017; Jacobsmeier, 2021)
Beyond funding associated with public and private development projects that is typical of public art policy funding, interviews with stakeholders suggest that it may be possible to allocate funds to a public art policy from Murrieta’s previously passed Measure T, which imposed a local 1% sales tax for the purpose of funding “general services including faster response times to 911 emergencies, improved fire protection/paramedic services, increase police to strengthen crime prevention, reduce gang activity/ drug crimes, graffiti removal, and parks and recreation [emphasis added]/street maintenance/pothole repair” (City of Murrieta, 2018). In stakeholder interviews, it was noted that while such a strategy may provide a way to fund the public art policy within the city, it would be subject to an economic impact analysis that would need to justify its use (S. Agajanian, personal communication, February 22, 2023). While there is evidence to suggest that this type of investment would lead to improved economic output in the city and increase its marketing 31 and branding position, it is unclear both the specific expected results and how those might compare to other types of funding mechanisms (Cheung, Smith, & Craven, 2021)

ANALYSIS
The funding options discussed in the findings section have been assessed across criteria designed to consider three different factors that lend themselves to program success. These criteria include the following:
● Funding Potential looks at the expected level of funds that would be generated should the funding mechanism be implemented. Results for this criteria have been based on the existing City of Murrieta financial data and are based on research conducted by Tani et al. (2021) regarding how underfunding can impact program performance.
● Funding Stability looks at how predictable each funding mechanism is and how likely it is that city officials will be able to rely on consistent funding levels across multiple years. This criterion draws on research related to the impacts of sudden funding changes on arts policies (Gilfillan & Morrow, 2018) ● Political Expediency looks at the potential for pushback from various community stakeholders based on who will bear the brunt of providing the funds and is included due to the importance of having public support for policy success (Huang et al., 2015).

As part of an options analysis, each criterion was ranked on a five-point Likert Scale and weighted according to how likely each criterion was to affect the overall success of the program, with political expediency being weighted the highest, followed by funding potential, and finally funding stability. There were five options considered for funding a public art program. Each was developed based on the examples in other locations described in the findings as well as on the interviews with stakeholders. These options are:
● A 1.0% fee based on the project value of commercial construction over $100,000 ● A 0.25% fee based on the project value of commercial construction over $100,000 ● A 1.0% fee based on the project value of new capital improvement projects ● A 0.25% fee based on the project value of new capital improvement projects ● A 1.0% allocation of Measure T funds dedicated to Operations and Maintenance as well as Capital Outlays.

It is important to note that these options are not exhaustive of all possible funding mechanisms but have instead been selected to be illustrative of the options available to the City of Murrieta. The results of this research have then been analyzed using a criteria alternative matrix.
32 The options have been broken down by funding type below to provide justification for the scores allocated to each as part of the criteria alternative matrix.

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FEE
Should the City of Murrieta adopt a fee relative to the value of commercial construction projects, as is the case in cities such as Richmond, California, and set the minimum project value at $100,000, it would likely yield more than $190,000 in public art funding if the fee was assessed at 1.0% and $47,500 in funding if the fee was 0.25%, based on 2022 data provided by City of Murrieta officials (City of Richmond, n.d.; City of Murrieta, 2023).

While it is difficult to both quantify or predict the rate of commercial development in Murrieta, one indication of trends can be found by looking at line item 41144 License/Permit-Permits Non Res from the City of Murrieta’s adopted budgets for FY 2021/2022 and FY 2022/2023. With the exception of FY 2020/2021 and FY 2021/2022, during which much of the nation was dealing with the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on urban development, this number has trended upwards though has yet to reach its pre-COVID level (City of Murrieta, n.d.; Sharifi & Khavarian-Garmsir, 2020). This suggests a funding source that, while generally trending in a positive direction which implies a certain level of stability, is nonetheless susceptible to economic conditions.

Both studies about the impact that development-based fees have on the density of developers in a given region and the interviews with stakeholders from the City of Murrieta suggest that there is the potential for significant pushback to a proposed fee on commercial development in order to fund a public art program (Jones, 2015; D. Chantarangsu, personal communication, Feb 16, 2023).

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
For FY 2021/2022, the new City of Murrieta capital improvement project funding was approximately $9 million (City of Murrieta, n.d.a). Adding 1.0% to that amount, as cities such as Alexandria, Virginia, do to fund their public art program, would yield approximately $90,000 in annual public art program investment, and adding 0.25% to this number would leave approximately $22,500 in public art funding for the City of Murrieta (City of Murrieta, n.d.a).

Based on the City of Murrieta’s capital improvement plan, the anticipated total project funding was approximately $5 million per year between FY 2020/2021 and FY 2022/2023 (City of Murrieta, 2017). While exact data for expenditures over this period could not be located, the budget for FY 2021/2022 and FY 2022/2023 aligns with this estimate and predicts similar levels of capital improvement project funding between FY 2022/2023 and 33 FY 2025/2026 (City of Murrieta, n.d.a). This suggests a relatively stable rate of funding for capital improvement projects within the city which, in turn, would allow for more stability, though not necessarily an increase over time, in public art funding.

The primary source of political opposition to imposing a fee associated with capital would likely be members of the public who feel that public funds should not be used for public art.

That said, this concern is not necessarily born out in the data which suggests “substantial majorities of states’ citizens supported maintaining or increasing levels of government support for the arts” (Jacobsmeier, 2021, p. 476), although there is some indication that this can vary based on the political leanings of specific individuals. In turn, this suggests that there may be some amount of pushback from conservative members of the public, who, based on previous election results in Murrieta, make up a significant voting bloc and who may feel as though public art is not an appropriate use of public funds (Caust, 2017)

MEASURE T ALLOCATION
The proposed FY 2021/2022 budget for Measure T funds included approximately $2.8 million in expenditures earmarked for both operations and maintenance and capital outlays (City of Murrieta, n.d.a). A 1.0% funding level would yield approximately $28,000 in funds available for public art purposes.

With the important exception of Q2 2020 when the onset of COVID-19 reduced tax revenues across the country, state-level sales tax revenues have increased at a steady rate year over year since at least 2010 (Dadayan, 2022). Given population trends within the City of Murrieta, this suggests that Measure T revenue as a source for public art program funding will continue to steadily increase over time.

Allocating a percentage of Measure T funding to support a public art policy is the only funding option that does not represent new spending from the City of Murrieta and, instead, would look to reallocate funds that are already being collected as part of a sales tax. The total amount that would be reallocated from the Measure T revenue collected, which would amount to less than 0.1% of all Measure T revenue, likely would have minimal impact on other areas of the city budget. This suggests that there would be minimal political opposition to such a policy since members of the public tend to have a much higher willingness to pay under tax reallocation schemes when compared to levying new taxes (Nunes & Travisi, 2009).

The options presented in the above analyses were analyzed further through a weighted criteria alternative matrix (CAM) analysis (shown in Figure 7). Based on this analysis, a

1.0% fee based on the project value of new capital improvement projects represents the best option for funding a public art policy in the City of Murrieta. It appears to be the best 34 option to adequately fund the program, be fairly politically expeditious, and allow for accurate planning through funding stability. The second preferred method based on the framework is the 1.0% allocation of Measure T funds dedicated to Operations and Maintenance as well as Capital Outlays. This is due to the option's higher score on political expediency despite its lower score on funding potential. The third-ranked option is imposing a 1.0% fee based on the project value of commercial construction over $100,000.

This would significantly fund the program while also being the most likely to result in significant political opposition.

Figure 7: Weighted Criteria Alternative Matrix (CAM) Analysis for Public Art Policy Funding (Adapted from Pugh, 1981)

WHAT OPTIONS FOR A PUBLIC ARTS AND CULTURE POLICY WOULD BE MOST EFFECTIVE?
The research team collected data on arts and culture policies from more than 40 municipalities across the U.S. to identify key components of policies that could be the most effective for the City of Murrieta. A cross-case analysis was conducted to reveal themes and patterns in policies (see Appendix C).
35 FINDINGS
Defining the Jurisdiction of a Public Arts and Culture Policy - The research found that cities share similar aspects in policy design but may differ in terms of how they define the jurisdiction of arts and culture policy. The research team refers to jurisdiction as the types of elements that an arts and culture policy covers–whether through physical art, placemaking, and or performing arts and events. For example, Mill Valley, California, focuses its policy on physical art in public places, and art in private development projects that enhance the area with projects such as murals, fountains, and sculptures (City of Mill Valley, 2016). About 86% of policies cover the regulation of physical art. In contrast, the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, expands its jurisdiction of public arts and culture policy regulation to encompass “permanent visual art, performances, installations, events, and other temporary work” (City of Minneapolis, 2007, p. 3). Minneapolis takes a more comprehensive approach to include performing arts and events that support local artists, which only 14% of cities incorporate. Thus, a common theme in policy design tends to focus more on physical art in public spaces.

Of the municipal policies reviewed, 64% label their policies as “art policies” and do not touch upon “culture.” Cities that explicitly include “culture,” integrate elements that distinctly represent the city and or link the city’s history to its cultural heritage. As a result, cultural policies serve as a form of state or national identity (Mulcahy, 1998). Cities such as Chicago dedicate part of their policy to the promotion of the city’s cultural assets through an economic scope that speaks to a global audience (Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs, n.d.). In Dallas, the cultural plan supports programming and infrastructure such as building the Latino Cultural Center for its citizens (City of Dallas, 2018).

Less than half, or 45% of the policies reviewed, incorporated an education element by noting the value of positive externalities experienced from an arts and culture policy, as well as through guidance on the acquisition of art and on considering public access to arts and cultural programming in the city. Arts and culture contribute to the knowledge base in the community and further attract more human capital labor as job placement increases (Allan et al., 2013). Education programs are also beneficial as programming encourages community engagement (Loh et al., 2022). Nonprofit organizations and educational institutes provide learning opportunities to citizens of various ages. For example, Lewisville City, Texas, creates engagement through the support of school programs (Bressi & McKinley, 2018). Costa Mesa, California, dedicates part of its policy framework towards increasing opportunities for access to culture among its citizens through afterschool education programs and exploring other public spaces for programming (Arts Orange County, n.d.). Such stakeholders aid in addressing the inequity of access to education (Owen et al., 2012).
36 Defining the Goals, Vision, and Placemaking: Eighty-eight percent of the policies in the study include the respective city’s main goals and vision to also drive its mission in public arts and culture policy. Eight-six percent of the cities either explicitly or implicitly express placemaking as a city goal. Placemaking relies on urban development strategies and community input to form creative investments that brand the city and transform public spaces into multi-use destinations (Richards & Duaif, 2018; Project for Public Spaces, 2012).

When considering how to construct a meaningful space for the public, cities rely on an economic and social scope in placemaking (Gray, 2010). For example, in Sunnyvale, California, arts and culture policies derive from an economic scope and social science scope (Gray, 2010). Cities that consider the economic value and urban development of an arts and culture policy note that programs can stimulate tourism and the demand for services (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; Goodwin, 2005). Incorporating urban development strategies contributes to the creation of cultural districts and tourist-targeted and cultural investments (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Further, arts and culture policies that originate from an economic standpoint support job growth and locally earned income.

Sunnyvale goes one step further in incorporating elements from the social science side that include youth development and education, equity and inclusion, and community celebrations (Sunnyvale, 2020). Such a social science approach aims to engage the community and answer to the community’s needs and expectations from an arts and culture policy. As a result, the arts and culture program reflects group interests and values that form community identity (Jackson et al., 2003).

Based on consideration of definition, jurisdiction, placemaking, and goals, there are 10 themes that appear to be most common in municipal arts and culture policies 37 Figure 8: Common Themes in Arts and Culture Policies Arts commission: Of the policies reviewed by the research team, 90% created or relied on an arts commission to lead implementation. Commissions in public administration create a pluralistic body to include public opinion in the decision-making process and lead in implementation (Mitchell, 1997). Commissions serve as an external regulating body where members include citizens and or public officials (National Conference of State Legislatures, n.d.). Collaboration allows for more stakeholder engagement.

Policy implementation can be a challenge when perspectives on arts and culture policy differ among local councils and community group members (Cattermole, 2018). Thus, an arts commission can aid in mediating conflict. Having a commission serves as a centralized approach to building bureaucratic oversight and strengthening implementation feasibility (Bahng et al., 2023).

El Cerrito, California, utilizes such a method in providing oversight on its Arts in Public Places Program (The City of El Cerrito, n.d.). The commission provides guidance on policy elements in financing from development fees, the acquisition of public art, and the placement of public art (The City of El Cerrito). Carlsbad, California, has a commission responsible for forming recommendations on policies and procedures for art in public places and oversees acquisition of art (City of Carlsbad, 2015). Sunnyvale’s five-person 38 commission oversees its public art programs and permanent art collections, as well as advise on special art projects and budgetary decisions (Sunnyvale, 2020). One of the pillars of public administration is structure, which stems from authoritative positions (Hill & Lynn, 2015). The authoritative body ensures implementation.

Acquisition Guidance and Donation Acceptance Plans: In total, 67% of the municipalities under study set an acquisition plan to regulate the type of art received.

Similarly, 64% of the policies reviewed indicated a donation acceptance plan that reinforces acquisition standards for donated art pieces. Brentwood City, California, relies on its Public Arts Commission to ensure its public art collection properly reflects the culture of the city and is iconic in symbolizing Brentwood (City of Brentwood, n.d.).

Similarly, the city of Boulder, Colorado, relies on its commission to advise on art acquisition, including the acceptance of donated art pieces (City of Boulder, 2018). Raleigh, North Carolina, gives a detailed list of criteria for selection, which includes “aesthetic quality and artistic merit” and addresses their questions of “What has the artist accomplished with the work and does it align with the proposed project goals?” “Does the work under consideration have artistic merit?” and “is the work of art appropriate for the community it serves” (City of Raleigh North Carolina, n.d.).

Funding and Stakeholder Engagement: In our cross-case analysis, the research team found that 62% place emphasis on stakeholder engagement and 69% have funding plans.

Carlsbad, California, ties its budget to the arts commission to ensure implementation (Gail M. Goldman Associates, 2016). Connecting the budget to stakeholders ensures efficiency and effectiveness in goal attainment (Kelly & Rivenbark, 2011). Chicago takes a multiapproach in engaging its stakeholders from the public and private sectors to aid in funding (Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs, n.d.). Management of the budget by an arts and culture commission further increases accountability (Radin, 2006).

Location Guidance, Maintenance Plan, and Deaccession Guidance: In the team’s research on arts policy practices, 63% of the cities provided location guidance in the placement of public art, 62% included a maintenance plan, and 59% had a deaccession plan. In Boulder, Colorado, the arts and culture policy covers art on city property that is publicly available, and oversight is provided by its Library and Arts Department (City of Boulder, 2018). Similar policies appear in Costa Mesa, California, and Dallas, Texas (Arts Orange County, 2019; City of Dallas, 2018).

Equity or Diversity Component: Of the cases reviewed, 57% of the municipalities incorporated an equity or diversity component in their arts and culture policies. Equity can refer to equal opportunities for artists as well as refer to public access to arts (Holden, 39 2009). The policies that explicitly incorporate a DEI component focus on placemaking and access to arts. San Diego, California, established a plan for cultural equity and diversity in 1993 to outline long-term goals in outreach and community-based projects (City of San Diego, 2004). Oceanside’s O’Arts plan calls for creating more arts education offerings to citizens of all ages, which is further supported by its funding (City of Oceanside, n.d.b).

ANALYSIS
To prepare a list of options for Murrieta, the research team first conducted a cross-case analysis of more than 40 cities to reveal any trends in arts and culture policymaking (referenced in Figure 8 and Appendix C). The elements discussed in the findings section were then assessed across three criteria to consider levels of effectiveness. The following criteria were based on Murrieta’s General Implementation Plan 2035 and goals to “aggressively pursue economic development, maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability, and organizational efficiency,” to “plan, program and create infrastructure development,” to “coordinate and deliver responsive, effective community services,” and to “foster and promote an engaged, connected and caring community,” (City of Murrieta, n.d.d; City of Murrieta, n.d.b). The criteria are:
● Economic growth refers to the expected level of financial growth the city experiences from a policy option. Results for this criterion take into account the economic growth stemming from designated cultural districts and tourist-targeted cultural investments that contribute to job creation (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). ● Community building examines to what extent citizens are included in the decisionmaking process and how engaged citizens are with their community. Policy design aids in community engagement and access to public spaces, thereby increasing community participation (Loh et al., 2022; Hardy 2017). ● Positive externalities are experienced as a result of policy implementation.

Externalities encompass public goods that are not consumed or bought, but rather benefit the city as a whole in terms of knowledge growth and overall satisfaction among the city’s citizens (Allan et al., 2013; Kutin & Marschall, 1992; Kovacs, 2009).

Similar to the options analysis for potential funding methods, each criterion for this section was ranked on a five-point Likert Scale. It is difficult to obtain the actual percentage of change in the above criteria given the evaluative nature of the criteria. Thus, the research team considered past literature and notes taken from the semi-structured interviews to consider how effective each criterion is against the other and how each affects the overall success of the program (Barach & Patashnik, 2016; Teasdale et al., 2023). 40 Consideration was placed on how likely each criterion can affect the overall success of the program, with economic growth being weighted the highest, followed by community building, and positive externalities. The ranking was based on emphasis placed in Murrieta’s General Plan 2035 (City of Murrieta, and general goals for the city. (City of Murrieta, n.d.). The following options are considered in levels of effectiveness based on findings in the cross-case analysis and semi-structured interviews for Murrieta:
● No change in the status quo
● Create an arts commission
● Focus on formal stakeholder engagement
The research team acknowledges the above options are not an exhaustive list. Further, expected results are evaluative and thus may not present an accurate numerical value.

However, the list highlights the top trends in the 40+ case analysis, which are intended to form a list of best options for Murrieta. Results are analyzed using a criteria alternative matrix (CAM) (see Figure 9).

STATUS QUO
As Murrieta does not have an arts and culture policy in place, there is no expected change from pursuing the status quo. Maintaining the baseline means Murrieta will not experience any externalities or economic growth and community building. In this case, the policy option receives a score of 1 in each criterion, resulting in the lowest score and therefore indicating that it may be the least effective for Murrieta.

ARTS COMMISSION
Commissions provide bureaucratic oversight in decision-making and set accountability in policy implementation (Bahng et al., 2023). They serve as a leading body to mediate differing opinions from various stakeholders. Commissions hold significant power in the city of Murrieta and rank high in the city’s simplified organization chart (see Figure 1). The higher placement of commissions above the various city departments indicate higher power to effect change. For this reason, results in the criteria alternative matrix rank high with a total score of 23. Having a commission dedicated to arts and culture policy contributes to capacity building, which leads to effective change (Frumkin, 2010).

Should Murrieta decide to implement a commission, arts and culture programs can contribute to designated cultural districts and tourist-targeted cultural investments that economically benefit the city (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Assumed growth is high and therefore assigned a rating of 4 to indicate significant change. 41 As noted in our findings section, commissions represent a pluralistic body in which representatives are from the public and private sector. The cross-case analysis reveals that 90% of the 40+ policies reviewed relied on a diverse leading body. A commission provides the authority structure needed for citizens to engage and interact with public officials (Hill & Lynn, 2015). In the cross-case analysis, views on the jurisdiction of public arts and culture policy vary from one city to the other. Acquisition guidance can be a challenge when there is no policy in place to regulate standards of acceptable public art. Community Services Director of Murrieta, Brian Abrose (personal communication, February 17, 2023), advised on potential controversial content that may not be age-appropriate for children.

However, censorship and regulation of the free expression of art cannot easily be defined (Harsell, 2013). Our semi-structured interviews also revealed an expectation among stakeholders for creating a governing body that can increase communication and have the authority to set protocol (Paul Diffley, personal communication, March 23, 2023; P. Ellis, personal communication, March 24, 2023). A commission can provide the governing authority. Based on the high ability to collaborate and make decisions, the creation of a commission received a 5, the highest score, in community engagement.

Externalities are hard to quantify given their subjective nature and the requirement of time to experience (Finkler et al., 2020). Thus, the research team assigned a 3 to indicate a neutral level of growth that a commission can bring from policy implementation. The rating is selected to show a higher influence than keeping the status quo.

FORMAL STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Should Murrieta decide to pursue formal stakeholder engagement, it can experience a higher level of economic growth and community building, and result in positive externalities (ArtsMarket Inc., n.d.; Strom, 2003; Kuti & Marschall, 1992). Stakeholders from the business sectors, including the Chamber of Commerce and Explore Murrieta, can potentially work with the city’s Economic Development Director to ensure an arts and culture policy creates designated cultural districts that drive tourism and increase job placement. Such collaboration provides an expected economic growth at a score of 4.

Involving artists, community members, and public officials from the beginning contribute to an inclusive policy design that successfully highlights the community’s local art and cultural assets (Loh et al., 2022; Hardy, 2017). Furthermore, insight from stakeholders with different fields of expertise form a diverse body that best represents public values (Nabatchi, 2012). The education sector also brings interesting insight to policy design as it often considers accessibility to arts and culture programs for citizens of all age groups (P.

Diffley, personal communication, March 23, 2023).
42 Challenges arise when local councils and community members hold differing views on arts and culture (Cattermole, 2018). Interviews with key stakeholders reveal differing expectations of an arts and culture policy. As discussed in the stakeholder findings above, all stakeholders addressed the need for placemaking and physical art. However, different departments expressed further expectations, which included supporting tourism in Murrieta, increasing community access to arts and culture programs, and establishing an arts commission (S. Agajanian, personal communication, February 22, 2023; C. McConnell, personal communication, February 24, 2023; Paul Diffley, personal communication, March 23, 2023). Given the varied views and expectations, maximum community engagement may not be realized if stakeholders continue to disagree on policy design. Community building is thus given a ranking of 4, which is one less than the maximum ranking.

As noted in the commission criteria analysis, externalities are difficult to quantify (Finkler et al., 2020). The research team assigned a 3 to reflect a neutral level of growth expected from formal stakeholder engagement. Similar to the analysis on having a commission, engagement ranks higher than the status quo of no policy in place to tie departments and individuals together.

Figure 9: Weighted Criteria Alternative Matrix for Public Arts and Culture Policy Options (Adapted from Pugh, 1981)
As discussed previously and noted above in Figure 9, policy option 1 leads to no change and no mechanism for collaborative efforts among departments. As option 1 ranks the lowest in 43 results, it is not ideal in pursuing. The second preferred option is for Murrieta to establish formal stakeholder engagement. Receiving input from various stakeholders in the economic, development and community services, education and nonprofit sectors, enable community engagement. However, as perspectives can differ among departments, collaboration, and community engagement can decrease if compromises cannot be met.

Thus, option 3 ranks second in effectiveness. Based on the above analysis, having a commission represents the best option for Murrieta’s policy design. A commission leads to maximum expected growth from community building as it provides the decision-making body to mediate differing opinions on arts and culture. The commission also influences economic growth, given engagement with experts from the economic sector. Further, the successful implementation of a policy led by a commission can result in positive externalities. Given a commission to affect change in Murrieta’s economic growth, community engagement, and experience of positive externalities, it appears that policy option 2 is the best.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
For this report, the research team sought to answer three research questions with the overarching goal of providing recommendations to the City of Murrieta for what an art policy might look like by interviewing relevant stakeholders both inside and outside of the city government, modeling potential funding sources for the policy, and analyzing existing arts and culture policies in cities throughout the nation.

Through interviews, researchers learned that there is broad support for the implementation of a public art policy among stakeholders, although there is a belief that funding related to private development might pose an issue to implementation. Further, interviews revealed that, despite general support for a policy, there is a lack of defined organizational structure to allow the city to develop and implement the policy in a thoughtful manner.

With regard to policy components, the research team found that, by a significant margin of more than 15%, the most common element of a public art policy is the establishment of a commission or other body to oversee policy creation and implementation, which is part of 88% of public art policies. This is followed by the inclusion of policy elements addressing criteria for approving public art projects as well as for accepting donations of public art, which was found in approximately 72% of policies. Further, nearly 65% of reviewed policies include a mechanism for engaging with stakeholders in the communities where public art will be located.
44 Lastly, the research team examined multiple funding options for potentially funding a public art policy through the options analysis, ultimately finding that a 1.0% fee added to capital improvement projects presents the best opportunity to bring together the criteria of potential funding, funding stability, and political expediency.

RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of these findings the research team presents the following recommendations to the City of Murrieta for next steps:

RECOMMENDATION 1: ESTABLISH A PUBLIC ART COMMISSION TO OVERSEE

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
According to Bhang et al. (2023), a commission can serve as an important bureaucratic focal point to drive policy making forward. This need for centralized policy leadership was recognized both by several stakeholders during the interview process as well as in the analysis of existing public arts policies, in which the vast majority included a body that provides guidance for their programs. Based on these factors, the team recommends that the City of Murrieta establish a public art commission that is composed of members of city administration and Murrieta’s existing arts and business communities, including the Murrieta Arts Council, Downtown Murrieta, the Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and individuals currently producing art within Murrieta. This commission should be established by the City Council and empowered to oversee public art policy in a similar vein to existing commissions such as the Planning Commission. Example ordinances from cities that have created such a commission such as Charlotte, NC and Oklahoma City, OK, are included as Appendix D
The commission should begin the policy process by setting out initial goals in a manner such as Oceanside, which set multiple goals to support the economy, increase creative placemaking, support local artists, and enhance arts governance (City of Oceanside, 2019).

A similar combination may be ideal for Murrieta, given its goals to maintain fiscal stability, coordinate and deliver community services, and increase community engagement (City Council Murrieta, n.d.)
RECOMMENDATION 2: PRIORITIZE A DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC ART POLICY

INCLUDING CRITERIA FOR ART ACCEPTANCE AND ACQUISITION
In addition to a lack of defined organizational structure regarding public art in the City of Murrieta, there is no formalized policy that guides how the policy should be administered.

On the basis of research on the importance of formal policy on program success as well as 45 in response to concerns raised through stakeholder interviews, following the creation of the commission, its first priority should be the development of a formal public art policy within Murrieta that can then be adopted through ordinance by the Murrieta City Council (Colwell, 2017).

The development of robust criteria for assessing public art is particularly important in localities that are attempting to create a sense of place through public art (Zitcer & Almanzar, 2020). Given stakeholder interest in both placemaking practices as well as concerns regarding a lack of direction for the assessment of public art, the commission should, at a minimum, include within its public art policy criteria for the City of Murrieta for acceptance of donated, or otherwise acquired with city investment, public art. This represents the least cost intensive of options for the implementation of a public art policy within Murrieta and will, at a minimum, formalize guidance for individuals and organizations who wish to produce or provide public art within the City of Murrieta.

Criteria should align with the goals outlined by the commission and options seen in other jurisdictions such as: aesthetic quality and artistic merit, compatibility of the design and location with the character of the site, and diversity of style, scale, media, and artists (City of Raleigh, n.d.; City of Golden, 2022; City of El Cerrito, 2013).

RECOMMENDATION 3: FUND PUBLIC ART ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE THROUGH A 1% ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGETS Appropriate funding levels are critical to the ability of localities to meet their policy goals (Shores & Steinberg, 2022). To that end, and based on the analysis of funding options presented above, the commission should prioritize drafting an ordinance for City Council that implements a 1.0% allocation in the budget of all new capital improvement projects within the City of Murrieta that will be earmarked for the acquisition and maintenance of new works of public art within the city. This type of allocation, which could be considered a Percent-For-Art, is in line with best practices learned from an examination of public art policies around the country and designed to allow for consistent funding while reducing potential political pushback. Further, such funding could allow for maintenance of existing artwork without taking away from other departmental budgets, a component of many public art plans.

While final language for such an ordinance would need to be drafted in consultation with City Attorney, Tiffany Israel, the research team has included a sample of Percent-For-Art ordinances, largely focused on capital improvement project funding, that have been compiled by the organization Americans for the Arts (2004) as Appendix D. 46 CONCLUSION
This report sought to provide an initial set of recommendations for the City of Murrieta to develop a policy that will guide the creation of public art within its borders. It first explored what the city stands to gain by the implementation of such a policy and laid out a multipronged research methodology. Through the data collection process, which involved interviews with stakeholders and best practice research via literature reviews and analysis of existing policies, the research team developed an initial list of three recommendations for the city to pursue.

Since Murietta does not have a policy in place yet, initial infrastructure requires collaboration among administrative networks and proper funding. The team’s analysis of more than 40 cases of arts and culture policies across the U.S. indicate that strength in policymaking stems from a proper structure tied to leadership and collaborative work on a common goal (Hill & Lynn, 2015). To that end, recommendations began with the introduction of a structure via a public art commission that would be responsible for the creation and implementation of a city-wide public art policy and continued with suggestions for both policy components as well as a funding mechanism. 47 48

REFERENCES
Allan, C., Grimes, A., & Kerr, S., (2013) Value and culture. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.

Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). “Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review.” Sciedu Press (3)1. https://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/elr/article/view/4081 Americans for the Arts. (2004). Percent for art examples. National Arts Administration and Policy Publication Database.
https://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/Percent%20for%20art% 20Examples_0.pdf
Arts Orange County. (2016). Mission Viejo cultural arts master plan. [PDF] https://cityofmissionviejo.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Arts%20Master%20 Plan%20final.PDF
ArtsMarket Inc. (n.d.). The culture of Oregon. https://culturaltrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/culture_development_summary.pdf Bahng, G., Musso, J., & Kingsley Vertenten, D. (Eds.). (2023) Collaborative policy research:

Handbook of experiential client-facing research (preliminary edition). Cognella, Inc.

Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E., (2020) A practice guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving (6th Ed.) SAGE Publishing.

Bianchi C, Nasi G, Rivenbark WC. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public management review. 23(11):1581-1589. doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777
B.R. Howard & Associates, Inc. (2019, February 7). How to use public art to boost tourism.

B.R. Howard Art Conservation and Restoration. https://www.brhoward.com/newblog/how-to-use-public-art-to-boost-tourism Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bressi, T. & McKinley, M. (2018, January 22). Lewisville public art master plan. https://www.cityoflewisville.com/home/showpublisheddocument/13672/636554 297246130000
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. 15(3), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Bryson, J. (2004). “What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques.” Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 6(1). doi:

10.1080/147190304100016757
49 California Arts Council (n.d.). Why the Arts? Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://arts.ca.gov/learning-center/why-the-arts/
California Planning & Development Report. (2015). Oakland businesses take issue with public art fee 30(8), 3. https://go-galecom.libproxy1.usc.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITBC&u=usocal_main&id=GALE|A428926476&v=

2.1&it=r
Candid. (2022). Directory of Charities and Nonprofit Organizations. GuideStar by Candid. https://www.guidestar.org/NonprofitDirectory.aspx?cat=
Cattermole, J. (2018). Dunedin’s arts and culture strategy: A case study of the challenges of participatory governance in New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration = Ya Tai Gong Gong Xing Zheng Xue, 40(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2018.1435006
Caust, J. (2019). The continuing saga around arts funding and the cultural wars in Australia.

International Journal of Cultural Policy : CP, 25(6), 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1353604
Cheung, M., Smith, N., & Craven, O. (2021). The Impacts of Public Art on Cities, Places and People’s Lives. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 52(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1942361
Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs. (n.d.). Chicago public art plan. https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dca/yopa/publicartplan17.pdf City of Alexandria. (n.d.). An implementation plan for Alexandria’s public art policy. https://media.alexandriava.gov/docs-archives/recreation/arts/paip-final.pdf City of Atlanta (2001). Public arts master plan. https://www.ocaatlanta.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/Atlantas-Public-Art-Master-Plan.pdf The City of Brentwood. (n.d.). Public art program guidelines. https://brentwoodca.prod.govaccess.org/home/showdocument?id=2960&t=63779 5039454000000
City of Burlington. (2022). Burlington arts in public places policy. https://www.burlingtoncityarts.org/sites/default/files/2022- 10/Art%20in%20Public%20Places%20Guidelines%20FINAL%209.12.22%20%28 2%29.pdf
City of Boulder. (2018). City of Boulder public art policy. https://boulderarts.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Final-Public-Art-Policy-3.16.18.pdf City of Carlsbad. (2015, March). Public art.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/cultural-arts/public-art 50 The City of El Cerrito. (n.d.). Arts & culture commission. https://www.elcerrito.org/649/Arts-Culture-Commission The City of El Cerrito. (2013.). City of El Cerrito arts and culture master plan. https://www.elcerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/3188/MasterPlan_adopted?bidId= City of Golden. (2022.). Art in Public Places Handbook. https://www.cityofgolden.net/media/PublicArtHandbook.pdf City of Los Angeles. (n.d.). Department of Cultural Affairs. https://culturela.org/ City of Kirkland. (2021). City of Kirkland public art policy guidelines. City of Kirkland, Washington. https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/boards-andcommissions/kcac/public-art-guidelines/final-2021-public-art-policy-guidelinesproposed-adopted-072021.pdf City of Minneapolis. (2007). Public arts policies and procedures. https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2- documents/business/Comprehensive-public-art-policies-wcms1p-087293.pdf City of Murrieta. (n.d.a). Adopted citywide budget summary documents. https://www.murrietaca.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/765 City of Murrieta. (n.d.b). City council. https://www.murrietaca.gov/377/City-Council City of Murrieta. (n.d.c). City manager’s office. https://www.murrietaca.gov/344/CityManagers-Office City of Murrieta. (n.d.d). Murrieta general plan 2035 implementation plan. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4368/14--- Implementation-Planpdf
City of Murrieta. (n.d.e). Parks and recreation. https://www.murrietaca.gov/795/ParksRecreation City of Murrieta. (n.d.f). Economic development.
https://www.murrietaca.gov/1221/Economic-Development-Staff City of Murrieta. (n.d.g). Development services.
.https://www.murrietaca.gov/746/Development-Services
City of Murrieta. (n.d.h). Organizational charts
https://www.murrietaca.gov/763/Organizational-Charts
City of Murrieta. (2023). Census bureau report over 100k. 51 City of Murrieta. (2017). Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Year 2018-2019 to Fiscal Year 2022-2023. https://www.murrietaca.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/75 City of Murrieta. (2018). 2018 economic development strategic plan. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/262/EconomicDevelopment-Strategic-Plan-PDF City of Murrieta. (2018) Measure T https://votersedge.org/ca/en/election/2018-11- 06/riverside-county/city-of-murrieta/measure/measure-t
City of Murrieta. (2021, June 30). Fiscal year 2020/21 citywide accomplishments. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6019/FY-202021- Accomplishments?bidI
City of Murrieta. (2018) 2022 legislative
platform https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6878/AdoptedCity-of-Murrieta-2022-Legislative-Platform?bidId= City of Oceanside. (2019, February 6). O’Arts plan.
https://issuu.com/oceansidepubliclibrary/docs/oarts_plan_final_bleeds_3 City of Oceanside. (n.d.a). Arts commission.
https://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/services/comms/ac.asp
City of Oceanside. (n.d.b). Arts commission workplan. [PDF]. https://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=58357 City of Raleigh North Carolina (n.d.). Public art policy. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.cor e.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR24/PAPolicy.pdf
City of Richmond. (n.d.). Public art policies and procedures. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/58313/53-21-CC-resoPublic-Art-Policies-and-Procedures---CONFORMED---Adopted-5-4-2021docx City of San Diego. (2004, March). Public art plan.
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/artsculture/pdf/pubartmasterplan.pdf Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.) 45 CFR 46.104—Exempt research. National Archives. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpartA/section-46.104 Cohen, R. (n.d.). Public art requirements. https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/public-artrequirements/ 52 Colwell. (2017). Arts Policies and Their Local Importance. In Policy and the Political Life of Music Education. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190246143.003.0003 Consensus building. (2023). PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/tag/consensus-building/ Courage, C. (2017). Arts in place: The arts, the urban and social practice. https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104 3398759503731
Dadayan, L. (2022). State tax revenues still strong, but for how long? The Urban Institute/The Tax Policy Center. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022- 08/STER_2022Q1.pdf
DeJonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L. M. (2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057 Denhardt, R.B. Denhardt, J.V., Aristigueta, M.P., Rawlings, K.C. (2020). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations (5th Ed). Sage Publications.

Department of Art & Cultural Affairs & the Kingston Arts Commission. (n.d.). Art in public policy. https://www.kingston-ny.gov/filestorage/11648/Art_In_Public_Policy.pdf Doberstein. (2016). Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a “Collaborative Advantage.” Public Management Review, 18(6), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1045019
Downtown Murrieta Merchant and Property Owners Association. (n.d.). Downtown Murrieta 365. https://www.downtownmurrieta395.com/
Easterlin, R. A. (2013). Happiness, growth, and public policy. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00505.x
Etzioni, A. (2008). The unique methodology of policy research. In Goodin, R.E., Moran, M., & Rein, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 833-843). Oxford University Press. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2341152 Feder, T. (2020). Normative justification for public arts funding: what can we learn from linking arts consumption and arts policy in Israel? Socio-Economic Review, 18(1), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwy001
Finkler et al. (2020). Financial management for public health, and not-for-profit organizations. (6th Edition). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall 53 Frumkin, P. (2010). The Essence of Strategic Giving: A Practical Guide for Donors and Fundraisers (pp.51-171). University of Chicago Press.

Gail M. Goldman Associates. (2016, February). Carlsbad arts vision. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1094/63743064056 1270000
Gray, C. (2010). Analysing cultural policy: Incorrigibly plural or ontologically incompatible? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630902935160
Grodach, C. (2010). Art spaces, public space, and the link to community development, Community Development Journal, Volume 45, Issue 4, October 2010, Pages 474–493, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsp018
Gilfillan, E., & Morrow, G. (2018). Sustaining artistic practices post George Brandis’s controversial Australia Council arts funding changes: cultural policy and visual artists’ careers in Australia. International Journal of Cultural Policy : CP, 24(2), 186– 204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2016.1153083
Hammer, D., & and Wildavsky, A. (1993). The open-ended, semi-structured interview: An (almost) operational guide. In A. Wildavsky (Ed.), Craftways: on the organization of scholarly work (pp. 57-101). Transaction Publishers.

Hardy, L. J. (2023). Community engagement through collaborative writing: Storytelling together. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003171690 Harrell, M., & Bradley, M. (2009). Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. RAND.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_T R718.pdf
Harsell, D. M. (2013). My taxes paid for that?! Or why the past is prologue for public arts funding. PS, Political Science & Politics, 46(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512001266
Hill, C. J., & Lynn, L. E. (2015). Public management: Thinking and acting in three dimensions.

CQ Press.

Holden, J. (2009). How we value arts and culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Arts & Cultural Management, 6(2), 447–456.

Holloway I., & Todres L. (2003). The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 345–357. doi:10.1177/1468794103033004 54 Houston, TX. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

State of Texas - Texas Commission on the Arts. (2012). Cultural Districts Program.

Texas Commission on the Arts. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://www.arts.texas.gov/initiatives/cultural-districts/ Huang, T., Cawley, J. H., Ashe, M., Costa, S. A., Frerichs, L. M., Zwicker, L., Rivera, J. A., Levy, D., Hammond, R. A., Lambert, E. V., & Kumanyika, S. K. (2015). Mobilisation of public support for policy actions to prevent obesity. The Lancet (British Edition), 385(9985), 2422–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61743-8 Ingram, L., Hussey, J., Tigani, M., & Hemmelgarn, M. (n.d.). Writing A literature review and using a synthesis matrix. NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service.

Jacobsmeier, M., (2021). Public opinion on government funding of the arts in the United States: demographic and political factors. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27(4), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2020.1801658 Jackson, M.-R., Herranz, J., & Kabwasa-Green, F. (2003). Art and culture in communities: A framework for measurement: (717562011-001) [Data set]. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/e717562011-001
Jegere, S. and Zemite, I. (2018). “The role of stakeholders in cultural enterprise management.” Management Studies, David Publishing, 6(5), 2520258.

10.17265/2328-2185/2018.04.002
Jones, T. (2015). Fees and firms: an empirical examination of the relationship between development impact fees and firms. Atlantic Economic Journal, 43(2), 261– 269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-015-9453-7
Kallio H., Pietilä A.M., Johnson M., & Kangasniemi M. (2016) Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965. doi:10.1111/jan.13031 Khan, S., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.1.334 Kind, J. M., Baayen, J. H., & Botzen, W. J. W. (2018). Benefits and limitations of real options analysis for the practice of river flood risk management. Water Resources Research, 54(4), 3018–3036. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022402
Klievink, Bharosa, N., & Tan, Y.-H. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.002
55 Kasimoglu, M. (2012). Strategies for tourism industry: Micro and macro perspectives. BoD – Books on Demand.

Kelly, J.M., & Rivenbark, W.C. (2011). Performance budgeting for state and local government (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4324/9781315701813 King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Cassell C., Symon G. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 257– 270). Sage.

Kovacs, J. F. (n.d.). The cultural turn in municipal planning [Ph.D., University of Waterloo (Canada)]. Proquest.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/305148451/abstract/D0FCE507575342DCP Q/8
Kuti, E., & Marschall, M. (1992). Cultural goods and their positive externalities. World Futures, 33(1–3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.1992.9972280 Lehtinen, J., Aaltonen, K., & Rajala, R. (2019). Stakeholder management in complex product systems: Practices and rationales for engagement and disengagement.

Industrial Marketing Management, 79, 58–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.011
Lewis, G. & Brooks, A. C. (2005). A question of morality: artists’ values and public funding for the arts. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00426.x
Livermore California. (2016). Art in public places program: Policy & procedures manual. https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1653/6372308123 28930000
Loh, C., Ashley, A., Durham, L., & Bubb, K. (2022). Our diversity is our strength: Explaining variation in diversity, equity, and inclusion emphasis in municipal arts and cultural plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 88(2), 195–202.

Luo, N., Rahinah, I., & Abideen, S. (2022). Transformation of children’s paintings into public art to improve public spaces and enhance people’s happiness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24). https://mdpires.com/ijerph/ijerph-19-16780/article_deploy/ijerph-19- 16780.pdf?version=1671007160
Macon Arts Alliance. (2020). Mill Hill: East Macon Arts Village. Macon Arts Alliance. https://www.maconartsalliance.org/millhilloverview/
Madison, J. (1787). The Federalist No. 10. The Federalist Papers. New York, Bantam. 56 Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Arts and culture in urban or regional planning: A review and research agenda. SAGE Publications, 29(3), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X09354380
Martins, J. (2023). What is Stakeholder Analysis and Why is it Important? [2023] • Asana.

Asana. https://asana.com/resources/project-stakeholder
Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in Government Boards and Commissions. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/977064 Modica, L. (2006). Percent-for-art in Florida (circa 2006). Public Art Review, 18(1), 57–59.

Murrieta Arts Council. (n.d.) MAC: Arts council. Enriching our communities. Valleys to vineyards. https://www.macarts.org/
Murrieta Valley Unified School District. (2023, January 8). Mission and vision. https://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/
Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.) About us. https://www.murrietachamber.org/about-us/
Musso, J. (2013). Evaluative Criteria (PDF). Sol Price of Public Policy.

Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review. https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_gale_bu sinessinsightsgauss_A325378456
National Endowment for the Arts. (2021, March 30). New report released on the economic impact of the arts and cultural sector. https://www.arts.gov/news/pressreleases/2021/new-report-released-economic-impact-arts-and-cultural-sector Nauwelaers, C., & Wintjes, R. (2002). Innovating SMEs and regions: the need for policy intelligence and interactive policies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 201–215.

Nelson, A. (2017). Impact fees : Principles and practice of proportionate-share development fees. (First edition.). Taylor and Francis.

Newcomer, K., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Handbook of practical program evaluation (Fourth ed.). Josey-Bass https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386 Nunes, A.L.D.P.,& Travisi, C. M. (2009). Comparing tax and tax reallocation payments in financing rail noise Abatement programmes: Results from a stated choice valuation study in Italy. Environmental & Resource Economics, 43(4), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9243-7
57 Office for the Protection of Research Subjects. (n.d.). Exempt level of review. University of Southern California. https://oprs.usc.edu/irb/exempt-level-of-review/ Owen, R., Macnaughten, P., Silgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy. 39(6): 751-760 https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
Pantic, V. (2021, June 11). What is placemaking and what are examples of it? CitizenLab’s Blog. https://www.citizenlab.co/blog/neighborhoods-community-development/5- examples-of-placemaking-in-community-engagement/
Pitman, P. (n.d.). Research methods, part II: Policy options analysis. Center for Homeland Defense and Security.
https://www.chds.us/coursefiles/NS4081/lectures/methods_policy_options_analys is_v02/methods_policy_options_lec_v02.pdf
Polat, B., & Gökçen, S. (2022). Public Art and Percent for Art Strategy. Prostor (Zagreb, Croatia), 30(2(64)), 188–199.

Project for Public Spaces (2012). Placemaking and the future of cities. https://assetsglobal.websitefiles.com/5810e16fbe876cec6bcbd86e/59f1fb530aad1d00010a6186_PPSPlacemaking-and-the-Future-of-Cities.pdf Pugh, S. (1981) Concept selection: a method that works. Proceeding of the international conference on engineering design, pp. 497-506
Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Georgetown University Press.

Richard Bland College Library. (n.d.). Libguides: Writing & citation guide: The C.R.A.A.P test (how to vet your sources). https://libguides.rbc.edu/c.php?g=484846&p=3320444 Richards, G., & Duif, L. (2018). Small Cities with Big Dreams: Creative Placemaking and Branding Strategies (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doiorg.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4324/9781351201193 Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z Sharifi, A., & Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R. (2020, December). The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. The Science of the Total Environment, 749, 142391–142391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142391
58 Sherman, A., & Morrissey, C. (2017). What Is Art Good For? The Socio-Epistemic Value of Art. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11, 411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00411
Shores, K., & Steinberg, M. P. (2022). Fiscal federalism and K–12 education funding: Policy lessons from two educational crises. Educational Researcher, 51(8), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221125764
Slaba, M. (2014, September). Stakeholder power-interest matrix and stakeholderresponsibility matrix in corporate responsibility.

Smith, Z. (2017) “Public art in municipal administration.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 47:1, 77-81, DOI: 10.1080/10632921.2016.1241969 Smith, L. W. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a pivotal practice of successful projects. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work: Powerful ways to build consensus, solve problems, and make decisions. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Strom, E. (2003). Cultural policy as development policy: Evidence from the United States.

International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/1028663032000161687
Sunnyvale. (2020, November). Master plan for public art. https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2566/637822524 343430000
Tani, M., Xu, L., and Zhu, Y. (2021, October). The impact of an unfunded inclusive education policy: Evidence from the 2013 China education panel survey. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 190, 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.08.024 Teasdale, R., Strasser, M., Moore, C., and Graham, K. (2023). “Evaluative criteria in pracitce:

Findings from an analysis of evaluations.” Evaluation and Program Planning, 97. doi:
doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102226
Unbound Visual Arts. (n.d.). What is visual art? https://www.unboundvisualarts.org/whatis-visual-art/ United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). U.S. Census Bureau: Murrieta city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/murrietacitycalifornia United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). U.S. Census Bureau: Oceanside city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/oceansidecitycalifornia 59 University of Michigan. (2014, January 22). Placemaking rises as economic development tool. Targeted News Service. https://news.umich.edu/placemaking-rises-aseconomic-development-tool/ Weimer, D., & Vining, A. R. (2009). Investing in the disadvantaged: assessing the benefits and costs of social policies. Georgetown University Press.

Wieble, C, (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis:

Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy (PDF).

JPART 17(1).

Williams, B.N., & Duckett, B. (2020). At the juncture of administrative evil and administrative racism: The obstacles and opportunities for public administrators in the United States to uphold civil rights in the 21st century. Public Administration Review. doi:10.1111/puar.13279.

Wright, B.E., Moynihan, D.P., & Pandley, S.K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review 72(2), 206-215.

Yang, K. & Miller, G. (2008). Handbook of research methods in public administration (2nd ed.). CRC Press.

York, A., Kane, K., Clark, C. M., Gentile, L. E., Wutich, A., & Harlan, S. L. (2017). What determines public support for graduated development impact fees? State & Local Government Review, 49(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X17716745 Zabala, I. (2022). Stakeholder analysis using the power interest grid.

ProjectManagement.com
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/wiki.cfm?ID=368897&thisPa geURL=/wikis/368897/Stakeholder-Analysis--using-the-Power-Interest-Grid#_=_ Zitcer, A., & Almanzer, S. (2020). Public art, cultural representation, and the just city.

Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(7), 998-1013. https://www-tandfonlinecom.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1080/07352166.2019.1601019?needAccess=tru e
60 61

APPENDIX A - INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Foundational Questions

1. Confirmation of recording consent

2. What do you want to see in an arts and culture policy in Murrieta?

3. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to implementing such a policy?

4. Is there anyone else you recommend we contact (note: we may not be able to talk with them due to time constraints, but we would want to make a note of who should be involved)

DAVID CHANTARANGSU, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Development Services
Phone: 951-461-6002 | [email protected]

1. What do you want to see in an arts and culture policy in Murrieta?

2. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to implementing such a policy?

3. Is there anyone else you recommend we contact (note: we may not be able to talk with them due to time constraints, but we would want to make a note of who should be involved)

4. What are Murrieta’s priorities for residential and shopping areas and how do you think an arts and culture policy can support those priorities?

5. Many cities fund their public art program through the imposition of a development fee related to capital improvement projects over a certain value, often between .5% and 1.5% of the total project cost. Do you think that such a fee would be effective in Murrieta and, if so, what level do you think would be realistic?

SCOTT AGAJANIAN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Economic Development
Phone: 951-461-6003 | [email protected]

1. What do you want to see in an arts and culture policy in Murrieta?

2. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to implementing such a policy?

3. Is there anyone else you recommend we contact (note: we may not be able to talk with them due to time constraints, but we would want to make a note of who should be involved)

4. Many cities fund their public art program through the imposition of a development fee related to capital improvement projects over a certain value, often between .5% and 1.5% of the total project cost. Do you think that such a fee would be effective in Murrieta and, if so, what level do you think would be realistic? 62 5. Our understanding is that Murrieta is a fairly young city with a growing veterans’ population and young families population. Do you believe that these are the target demographics for economic development policies and, if not, who do you consider the most important targets for economic development?

6. Do you believe an arts and culture policy can support economic development in Murrieta?

7. What sort of inducements do you think would be effective for getting the Murrieta business community to contribute to a public art and culture policy?

8. What positive or negative externalities do you foresee in an arts and culture policy?

BRIAN AMBROSE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
Parks & Recreation, Library Services, Homeless Services Phone: 951-461-6114 | [email protected]

1. What do you want to see in an arts and culture policy in Murrieta?

2. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to implementing such a policy?

3. Is there anyone else you recommend we contact (note: we may not be able to talk with them due to time constraints, but we would want to make a note of who should be involved)

4. What elements or challenges need to be considered when utilizing public spaces such as parks for events?

5. How involved is the library system with community services related to arts and culture?

6. Recently cities are invested in placemaking and creating public spaces that serve an aesthetic and functional role. Are there any policies already in place for placemaking in Murrieta?

7. What city owned properties do you think could most benefit from public art?

STEFFANY JOHNSON AND CASEY JURADO, MURRIETA ARTS COUNCIL (MAC) Murrieta Arts Council
https://www.macarts.org | [email protected] | [email protected]

1. What do you want to see in an arts and culture policy in Murrieta?

2. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to implementing such a policy?

3. Is there anyone else you recommend we contact (note: we may not be able to talk with them due to time constraints, but we would want to make a note of who should be involved)

4. What do you think makes Murrieta unique in the arts and culture world? 63 5. Is there an artistic style that you believe is representative of Murrieta?

6. Who are the most active contributors to Murrieta’s art and culture scene?

MONICA GUITERREZ, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, AND PAUL DIFFLEY,

BOARD MEMBER - MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (MVUSD) MVUSD: https://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/
[email protected]

1. What would you like to see in an arts and culture policy in Murrieta?

2. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to implementing such a policy?

3. Is there anyone else you recommend we contact?

PATRICK ELLIS, CEO AND PRESIDENT
Explore Murrieta and Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce https://exploremurrieta.com/ | [email protected]

1. What do you want to see in an arts and culture policy in Murrieta? (from both Explore Murrieta and Chamber?)

2. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to implementing such a policy?

3. Is there anyone else you recommend we contact (note: we may not be able to talk with them due to time constraints, but we would want to make a note of who should be involved)

4. How involved is Explore Murrieta in promoting local artists and culture in Murrieta?

5. How would you describe the culture of Murrieta?

6. What types of investors and tourists does Murrieta attract?

7. What’s something you would like to promote to visitors from an arts and culture perspective?
64 APPENDIX B - INTERVIEW NOTES

DAVID CHATARANGSU, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR - INTERVIEW CONDUCTED FEBRUARY 16, 2023
Background
- Area of expertise = development
- Cities that have it = designate an area, 0.5-1% fee collected by city looking for profit - State law – public hearing process: developers hate it b/c they don’t want to pay any more fees; legal challenge: building industry but city won - Developing art pieces within the community; not entirely sure on the scope of arts and culture
- If I were to start from scratch, I would focus on downtown where we hope to get more pedestrian activity in the future; next to civic center is amphitheater (can hold 200-3000 people); art pieces/ monuments to events like veterans, firefighters and allowing civic organizations to use that area
- Downtown: marketplace happens every Thursday
- Area that becomes the town’s “living room”
- There are places where public art can be installed
- On street parking that we could convert
- Properties would be public parks, streets where installation of public art is located; there is room in downtown to support these pieces
Other things to think about
- Larger commercial projects have clauses – in lieu of paying a commission fee, they would install their own art pieces
- Developers have some obligation on property fees
- Protection for artists? – no public program now
- Downtown merchant’s association wants a mural on side of building that depicts small town life
- When something is required on public property, we’re required to maintain the piece
- Pieces designed to be vandal-proof (ie. heavy steel pieces; concrete, kidproof) skateboarders might be around, etc - Engagement
- Plaza is around the amphitheater
- Going through an evaluation process to determine city land life – do we sell pieces of it off and allow private development? But there are public gathering pieces and as development happens in downtown, have to consider public spaces – factor in space for public art
- Be mindful of developers!!
65 Other
- David will send aerial shot later
- How can we help you?
- Impact fee – keep David’s team posted b/c there are things we have to do as state law requirements
- Might need a City council workshop
- Parameters to consider
- Additional meetings how to package it and get in front of city council - Check back in with David to see where they are
- Team: going to have to think about the next steps process - Development fee vs. impact fee?
Anyone else to contact?
- Someone who represents the downtown area
- Community Services Director - Brian Ambrose
- Bob Moehling - oversees city streets maintenance, engaged with mobility making sure it’s not blocking view when people are during etc
- Individual Homeowners associations groups, located in different areas of the city - Chamber of Commerce
- Rotary Group (services organization)
Development fee question - Chantarangsu
- 1% is common, other cities determine 0.5% is appropriate - Other projects, developers have the option to pay the fee, or commission to recruit the artists – like an art selection committee
- Higher than 1% is difficult to spend the money – 1% is more than enough - Not a lot of spaces to display public art
- Downtown area has over 600(?) acres
- A lot of space undeveloped so a lot of opportunity to create public art spaces - Look at downtown and consider where can public art be - Not every place is good for public art – ie. public highway - Add character to the street; place art in a nice way to identify a major street - Parks is easy because the city owns the land
- Private areas is more difficult b/c they may not want to have art property/ any added expenses
- Practical level, 0.5% is good – typically pegged to value - Value can sometimes be subjective metric
- Table evaluation table published by ICC building trades – look into that 66 - Developer and property owners hate any kind of fee - Is $100,000 reasonable?
- Get a lot of squawking at $100,000
- Housing affordability is an issue – housing wouldn’t like having $100,000 to public art
- Development activity
- Quite slammed right now – Working on 14,000 housing units and 4 million square feet of office commercial projects
- Never able to spend that amount of money in a small amount of time - Might need a sensitivity analysis using different amounts to show if you use this amount to do this, in a year, etc.

SCOTT AGAJANIAN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR - INTERVIEW CONDUCTED FEBRUARY 22, 2023 (DOMINIQUE SAMARIO ALSO PRESENT FOR THE INTERVIEW.)
First thoughts:
- Our code is our obstacle
- Murrieta has great locations – worked on campus for a 460 acre hot spring area - Great assets, but nothing to tie the city together
- MAC - focus on arts murals, but we don’t have the capability to make it into tourism - Goal = bring growth, spending, jobs
- Ties into education, arts, culture
- Community that has the right environment is the one where people go to - We have great public safety, but haven’t touched on arts yet - Similar to Temecula
- Hard to tell where the borders end, but Temecula tends to be a little more artsy
How can we define art from economic development?
- Tourism perspective
- Art is a means of community and tourism
- Looking for components of the community, that bring people together and will appreciate it
- Not a provocative arts city, it’s a communal arts city - Murrieta will start a foundation–more conservative, and then branch out (Dominique)
- Mural tour is a nice concept, that gives people an opportunity to see - But sculptures built into the community is also good
67 Target populations – got a lot of families
- A lot of students, have students transferring into this district - 36-38 age avg median
- Senior communities – average age is 80 (in gated community) - Where old people go to visit their parents
- Not a place to retire, but more so a place to raise a family - A lot of military families, but version of retirement is different – might market veteran families more so than senior community (Dominique) - Murrieta started as a commuter hub, extremely caucasian. Has started to diversify over the years
- 27% hispanics, 10% asian
- Youngish community with some old pockets, wealthy affluent community - High incomes, a lot of families
- Growing our business base so people don’t have to commute out for work - Opportunity for higher educated workforce
Finance related
- Incentives
- In line with Development services
- Another fee, council would be demure to that
- People wouldn’t want a tax
- 3% tax on hotel stays → funding might help
- ARPA funding - Riverside county will give us 2.6 million to invest in innovation - Shop local program
- Affordable housing
- Innovation center
- Also getting funding from rescue services
- Council not going to like taxes – how about fees?
- Politically leans far to the right
- Will be scared of any additional costs
- We can always propose
- In 2018 - Murrieta passed measure T, to increase sales tax - Will there be pushback to put a tax on citizens?
- Running police and fire is expensive (60%)
- Measure T is a risk – if you don’t get it, you’re in trouble - Opening another sales tax would be risky – people would question - Dominique – consider funding outside Measure T
- Community magazine funded out of Measure T
68 - Measure T is for quality of life – if you can justify the financial gains, increased house prices, that might be more feasible
- But before we do it, we would have to run an economic impact statement to know what are we going to get out of it
- We would need a data study to know what the funding would cover - Neighboring cities – sometimes fall prey into Menifee or Temecula, - Like to be cared to Temecula
- Philanthropic landscape?
- There’s a lot of wealth in the region but not enough reinvestment back into the region
- Opportunity for investment, but it’s a real teeth pulling experience - Venture capital
- Example: Lawyer from OC - currently invest in startups in OC – just direct funds to their work in. So people might be investing where they work - Example: Medical center added an additional building through philanthropic – good test is how long it will take to raise their funds Anyone else to contact
- MAC
- Explore Murrieta (Patrick oversees Explore and Chamber) - Patrick’s branding company
- Abbey Agency? – get them along with Patrick!
What is Murrieta best known for:
- Murrieta hot springs = iconic image of the city
- It’s what the city was always known for
- The actually springs was gated but they’re going to open it - Natural resources
- Hot springs is in the heart of Murrieta – real opportunity for branding and identification, and it has a lot of history (over 120 years old) What’s the goal for us
- Coming at it from an academic point of view – research heavy - Stakeholders, what are our funding options? CBA, Series of next steps, - Everything will help us
- Unbiased consultants
- Want the best practices (Dominique)
69 BRIAN AMBROSE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR - INTERVIEW CONDUCTED FEBRUARY 17, 2023
About Murrieta:
- Murrieta inc. 1991 so a young city
- Incorporated during a housing boom
- 95 was an economic recession, then a building boom, then another recession 2009-2013
- Operated in a residential boom
- Developers care about neighborhoods
- Urban designer – the biggest sin a city will ever face is if you blindfold a person and drop them in the city and they don’t where there are, you failed - No sculptures
- When you create a mural on a wall, need a permit
- We’re at the very beginning to create policy, culture, artwork - Type of artwork
- Are there any constraints? – nude art work?
- We can’t just accept all free artwork
- What’s the community standard?
- Do you have to craft a policy that considers that?
- Brian to send us examples of existing policies
About policy writing
- Writing policy is more art than science
- Foresee every problem before it happens
- Write as broadly as possible but specific
- Never recreate the wheel
- Find all the policies already out there
- 3 components of policy
- Purpose: who what where when
- The policy itself – the general guidelines and rules
- Procedures – how we’re going to implement these guidelines - What is artwork? And how do you incorporate visual arts (probably don't need to consider visual art at this point)
- Criteria – painted
- Landscape that’s specific to murrieta
- History of murrieta
- Landmark of murrieta
- Avoid anything that someone might consider pornography - How do we maintain it?
70 - If an artwork is hung outside city hall, how do we establish a budget to maintain it and who maintains it if it’s vandalized?
- Things to consider when drafting
- Absolutes – avoid “always never” – be broad
- Use words “should” “may” (gives city leeway) → otherwise city is bound to take every art piece
- Points for consideration:
- No to utility art pieces (ie. on electricity poles)
- No to visual art (ie. dance/ music)
- Interested in mainly painting and murals
- How is an artist selected?
- Maybe create a body that would review artwork – what’s the criteria to select
- How often is it done?
- Who picks the locations for the arts?
- Consider any kind of controversies – race
- Is art piece donated or loaned to us?
- Funding = huge issue with the city
- 2 camps
- Brian Ambrose and City Manager
- Other areas that are looking at everything that could possibly go wrong
- Consider how it’s a benefit for the community
- Only a few ways the city can come up with the money
- General fund (haven’t done) – will cost a couple hundred thousands
- Development impact fee – contractor has to pay the fee to pay for future impacts to local govt
- Ie. library, police dept, fire, open space – every house has about 13 thousand dollars in development impact
- Usually around 1%
- But building industries association will not be
happy (lobbying firm)
- City of Carlsbad mandates every capital project – 1%
budget for all projects to go through art
- Mandating or working with arts council to raise funds - Issue: they may do well at first, but then goes away
- Takes a lot of energy to fundraise
- Fundraising – private donors – adds on more expectations 71 Who else to talk with:
- Executive team meeting - Brian is trying to move forward with it - Development directors, city managers
- School district – Has good working relationship with school district - Separate entity
- Maybe draft the policy and then share with them
- Library
Other:
- Logos and names of Murrieta changes every time city manager changes - Carlsbad = good art policies
- Walk around cities, see if you can find murals

STEFFANY JOHNSON AND CASEY JURADO, MURRIETA ARTS COUNCIL (MAC) - INTERVIEW CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2023
WHAT MAC HAS DONE:
- Analyzed 28 local cities + funding mechanisms
- Developed a hybrid
- Goal is to identify what has been successful in other cities that are common to us in demographics and culturally speaking
- Would like to submit their research to us for our analysis purposes - Thankful to be involved in our project
- MAC running for 6.5 years = Longest terms arts council - Had some successes, but not easy b/c not much grant money - Per capita structure income prohibits funds
- City has no allocation of funding for public places
- Trying to help city implement that → cultural district designations, BIA, hotel funds, etc
- Haven’t lobbied on the level they need to
- Received donations from local businesses
- Not as aggressive as they should be in donations → not like Temecula (should model after Temecula)
Funding:
- Philanthropic efforts might be an avenue
- There are several hospitals here and doctors known to contribute 72 Good model = Oceanside:
- A lot of philanthropic contributors are from medical industry and development industry
How we think art should be and what art should be:
- Arts community forums create questions for forum attendees to help identify the style and consistency of art
- MAC would love to be on Arts policy commission
- A lot of cities appoint internal commissioner
- MAC would be happy to serve as the commission to vet art, bring it up to the city council
- City council meetings first and third Tuesdays every week Do you think this can be adopted on the ordinance level? - Understand there’s a political process
- MAC has been trying to get city to get an art policy
- They’ve done this a lot of work on this already
Benefits
- In their research – from universities (ie. UCR), for every dollar that’s put into public art, $32 is put back into commerce within the city
- It’s a worthy investment
- This is a great opportunity for the city
Other about MAC:
- They run 3 nonprofits (Downtown murrieta 395, Night markets (great success), Arts Council – longest run nonprofit organization)
- For decades, city has resisted live music due to decibel rate and past issues on residences vs. commercial and retail property, but finally past that - Now, we’re able to have live music as long as we stay in a decibel rate - Envision branding theme for downtown area
Specific Plan (68 pages)
- March 2017 - 5 community meetings w/ residences, business operations, land owners etc
- MAC attended all meetings
- The plan includes developmental recommendations + nondevelopmental recommendations
- There’s not a lot of infrastructure
73 - 20-30% built out
- Beautification of alleyways, benches, parks; incorporate music - Main Street America seminar – cultural district identification, recognized as a main street opens opportunities for funding
Anyone else to contact:
- Murrieta Rotary club
Other:
- Bring in local artists
- Music festival in June
- City hasn’t quite figured out fees for using amphitheater unless it’s a city event - That’s something that should be woven into consideration in arts policy

MONICA GUITERREZ, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, AND PAUL DIFFLEY,

BOARD MEMBER - MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (MVUSD) What have you found in terms of what people want?
- A lot of people we talked to varies
- There’s a desire for installations of physical arts
- We understand school district is a separate entity, but we think Education has an important voice
Paul
- Taught in high school and community college
- We have a growing visual and art performance program
- Very familiar with physical art
- Noticed in other states (OR, WA, UT): cities of our size who embrace the art, have it all over the city, they have statues, statue groupings in parks, benches for people to sit
What we would like to see:
- (Paul) I’d like to see more community involvement – ie. w/ retirement communities - Transportation to access the arts
- In the past, provide transportation to see ie. football game - Have a terrific music department – all 3 middles schools have bands/ orchestras
- Finished a visitation last week where district showcased all bands, wind ensembles all day, including out of district – show promise in 74 advance music ensembles → believes more of the community would enjoy if they heard it
- Vista Band is nationally competing – known well in the US because of it (in the past, many people didn’t know Murrieta)
- (Paul) I’d like to see art installations
- Been in charge of putting art in 2 levels of district offices (have about 200- 300 pieces of student art), would like to see such art in city hall - Big expo downtown couple of times a year with collaboration w/ music department
Have you engaged with the city on any of these topics?
- We have not
- One year ago, we picked up emphasis on Palm Springs on art policy - Contacted artists in residence program
- Need a full time worker to liaise with the city – attend meetings, people contacted for donations for showing etc – it can be a lot of work - Retired people have worked with Disney, WB, movie studios → potential to get their help
Is there anyone else to contact:
- We have some contacts and can get it to you
Interfacing w/ the city – does the school district interact w/ the existing arts community in Murrieta? Any local individuals?
- Great relationship w/ the city on a lot of fronts
- California Orchestra (based in Temecula) – provide funding with MAC - Horizons Unlimited - programming for elementary
- Won California Bell award
- Reaches out to local artists
- Spoken word
- Hip hop dancer from Temecula
- Russian ballet company
- 2nd grade program – ballroom dancing (Temecula ballroom dance) - Taught to every 2nd grade class in district w/ recital - Can give us a list of all the different artists
- Carol previously engaged w/ arts organizations.
- Carol Hernandez = retired, one of the heads of the arts foundation, was very passionate that we become an arts district
75 Other: Communication is important
- Reaching the community as a whole – what other methods can we use to reach the whole community?
- Need input from the city in programming
What are the hallmarks of Murrieta?
- Veteran community, inclusion of students
- Hallmark of Murrieta = community
- Special connection w/ fire department
- Considered 2nd safest city in the US
- Art projects that ties us more to the city
- Signal boxes at different intersections
- More sculptures in parks w/ explanatory signs
- PTA Reflections - CA Art contest
- Sculptures, video, choreography
- Student art work
- A lot of field trips to the center of city, so having student art work displayed is nice – symbolic of who we are
- Famous local artists: Olivia Reodrigo,
- Having the city recognize that or honor that through a monument is nice

PATRICK ELLIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF MURRIETA/ WILDOMAR CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE
Have you had any sort of previous efforts/ collaborations with other groups? - Yes
- Chamber
- Destination marketing – Explore Murrieta
- Ran large music festival at town square (up until COVID) - Art in public places + part of community aspect
In your perfect world from tourism/ economics - what are the ideal components of a policy?
- There’s nothing in place now, so there has to be a good vetted process established - In the past, saw beneficial to a city is the idea around arts commission that is technically a true city commission
- Opportunity to vet out all ideas
- Have perspectives from community
76 - Art in public places, cultural events – do you have an opinion how you view priorities between the two?
- I think they’re 2 different lanes, but not one has a higher priority over the other
- Arts commission can help more for an art in public places Obstacles:
- There is no policy in place so there is no discussion whatsoever Funding
- It will depend on a percent or increment
- Fee on developers
- Taxpayers
- The main ones we saw:
- City funded capital improvements
- Development projects
- Doesn’t foresee issues, almost a standard practice
Big picture: what do you associate Murrieta with?
- “It’s a very good question” I’m sure it’s all over the place - One of the iconic aspects of Murrieta is the sunsetting over the plateau hills, imagery and thoughts of the downtown area
Other stakeholders:
- Gene Wunderlich - has been in the community for a long time, associated with the real estate aspect of the community, huge supporter of Temecula Valley Theater, has a good perspective to add
- School district has very good art programs, had a lady who retired (Carol Hernandez)
77 APPENDIX C - EXISTING PUBLIC ART POLICY MATRIX

PERCENT FOR ART POLICY EXAMPLES
Atlanta, GA
ARTICLE III. WORKS OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES*
__________
*Cross references: Procurement of construction, architect, engineer and land surveying services, § 2-1266 et seq.
__________
Sec. 46-76. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Construction project means any capital project, including but not limited to those paid wholly or in part by the city with voter non-school general obligation bonds, annual general obligation non-school bonds, public grants except where prohibited, park improvement funds, revenue bonds and general funds, for the purpose of constructing or remolding any building, decorative or commemorative structure, park, street, sidewalk, parking facility or utility or any portion thereof within the city.

Eligible funds means funds which pay for actual construction costs. This excludes funds which pay for engineering, architecture, acquisition, land acquisition and interest costs, as well as any incidental costs not associated with construction. Further, it refers only to that portion of public funds, which come from sources other than general obligation school bonds, private grants (except where expressly stated in the conditions of the grant itself) and assessment programs.

Municipal art account means the account within each eligible fund in which one and one-half percent of all eligible funds for construction projects are deposited each year, and of which 80 percent shall be expended on the selection, design and development of works of public art, and 20 percent reserved for maintenance of works of public art and arts administration by the bureau of cultural affairs (BCA). BCA shall be the administrator of all municipal arts accounts and have sole expenditure authority on said accounts.

APPENDIX D - SAMPLE PERCENT-FOR-ART ORDINANCES
Municipal art plan means an annual plan developed and administered by the bureau of cultural affairs for the aesthetic enhancement of all capital construction projects paid for by eligible funds in a particular year. (Code 1977, § 10-4005; Ord. No. 2001-55, § 4, 7-24-01)
Cross references: Definitions generally, § 1-2.

Sec. 46-77. Policy.

A policy is established to direct the inclusion of works of art in the public works projects of the city and to place art on municipally owned or rented property.

The city's public art master plan shall guide the development, administration and maintenance of public art in Atlanta.
(Code 1977, § 10-4004; Ord. No. 2001-55, § 3, 7-24-01)
Sec. 46-78. Funds for works of art.

All request for appropriations for construction projects from eligible funds as defined in section 46-76 shall include the encumbrance of an amount equal to one and one-half percent of the estimated cost of such projects for public works of art and shall be accompanied by contractual requirements authorizing the bureau of cultural affairs to expend such funds after the same have been deposited in a municipal arts account. When any such request for construction projects is approved, the appropriation for such construction projects shall be made and shall include an appropriation of funds for works of art, at the rate of one and one-half percent of project costs to be deposited into the municipal arts account as a line item in each fund. Money identified by each bureau, or agency for its public art percentage program shall be expended for payees as prescribed by the municipal arts plan, as provided in section 46-79(2).
(Code 1977, § 10-4006; Ord. No. 2001-55, § 5, 7-24-01)
Sec. 46-79. Authority of bureau of cultural affairs.

To carry out its responsibilities under this article, the bureau of cultural affairs shall:
(1) Prepare for review by the mayor and council, a municipal arts plan which shall outline the expenditure of funds from the municipal arts account(s). Such plan shall include, but not be limited to, the method(s) of commissioning artists, specific locations and expenditures for specific works of art, and maintenance and administration of the public arts program; (2) Cause the municipal arts plan to be an integral part of the office's recommendations with regard to the city's comprehensive development plan and the capital improvement plan;
(3) Bring to the attention of the city council any proposed work of art requiring extraordinary operation or maintenance expenses; (4) Recommend the placement of works of art consistent with section 46- 81;
(5) Make recommendations regarding artist(s) selections without regard to an individual's or the perception of an individual's race, color, creed, religion, sex, domestic relationship status, parental status, familial status, sexual orientation, national origin, gender identity, age, disability, or the use of a trained dog guide by a blind, deaf or otherwise physically disabled person; (6) Make recommendations to the council as to the amount of money required in advance to carry out contracted projects by artist(s); the amount advanced shall not exceed one-third of the total allocable to such artist(s) for the contracted work of art and shall be approved by the council and mayor prior to payment; and
(7) Review prior to final payment all works in order to report on the conformity of the finished work with the approved plans or other document describing the work of art to be carried out.
(8) Approve all expenditures from municipal arts accounts of which 80 percent shall be expended on the design, selection and development of works of public art, and 20 percent shall be expended on maintenance and administration of the public art program.
(9) Develop procedures for implementation of the policy governing the acceptance of gifts of public art to the city and the policy governing the process for the de-accessioning of public art.
(10) Establish guidelines for and recommend the appointment of a public art advisory committee comprised of representatives from the business community, the arts community and the citizens of the city, to advise and assist the bureau of cultural affairs on matters regarding the implementation of public art policies for Atlanta.
(11) Review and approve all capital construction projects for compliance with the percent for art section of the Code of Ordinances, and determine if said percent for art funds shall be utilized on or about a specific project, or pooled with other funds for larger public arts projects located within the city, with the assistance of the public art advisory committee. (Code 1977, § 10-4007; Ord. No. 2000-70, 12-12-00; Ord. No. 2001-55, § 6, 7-24-01)
Sec. 46-80. Placement of art.

Works of art selected and implemented pursuant to this article may be placed in, on or about any city construction project or other city-owned, city-leased or city-rented property. They may be attached or detached within or about such property and may be either temporary or permanent. Placement of works of art shall be authorized by the city council after a report of the mayor or the mayor's designee.
(Code 1977, § 10-4008)
Sec. 46-81. Account and payments.

There is established a special account within each eligible fund designated the "municipal arts account into which funds are appropriated as contemplated by section 46-78 and 46-79 hereof shall be deposited. Each disbursement from such account(s) or from other appropriations for works of arts shall be approved by the bureau of cultural affairs, as authorized by the city council. Twenty percent of each municipal arts account shall be reserved for the administration and maintenance of works of public art by the bureau of cultural affairs.
(Code 1977, § 10-4009; Ord. No. 2001-55, § 7, 7-24-01)
Sec. 46-82. Waiver of article.

This article may be waived by resolution adopted by the city council and approved by the mayor when the construction project covered under this article is not appropriated for works of art.

Charlotte, NC
ARTICLE IX. PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
Sec. 15-231. Title.

This article will be known and may be cited as the Charlotte public art program.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-211), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-232. Purpose and intent.

The city accepts responsibility for expanding the opportunity for its citizens to experience art in public places. The city also recognizes that the inclusion of public art in appropriate capital improvements projects will promote the cultural heritage and artistic development of the city, enhance the city's character and identity, contribute to economic development and tourism, add warmth, dignity, beauty and accessibility to public spaces, and expand the experience and participation of citizens with visual arts. A policy is therefore established to direct that funding for the inclusion of works of art in certain capital improvement projects constructed by the city be allocated through this public art program that supercedes and replaces the joint public art program previously operated by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Art Commission that had been established through resolutions duly adopted by the city and the county.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-212), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-233. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Artist means any professional practitioner in the arts, generally recognized by critics and peers as a professional in the field as evidenced by his/her education, experience and artwork production.

Artwork means original works, produced by an artist pursuant to this article and approved by the public art commission, in a variety of media. Artwork may be permanent, temporary, or functional, may stand alone or be integrated into the architecture or landscaping and should encompass the broadest range of expression, media and materials. Artwork shall not include reproductions of original works of art.

ASC means the Arts and Science Council -- Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Inc., or its affiliated designee approved by the city, which assists in the administration of the public art program described in this article in accordance with an annual contract with the city and the public art commission.

Capital improvement program means the city's program for advance planning of capital development.

Capital improvement project means any capital project paid for wholly or in part by the city for the construction or substantial renovation of any building, facility or open space to which the public is generally invited, including projects in the business corridor program that are funded from the capital improvement program. For purposes of this article, a substantial renovation project is one that has been included in the capital improvement program.

Construction costs means the total amount appropriated for a capital improvement project (including funding from outside sources which permit the acquisition of artwork for the eligible project with such funds) less the actual costs of: (i) real property acquisition, (ii) demolition of existing structures, (iii) environmental remediation, (iv) equipment costs, (v) change orders to Eligible Projects, and (vi) legal, design and accounting fees.

Eligible fund means a source of funds for a capital improvement project from which city expenditures for public art are not prohibited as an object of expenditure.

Eligible project means any capital improvement project with the exception of (i) those projects that have statutory, contractual or other legal restrictions that prohibit expenditures for artwork from all portions of the project funds, and (ii) those art in transit projects that are governed by the guidelines established by the metropolitan transit commission for CATS' capital programs. The city council reserves the right to exclude certain projects from consideration as an eligible project or to limit the percentage of construction costs appropriated for artwork on an eligible project on a case-by-case basis.

Public art account means a specially designated account or accounts established by the city to fund the public art program as set forth in section 15-244.

Public art allocation means the amount of funds identified on a line item in the project budget for an eligible project that shall be allocated to the public art account for use in accordance with this article.

Public art collection means the entirety of artwork in city-owned places that have been acquired by the city through the public art program, and its predecessor program as a result of the public art resolutions of November 23, 1981, and May 10, 1993, which preceded the ordinance from which this article is derived.

Public art commission and Commission mean the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Public Art Commission described in section 15-234.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-213), 5-27-2003)
Cross references: Definitions generally, § 1-2.

Sec. 15-234. Public art commission established; function.

There is hereby established a commission to be known as the public art commission which shall have the powers and duties as set forth in this article in order to oversee and administer a public art program that will ensure the inclusion of artwork in appropriate capital improvement projects for the city to enhance the artistic and cultural development of the city. The public art commission also administers a public art program for the county pursuant to an ordinance duly adopted by the board of county commissioners on December 17, 2002. This reestablishment of the public art commission shall supercede and replace the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Art Commission previously established through resolutions duly adopted by the city and the county.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-214), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-235. Composition; appointment of members.

The public art commission shall be composed of no less than nine and no more than 12 members, three of which will be appointed by the city, three of which will be appointed by the board of county commissioners, and the remainder of which will be appointed by the board of directors of the arts and science council. Two of the members appointed by the city shall be appointed by city council and the mayor shall appoint the other member. The members of the commission shall be appointed as follows:

TABLE INSET:

City
County
ASC
Visual arts or design professionals
3 Representatives of the business sector
1 1
Representatives of the education field
1 1
Representatives of the community
1 1
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-215), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-236. Terms of members; removal, etc.
(a) Members of the public art commission shall serve for three-year terms and may serve a maximum of two consecutive full terms, plus any partial term to which they may have been appointed. Member terms shall be appointed on a staggered basis so that no more than three of the minimum nine appointed seats become vacant at one time.
(b) Any member serving in a position for which the term has expired shall continue to serve until the member's successor in that position is appointed and qualified. Any vacancy in a position shall be filled for the unexpired term. (c) Any member appointed by the city who fails to attend the requisite number of meetings as set out in the boards and commissions attendance policy adopted by the city council shall be automatically removed from the commission. Vacancies resulting from a member's failure to attend the required number of meetings shall be filled as provided in this section. The city clerk will notify the mayor and council if a city-appointed member is absent the requisite number of the meetings, and appointment will be made by the appointing authority to fill that vacancy.
(d) Current members of the previously established Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Art Commission shall serve out their remaining term and upon the expiration of such term, replacement members shall be appointed by the same entity that appointed the retiring member according to the fields designated in section 15-235.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-216), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-237. Compensation of members.

Members of the public art commission shall serve without compensation from the city or any firm, trust, donation or legacy to or on behalf of the city, provided, however, that a member of the commission, or the firm, company or corporation with whom the member is associated, shall not be precluded from receiving compensation from the city under any contract for services rendered which have no relation to the member's duties as a member of the commission.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-217), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-238. Chairman.

The chairman of the public art commission shall be elected by a majority of the members of the commission and shall hold such office for one year or until a successor has been elected and qualified. The chairman may serve as a member of the board of directors of the arts and science council if so elected. (Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-218), 5-27-2003)
arts
Sec. 15-239. Role of arts and science council.

The arts and science council -- Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Inc., is a nonprofit organization that provides services and programs to the city pursuant to an annual agency contract. The public art commission shall utilize the services of the arts and science council to administer the public art program. (Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-219), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-240. Administrative procedures.

The public art commission in conjunction with the city's finance department and the arts and science council shall prepare guidelines and specifications for the administrative procedures that are necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth in this article.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-220), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-241. Consultation with city officers and department staffs.

City officers and staffs of city departments may consult and advise with the public art commission from time to time on matters coming within the scope of this article, and the commission may consult and advise with such city staffs and officers.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-221), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-242. Solicitation of gifts of art and funds.

The public art commission shall have the authority to solicit gifts of art on behalf of the city and to encourage public-spirited citizens to contribute funds, as well as permanent works of art, to the city and thereby help to beautify the city and the public buildings and grounds situated therein. (Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-222), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-243. Powers and duties.
(a) Subject to the provisions of this article, the public art commission shall be responsible for administering the city's public art program with the assistance of arts and science council, including the establishment of policies and guidelines, the designation of appropriate sites for artwork, the determination of an art budget for eligible projects, the selection of artists and commissioning works of art, review of the design, execution and placement of artwork and the removal of artwork from the city collection. (b) The public art commission, with the assistance of arts and science council, shall prepare an annual fiscal year work plan for approval by the city council which shall include at least the following: (i) a description of the artwork completed, obtained or commenced in the previous year; (ii) a description of the capital improvement projects designated for inclusion of public art in the upcoming year and of the funding source; (iii) a budget for the income and expenditures for such projects; and (iv) a general description of the public art plan for the upcoming year. The city council shall have final approval of the annual work plan and budget for the public art program. The annual work plan shall be contingent upon the availability of funds for capital projects.
(c) The public art commission shall work together with the city and the arts and science council to examine all artwork or a design or model of same which are proposed for permanent or longterm placement on city property or are to become the property of the city by purchase, gift or otherwise, except for those works to be placed in a museum or gallery, to determine an appropriate space for the placement of such artwork. In any case in which the city and the commission cannot agree on the location of placement of such works, the city's determination shall be final.
(d) Prior to moving or removing any artwork placed in, on or about city property pursuant to the public art program, the city shall submit such proposed change to the public art commission for a report and recommendation about a new space for the artwork or alternatives to moving it. In any case in which the city and the commission cannot agree on issues related to the relocation or removal of the artwork, the city's determination shall be final. The commission shall not be required to make recommendations regarding the temporary placement of artwork on city property.
(e) To encourage broad community participation in the public art program and to ensure artwork of the highest quality, the public art commission may solicit the participation of community representatives and professionals in the visual arts and design fields as part of the artist and art work selection process for particular public art projects in accordance with the size and complexity of the projects. These advisors may assist the commission in the selection of artists, project oversight and other related purposes, but shall have no vote on matters coming before the public art commission. (f) During the design phase of the artwork, the public art commission shall advise the appropriate city departments through the city manager concerning the maintenance requirements of every artwork, recommend to the responsible department the type, frequency and extent of maintenance required to preserve the quality and value of every artwork, and inspect such maintenance work for the guidance of the city departments concerned. It is the responsibility of the site manager or appropriate department head to provide for the maintenance of artwork in their routine site maintenance program. Any proposed artwork which is determined by the commission or demonstrated by an appropriate city department head to require extraordinary operations or maintenance expense shall be reviewed with the city manager and approved by city council prior to proceeding with the fabrication and construction of the artwork.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-223), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-244. Funds for public artwork.
(a) All allocations of funds for eligible projects shall include an amount equal to one percent of the projected construction costs at the time the project is included in the city's capital improvement program to be used for the selection, acquisition, commissioning and display of artwork. No allocation shall be made for eligible projects with an estimated expenditure of less than the threshold amount for which formal bidding procedures are required pursuant to G.S. 143-129. If the source of funding, applicable law governing any particular eligible project or the expenditure of such funds precludes art as a permissible expenditure, the amount of funds so restricted shall be excluded from the construction costs in determining the amount to be allocated as provided in this section.
(b) The city's finance director shall establish a special fund designated the public art account into which funds appropriated as set out in subsection (a) of this section (the public art allocations) or derived from gifts or donations to the city for public art shall be deposited. For the budget year that the city council appropriates funding for the eligible project and that the eligible project is instituted, the public art allocations shall be deposited into the public art account in accordance with procedures established by the city's finance director.
(c) Monies collected in the public art account shall be budgeted and expended in the same manner as other city revenues and used for projects commissioned pursuant to this article. Each disbursement from such account or from other appropriations for artwork shall be recommended by the public art commission and authorized in accordance with applicable law and accounting principles governing expenditures from the city's budget. Separate accounts shall be established whenever funds are required to be used at a designated capital improvement project.
(d) From the effective date of this section, applications for capital improvement projects to granting authorities shall include amounts for artwork as specified in this section, insofar as permissible by the granting authority. (Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-224), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-245. Uses of funds.

Funds allocated in accordance with this article may be used for the selection, acquisition, purchase, commissioning, fabrication, placement, installation, exhibition or display of artwork. To the extent practical, artist selection should be concurrent with selection of the architect or designer to ensure integration of the artwork into the project architecture. If a particular eligible project is deemed inappropriate for the placement of artwork by the public art commission or by city council, if not otherwise prohibited by law, the funds appropriated for artwork may be used at other more appropriate public sites. (Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-225), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-246. Public art acquisition.

Disbursement of funds from the public art account to pay for artwork acquired pursuant to this article shall be made in accordance with procedures established by the city's finance director, but shall at least include the submission from the public art commission of an accurate and complete invoice resulting from a contract with an artist. The invoice for such artwork may include a commission fee of 15 percent of the cost of the artwork for services rendered in connection with the acquisition and installation of the artwork.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-226), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-247. Ownership of artwork.

All artwork acquired pursuant to this article shall be acquired in the name of the city and title shall vest in the city.
(Ord. No. 2308, § 1(15-227), 5-27-2003)
Sec. 15-248. Decriminalization.

A violation of this article shall not constitute an infraction or misdemeanor punishable under G.S.

King County, WA
Chapter 4.40

FINANCING ART IN COUNTY CONSTRUCTION

PROJECTS
Sections:

4.40.005 Definitions.

4.40.015 Funding, appropriations, opportunities for pooling funds and use of funds.

4.40.025 Inclusion of public art requirements in grants to other agencies.

4.40.110 General obligation bond proceeds.

4.40.120 Harborview Medical Center capital reserves.

4.40.005 Definitions.

Words in this chapter have their ordinary and usual meanings except those defined in this
section, which have, in addition, the following meanings. If there is conflict, the specific definitions in this
section shall presumptively, but not conclusively, prevail.

A. "Acquisition" or "county force acquisition" means the purchase of parcels of land, existing
buildings, and structures, and costs incurred by the county for the appraisals or negotiations in
connection with such a purchase.

B. "Arts and cultural development fund" means the special revenue fund established in K.C.C.

4.08.190 to receive and transfer to the cultural development authority a variety of revenues including, but
not limited to, public art revenues.

C. "Client department" means the county department, division or office responsible for
construction or custodial management of a facility or capital improvement project after construction is
complete.

D. "County force" means work or services performed by county employees.

E. "Cultural development authority" or "authority" means the cultural development authority of
King County established under K.C.C. chapter 2.49.

F. "Equipment and furnishings" means any equipment or furnishings that are portable and of
standard manufacture. "Equipment" does not mean items that are custom designed or that create a new
use for the facility, whether portable or affixed.

G. "Public art fund" means the fund established in K.C.C. 4.08.185.

H. "Public art program" means the county program administered and implemented by the cultural
development authority that includes the works and thinking of artists in the planning, design and
construction of facilities, buildings, infrastructure and public spaces to enhance the physical environment,
mitigate the impacts of county construction projects, and enrich the lives of county residents through
increased opportunities to interact with art. (Ord. 14482 § 57, 2002).

4.40.015 Funding, appropriations, opportunities for pooling funds and use of funds.

A. All capital improvement projects that are publicly accessible and visible, or for which there is a
need for mitigation, shall contribute to the county’s public art program.

1. The amount of the annual appropriation for public art shall be equal to one percent of the
eligible project costs of those capital improvement projects that meet the criteria of public visibility and
accessibility or need for mitigation. For the purposes of calculation, eligible project categories shall include
capital improvement program projects for new construction, reconstruction or remodeling of buildings, parks
and trails, commemorative structures, pedestrian and vehicular bridges, surface water management
projects, wastewater treatment projects, transit facility construction projects and solid waste transfer stations.

2. The following project categories shall be considered ineligible and may be excluded from the
public art program calculation base: roads; airport runways; sewers; and solid waste landfills. This
ineligibility shall not preclude a client department, in cooperation with the cultural development authority,
from proposing a public art project for a road, airport runway, sewer or solid waste landfill project that
presents an opportunity for the inclusion of public art. (King County 6-2004)
FINANCING ART IN COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4.40.015

3. At a minimum, the amount budgeted for public art in a capital improvement project shall be
equal to one percent of the following project elements: conceptual design, design, contracted design,
preliminary engineering, construction, contingency, county force design and project administration and
construction engineering. Costs associated with the predesign phase of the county’s capital planning
projects meeting the above criteria and anticipated to result in construction, shall be included in the
calculation for public art.

4. The following project elements may be excluded from the budget calculation for public art:
acquisition equipment and furnishings; and county force acquisition. Asbestos abatement may also be
excluded from the budget calculation for art when the costs for asbestos abatement have been calculated
and a line item budgeted for asbestos abatement as been established within the project budget.

5. In all cases, where a capital improvement project has a scope of work that includes both eligible
and ineligible project elements and eligible and ineligible project categories, the budget for public art shall be
calculated, at a minimum, in the eligible portions of the project.

B. At the time a capital improvement project is proposed, the client department shall calculate and
include a budgeted line item for public art in each eligible project described in this section. The executive’s
budget representative shall confirm the calculations with the cultural development authority and include the
agreed-upon appropriations for public art in the executive’s proposed budget.

The amounts budgeted for
public art in particular projects may be adjusted to reflect council changes to the county capital improvement
program budget or supplemental budgets. The appropriation for public art shall be transferred to the arts
and cultural development fund and from there to the cultural development authority as soon as the
appropriation is made for the capital improvement project, and as soon as funds are available.

C. The source of the funds shall not affect the calculation for public art for a capital improvement
project unless the conditions under which the revenue is made available prevent its use for artistic purposes.

In this case, the revenue shall be excluded from the eligible project costs on which the one percent
calculation for art is based.

D. A policy is hereby established to direct the pooling of all public art program revenues on a
departmental basis. Interest generated by public art revenues shall not be pooled on a departmental basis.

However, interest from all revenues shall be pooled collectively and used for the purposes established in this
section.

Pooling affords the opportunity to look at the needs of the county as a whole and use the public art
revenues only in those projects that may have the greatest impact on communities or offer the best
opportunities for artist involvement. Pooling on a departmental basis affords the opportunity for the cultural
development authority and client departments to work collaboratively on projects that reflect the missions
and goals of individual departments and to ensure that public art projects are adequately funded. It is not the
executive’s or council’s intent that every capital improvement project which contributes to the public art fund
revenues shall include a public art project. The decision regarding capital improvement projects that will
include a public art project shall be determined jointly by the cultural development authority and the client
department according to the procedures and criteria in this section and K.C.C.

2.46.150.

E. Revenues shall support the following uses:

1. The selection, acquisition and display of works of art, that may be an integral part of the project
or placed in, on or about the project or other public space;

2. Artist fees, design, planning and predesign service contracts and commissions;

3. Expenses for technical assistance provided by either architects or engineers, or both, and to
artists in order to design, document or certify the artwork;

4. Repair and maintenance of public artworks accessioned into the county's public art collection to
the extent permissible under generally accepted accounting principles, grants, contracts and law;

5. Public art program administrative expenses relating to acquiring, developing or maintaining
public art to the extent permissible under generally accepted accounting principles, grants, contracts and
law;

6. Participation by citizens or costs of communicating with and receiving input from citizens,
working with professional artists, introduction of public art to children, and education of the public about the
county’s rich cultural and artistic heritage;

7. Documentation and public education material for the public art program;

8. Liability insurance for artists; and

9. Pilot projects approved by the cultural development authority. (Ord. 14482 § 58, 2002: Ord.
12089 § 9, 1995. Formerly K.C.C. 2.46.070).
(King County 6-2004)

4.40.025 - 4.40.120 REVENUE AND FINANCIAL REGULATIONS

4.40.025 Inclusion of public art requirements in grants to other agencies.

Funds that are
distributed by the county to another agency for eligible capital improvement project with an estimated
construction budget of two hundred fifty thousand dollars or more shall include a requirement for inclusion of
public art. The public art shall be identified by the receiving agency and evaluated by the cultural
development authority during the planning process to assure compliance by the receiving agency. (Ord.
14482 § 59, 2002: Ord. 12089 § 12, 1995. Formerly K.C.C. 2.46.100).

4.40.110 General obligation bond proceeds. In the case of any county construction project that
meets the eligibility criteria for public art established in K.C.C. 4.40.015 that involves the use of general
obligation bond proceeds, the resolution, resolutions, ordinance or ordinances submitted to the voters or the
council shall include an allocation for public art equal to one percent of the eligible project cost. Bond
revenues for public art shall be transferred to the cultural development authority as described in K.C.C.

4.40.015 to the extent consistent with arbitrage requirements and other legal restrictions. Bond revenues for
public art not transferred to the cultural development authority shall be accounted for separately within the
public art fund and managed according to K.C.C. chapter 2.46. (Ord. 14482 § 61, 2002: Ord. 12989 § 15,
1995: Ord. 9538 § 4, 1990: Ord. 9134 § 12, 1989: Ord. 6111 § 8, 1982).

4.40.120 Harborview Medical Center capital reserves. For any public art funds which involve
the use of Harborview Medical Center's capital reserves (Fund 396), amounts for works of art described in
this chapter shall be used for art projects at Harborview Medical Center.

These funds shall be accounted for
separately by the cultural development authority if necessary to comply with this requirement. (Ord. 14482 §
62, 2002: Ord. 12089 § 16, 1995: Ord. 9538 § 5, 1990: Ord. 9134 § 13, 1989).

Los Angeles, CA

91.107.4.6. Arts Development Fee.

91.107.4.6.1. Arts Fee. The owner of a development project for a commercial or industrial building shall be required to pay an arts fee in accordance with the requirements of this section.

91.107.4.6.2. Fee Amount. The Department of Building and Safety shall collect an arts fee in the following amount:

1. Office or research and development. For an office or research and development building, the arts fee shall be $1.57 per square foot.

2. Retail. All retail establishments shall pay an arts fee of $1.31 per square foot.

3. Manufacturing. For a manufacturing building, the arts fee shall be $0.51 per square foot.

4. Warehouse. For a warehouse building, the arts fee shall be $0.39 per square foot.

5. Hotel. For a hotel building, the arts fee shall be $0.52 per square foot.

In no event shall the required arts fee exceed either $1.57 per gross square foot of any structure authorized by the permit or one percent of the valuation of the project designated on the permit, whichever is lower, as determined by the Department of Building and Safety. Where there are combined uses within a development project or portion thereof, the arts fee shall be the sum of the fee requirements of the various uses listed above.

The Cultural Affairs Department shall revise the arts fee annually by an amount equal to the Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles as published by the United States Department of Labor. The revised amount shall be submitted to Council for adoption by ordinance.

91.107.4.6.3. Time of Collection. Except as provided in Section 91.107.4.6, the Department of Building and Safety shall collect an arts fee before issuance of a building permit for commercial and industrial buildings required by this code.

91.107.4.6.4. EXCEPTIONS: The arts fee required by Section 91.107.4.6 shall not be assessed for the following projects or portions thereof:

1. Any project for which the total value of all construction or work for which the permit is issued is $500,000 or less.

2. The repair, renovation or rehabilitation of a building or structure that does not alter the size or occupancy load of the building.

3. The repair, renovation or rehabilitation of a building or structure for the installation of fire sprinklers pursuant to Division 9.

4. The repair, renovation or rehabilitation of a building or structure that has been made to comply with Division 88 (Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings) subsequent to a citation of noncompliance with Division

88. 5. The repair, renovation or rehabilitation of a building or structure for any handicapped facilities pursuant to this code.

6. All residential buildings or portion thereof. This exception does not include hotels.

91.107.4.6.5. Use of Arts Fees Acquired Pursuant to Section 91.107.4.6.

Any arts fee collected by the Department of Building and Safety shall be deposited in the Arts Development Fee Trust Fund. Any fee paid into this fund may be used only for the purpose of providing cultural and artistic facilities, services and community amenities which will be available to the development project and its future employees. Any cultural and artistic facilities, services and community amenities provided shall comply with the principles and standards set forth in the Cultural Master Plan when adopted.

At or about the time of collection of any fee imposed by this section, the Cultural Affairs Department shall identify the use to which the arts fee is to be put, and if the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified.

91.107.4.6.6. Projects Covered by Ordinance 164,243. (Ord. No. 173,300, Eff. 6/30/00, Oper. 7/1/00.) In 1988, the City enacted Ordinance 164,243 which states in part:
“This ordinance is an interim measure while the City of Los Angeles is giving consideration to the enactment of an Arts Development Fee Ordinance. The owners of a development project shall be obligated to pay an Arts Development Fee if such fee is adopted in the future by the city. The fee will not exceed one percent (1%) of the total value of work and construction authorized by the building permit issued to a development project. This fee would be used to provide adequate cultural and artistic facilities, services and community amenities for the project.”
By enacting Section 91.107.4.6 (previously Section 91.0304(b)(11)), the City has adopted the Arts Development Fee referred to by Ordinance 164,243. Accordingly, an arts fee shall be paid to the City of Los Angeles by owners of development projects which received building permits between and including January 15, 1989, and the effective date of this section. This arts fee described in this section shall be paid within 60 days of receipt of a request for payment of an arts fee. All exceptions listed in Section

91.107.4.6.4 shall apply to owners of development projects subject to Ordinance 164,243.

The Office of Finance shall bill and collect the Arts Development Fee owed by those persons to whom notice was given pursuant to this paragraph for the period January 15, 1989, through May 7, 1991. The amount due shall be paid in full within 60 days of the billing date unless an agreement to pay in installments pursuant to this paragraph is approved by the Office of Finance.

Persons indebted to the City of Los Angeles for Arts Development Fees may, upon approval by the Office of Finance, enter into an agreement with the City of Los Angeles to pay such fees in installments over a period not to exceed one year. The Office of Finance shall collect a service fee of $10.00 on each monthly installment to recover the cost to the city of processing installment payments. The Cultural Affairs Department is hereby authorized to negotiate and accept payment in kind for the Arts Development Fee owed by those persons to whom notice was given pursuant to this paragraph for the period January 15, 1989, through May 7, 1991. The Cultural Affairs Department shall provide notice to the Office of Finance of the name of the person on whose account such in kind payment was accepted, and whether the in kind payment constitutes payment in full or only a specified portion of the Arts Development Fee owed.

The Office of Finance is authorized to record payment in full, without further notification to the person billed, for cash or in kind Arts Development Fee payments received that are within $3.00 of the amount owed.

91.107.4.7. Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Notice. Before issuance of a building permit for any project or structure, the Department of Building and Safety shall affix to the permit an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Notice to read as follows:

Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Notice: The City of Los Angeles is considering the enactment of an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance. The owner of the project designated in this permit shall be obligated to comply with an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance, if such an ordinance is adopted in the future by the city. In no event shall the required fee exceed either $5.00 per square foot of the structure(s) authorized by the permit or 3.5 percent of the valuation of the project designated on the permit, as determined by the Department of Building and Safety, whichever is lower. This fee shall be used to mitigate any affordable housing needs created by the project.

91.107.4.6.6. Projects Covered by Ordinance 164,243. (Ord. No. 173,300, Eff. 6/30/00, Oper. 7/1/00.) In 1988, the City enacted Ordinance 164,243 which states in part:
“This ordinance is an interim measure while the City of Los Angeles is giving consideration to the enactment of an Arts Development Fee Ordinance. The owners of a development project shall be obligated to pay an Arts Development Fee if such fee is adopted in the future by the city. The fee will not exceed one percent (1%) of the total value of work and construction authorized by the building permit issued to a development project. This fee would be used to provide adequate cultural and artistic facilities, services and community amenities for the project.”
By enacting Section 91.107.4.6 (previously Section 91.0304(b)(11)), the City has adopted the Arts Development Fee referred to by Ordinance 164,243. Accordingly, an arts fee shall be paid to the City of Los Angeles by owners of development projects which received building permits between and including January 15, 1989, and the effective date of this section. This arts fee described in this section shall be paid within 60 days of receipt of a request for payment of an arts fee. All exceptions listed in Section

91.107.4.6.4 shall apply to owners of development projects subject to Ordinance 164,243.

The Office of Finance shall bill and collect the Arts Development Fee owed by those persons to whom notice was given pursuant to this paragraph for the period January 15, 1989, through May 7, 1991. The amount due shall be paid in full within 60 days of the billing date unless an agreement to pay in installments pursuant to this paragraph is approved by the Office of Finance.

Persons indebted to the City of Los Angeles for Arts Development Fees may, upon approval by the Office of Finance, enter into an agreement with the City of Los Angeles to pay such fees in installments over a period not to exceed one year. The Office of Finance shall collect a service fee of $10.00 on each monthly installment to recover the cost to the city of processing installment payments. The Cultural Affairs Department is hereby authorized to negotiate and accept payment in kind for the Arts Development Fee owed by those persons to whom notice was given pursuant to this paragraph for the period January 15, 1989, through May 7, 1991. The Cultural Affairs Department shall provide notice to the Office of Finance of the name of the person on whose account such in kind payment was accepted, and whether the in kind payment constitutes payment in full or only a specified portion of the Arts Development Fee owed.

The Office of Finance is authorized to record payment in full, without further notification to the person billed, for cash or in kind Arts Development Fee payments received that are within $3.00 of the a
Oklahoma City

ARTSARTS
ARTICLE VII. ARTS COMMISSION AND THE ARTS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
§ 38-487. Purposes.

The Council hereby declares that the artists, performers and various artistic and cultural institutions of the City enhance the public welfare by providing education, recreation, entertainment and culture to the citizens of the City.

The Council therefore declares that the purposes of this article are as follows:
(1) to provide a continuing source of advice concerning artistic, cultural or aesthetic matters to insure that the City will be an attractive and culturally enriched City.
(2) to promote and encourage programs to further the development of and public awareness and interest in the City in connection with the artistic and cultural development of the City.
(3) to provide advice to the Council concerning works of art to be placed on municipal property.
(4) to provide advice and assistance to the City in connection with other artistic and cultural activities.
(Ord. No. 15652, § 1(7A-2), 1-3-80; Code 1980, § 38-487) § 38-488. Policy for works of art; budgeting of public funds; selection and placement; definitions.

The policy for budgeting of public funds for works of art and for the selection and placement of works of art upon property owned or leased by the City shall be as follows:
(1) Not less than one percent of the total cost of any new buildings or major revisions to existing buildings to be constructed or erected on property owned or leased by the City utilizing public funds may be budgeted for works of art. (2) Works of art which are to be incorporated as integral parts of the structural or landscape design of a building or structure shall appear as separate items in the bid specifications for the proposed construction or erection of the public improvements in question which shall comply with Subsection (1) above.
(3) Except as provided in Subsection (2) above, the funds for works of art as provided for by Subsection (1) above may be set aside at the time of the award of the contract for the construction or erection of the public improvements in question.
(4) All funds appropriated pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be placed in a separate account to be established by the City Treasurer and such funds shall be used exclusively for the purchase of works of art. (5) All works of art to be incorporated into the building, structure or grounds, or to be purchased with funds set aside pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall be reviewed, selected and recommended by the Arts Commission, with the final approval for such purchases to be given by the Council pursuant to Subsection 38-499(2) of this chapter. (6) Works of art purchased with funds set aside pursuant to the provisions of this section may be placed upon any property owned or leased by the City, with the placement of such works of art to be made upon the recommendation of the Arts Commission and the final approval of the Council. (7) For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
a. Building means any structure.
b. Structure means anything which is constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground or which is attached to something having a permanent location on the ground.
c. Works of art includes by way of illustration and not of limitation: paintings and photographs; mural decorations; stained glass; statues; bas-reliefs or other sculptures; extraordinary landscaping or environmental works, including monuments, fountains, arches or other unusual architectural treatments. (Code 1980, § 38-488; Ord. No. 18674, § 1, 1-20-87)
§§ 38-489--38-494. Reserved.

ARTS
DIVISION 2. ARTS COMMISSION*
__________
*Cross references: Boards and commissions generally, § 2-681 et seq. __________
§ 38-495. Created.

There is hereby created the Arts Commission.
(Ord. No. 15650, § 7A-3, 1-3-80; Code 1980, § 38-495; Ord. No. 20021, § 2, 8-24-93)
§ 38-496. Status.

The Arts Commission shall be a part of the Division of Public Affairs. (Code 1980, § 38-496)
Charter references: Division of Public Affairs, Art. IV, §§ 5, 6. § 38-497. Members.
(a) The Arts Commission shall be composed of 15 members, who shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the Council. The Arts Commission shall have the following composition, with at least 3/4 of the members being residents of the City:
(1) five members at large.
(2) One member shall represent the Arts Council of Oklahoma City. (3) One member shall represent the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitor's Commission.
(4) One member shall represent the Allied Arts Foundation. (5) Three members shall be professional artists, performers and/or architects.
(6) Four members shall be from other arts and cultural organizations not specifically referenced herein.
(b) All members of the Arts Commission shall serve without compensation.

The term of each member shall be three years or until a successor takes office. The term will expire on September 1 in the year in which the term would normally expire. All members shall serve three-year terms after the current term expires or until a successor takes office. (c) Any incumbent member of the Arts Commission shall be eligible for reappointment at the end of his term of office. A member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Any member of the Arts Commission may be removed from office for neglect of duty or malfeasance. Removal shall be effected by a majority vote of the Council. (d) All members shall serve without compensation.
(Ord. No. 15652, §§ 7A-3--7A-5, 1-3-80; Ord. No. 15704, § 1, 2-19-80; Code 1980, § 38-497; Ord. No. 19281, § 1, 9-12-89; Ord. No. 20021, § 2, 8-24-93) Charter references: Appointment of members to boards, commissions, etc., in Division of Public Affairs, Art. IV, § 6.
§ 38-498. Officers.

The Arts Commission shall select one of its members as chairman, another as vice-chairman and another as secretary. The chairman, vice-chairman and secretary shall receive no salary for their services.
(Ord. No. 15652, § 7A-4, 1-3-80; Ord. No. 15704, § 1, 2-19-80; Code 1980, § 38-498; Ord. No. 20021, § 2, 8-24-93)
§ 38-499. Functions.

Unless otherwise specified in this Code, the duties of the Arts Commission shall be as follows:
(1) to make regular assessments of the conditions and needs of the City concerning the arts;
(2) to advise the Council concerning works of art to be placed on municipal property;
(3) to make recommendations to the Council concerning grants from Federal and State agencies, private groups and individuals, and, when so directed by the Council, oversee arts and cultural projects and programs; (4) to increase public awareness of the value of our arts and cultural resources by developing and participating in public information programs; (5) to advise and assist the Council in connection with such other arts and cultural matters as may be referred to it by the Council; (6) to encourage greater arts and cultural involvement by departments of the City and to better utilize private arts and cultural agencies for services to citizens;
(7) to keep minutes and records of all meetings and proceedings, including voting records, attendance records, resolutions, findings of fact and decisions; and
(8) to perform any other functions imposed by this article or otherwise specified by the Council; and
(9) to advise the Council concerning the promotion of coordination among units of government in their projects and programs which involve the arts and cultural matters.
(Ord. No. 15652, § 7A-7, 1-3-80; Code 1980, § 38-500; Ord.No. 20021, § 2, 8- 24-93)
§§ 38-500--38-510. Reserved.

Philadelphia, PA
§16-103. Aesthetic Ornamentation of City Structures. [4] (1) Definition.
(a) Fine Arts. Sculpture, monuments, bas reliefs, mosaics, frescoes, stained glass, murals and fountains which either contain sculpture, or are designed to enhance adjacent accompanying sculpture.
(2) Expenditures for Fine Arts. An amount not to exceed one per cent of the total dollar amount of any construction contract for a building, bridge and its approaches, arch, gate or other structure or fixture to be paid for either wholly or in part by the City, shall be devoted to the Fine Arts; provided, that the Art Commission certifies in writing that said ornamentation is fitting and appropriate to the function and location of the structure.

Phoenix, AZ
ARTICLE XXII. PERCENT FOR ART FUNDING*
__________
*Editor's note: Ord. No. G-4547, § 2, adopted October 15, 2003, effective November 14, 2003, amended the title of Ch. 2, Article XXII to read as hereinabove set out. Formerly, said title read as Arts Funding.

Cross references: Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture and Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission, § 2-191 et seq.
__________
Sec. 2-700. Percent for art funding.

A. Under the provisions of Section 2-194(B) the Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission shall, as part of the annual budgetary process of the City, recommend to the City Manager and City Council, for inclusion in the capital budget pursuant to the Charter, an amount not to exceed one percent of the total capital improvement cost for each eligible capital improvement program, determined on a departmental program basis, to be expended upon art or art services under the provisions of this article and the annual art plan. If the recommended funding for an art project will extend over two or more fiscal years, the total amount expended on such art project over such two or more fiscal years shall not exceed one percent of the total capital improvement cost for the capital improvement program to which the art project is related. The amount of recommended funding up to one percent will be developed in conjunction with the department involved and the Budget and Research Department. For the purposes of the foregoing capital improvement cost determination, land acquisition, personal property and computer costs shall be excluded from the capital improvement cost base.

B. The annual public art project plan shall include art project expenditures proposed for the ensuing fiscal year and projections for art project expenditures for the ensuring five fiscal years and shall be submitted prior to May 1 of each year. The Mayor and City Council will review these plans in a policy session. City Council may amend and approve the final plans to increase or decrease the amount of money allocated for art projects.

C. Capital improvement program projects eligible for percent for art funding shall be those projects in which the inclusion of an art project is a legally permissible expenditure under the laws regulating the expenditure of funds for such capital improvement program projects, and which are identified by the Commission as appropriate for an art project. To the extent legally permissible, percent for art funds within a capital improvement program may be pooled on a departmental basis into one or more art projects.

D. Each budget item request shall be accompanied by a general description of the type and nature of art project to be included in such expenditures from the amounts to be appropriated for the capital improvement program projects to which such art project is related. If an art project is not expected to be completed during the fiscal year to which the budget applies, the budget item request shall describe the portion or phase of the art project to be completed during the fiscal year.

E. Upon approval by the City Council as part of the budget process of an appropriation for an art project, such appropriation shall be established within an appropriate account maintained by the Finance Department, Division of Accounts, and designated for the percent for art program. Such appropriations may be expended as normal appropriations are expended, upon the recommendation of the Arts and Culture Commission and City Manager and approval by the City Council in accordance with normal City budget and expenditure procedures, for the acquisition, design and construction of art projects. The City Auditor shall periodically review expenditures made in connection with the percent for art program to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, bond and other debt obligations and covenants, and City administrative procedures.

F. The Budget and Research Department, in consultation with the Arts and Culture Administrator and affected City departments, shall allocate funds in the City budget for the preservation of art projects purchased with percent for art funds.

G. Costs incurred by the inclusion of an art project in a specific capital improvement project, including, but not limited to, engineering fees, concrete bases and wiring shall be included in the percent for art budget for that specific capital improvement project.
(Ord. No. G-2953, § 3; Ord. No. G-3537, § 5; Ord. No. G-4547, § 2, passed 10-15-2003, eff. 11-14-2003)
Sec. 2-701. Placement of percent for art projects.

Each art project recommended by the Arts and Culture Commission and approved by City Council for implementation pursuant to the provision of this Article and any amendment thereto shall be placed at a site which relates substantially to the purpose of the bond, enterprise or other fund from which the percent for art funds are derived. Such art projects may be attached or detached within or about such site, and may be either temporary or permanent. Placement of an art project shall be recommended to the City Council by the Arts and Culture Commission, in the annual public art project plan after consultation with the appropriate City department responsible for the funding of the capital improvement project or projects to which the art project is related. The department responsible for the funding of the capital improvement project or projects shall make appropriate space available for the placement of the related art projects. Art projects will be placed in full public view on City owned property unless an exemption is approved by City Council.
(Ord. No. G-2953, § 3; Ord. No. G-3537, § 6; Ord. No. G-4547, § 1, passed 10-15-2003, eff. 11-14-2003)
Portland, OR

5.74.040 Public Art Trust Fund. (Printable Version)
The Regional Arts and Cultural Council shall maintain a special fund called the Public Art Trust Fund into which monetary contributions for Public Art shall be deposited.

A. 1.33 percent of the Total Costs of Improvement Projects shall be dedicated to Public Art and shall be deposited into the Public Art Trust Fund by the City official or employee acting on behalf of the Participating Bureau.

1. One percent of the Total Costs of Improvement Projects shall be used by the Regional Arts and Cultural Council for costs associated with Public Art including, but not limited to the acquisition, siting, maintenance and Deaccessioning of Public Art.

2. .33 percent of the Total Costs of Improvement Projects shall be used by the Regional Arts and Cultural Council for costs associated with Public Art, including, but not limited to costs of selection, administration, community education and registration of Public Art.

B. Monetary contributions shall be deposited in separate accounts within the Public Art Trust Fund if separate accounting is requested by the Participating Bureau or required by law.

San José, CA
Title 22 CONVENTION, CULTURAL AND VISITOR SERVICES
Chapter 22.08 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Chapter 22.08

ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Sections:

22.08.005 Purpose.

22.08.010 Funds for works of art in public places.

22.08.020 Exclusions from and additions to the art in public places program.

22.08.030 Approval.

22.08.040 Other public agencies.

22.08.005 Purpose.

The city of San José and the redevelopment agency of the city of San José desire to expand the public's experience with works of art and to improve the design of public places by encouraging the involvement of artists on design teams for certain capital projects. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that not less than two percent of the cost of certain municipal capital improvement projects funded in whole or in part by either the city of San José or the redevelopment agency or both is set aside for the acquisition of works of art to be displayed in or about public places within the city. The procedures and guidelines for implementation of this chapter shall be as set forth in the respective resolutions of the city council and agency board. (Ords. 21832, 24265, 24663.)

22.08.010 Funds for works of art in public places.

A. The city council and the redevelopment agency board shall provide in their respective annual capital improvement budgets for amounts of not less than two percent of the total amount budgeted for each “eligible construction project” to be set aside and identified as sources of funds to be appropriated and expended for acquisition of works of art in accordance with the provisions of this title. Appropriations for purposes of acquiring works of art in order to carry out the provisions of this title shall be made in accordance with law and the budgeting procedures of the city and the redevelopment agency.

B. Appropriations for works of art may be expended to acquire works of art for any public place if the terms of a contract, federal or state grant, law, or regulation do not limit or restrict the funds so appropriated to use for a specific “eligible construction project.” Appropriations for works of art shall only be expended for acquisition of works of art to be located on the premises of a specific “eligible construction project” if the terms of a contract, federal or state grant, law, or regulation do limit or restrict the use of funds to a specific “eligible construction project” only.

C. Subject to applicable law, appropriations and expenditures for works of art may include, but are not limited to, the costs and expenses incurred in the process of selecting, installing, and maintaining works of art in public places.

D. The city manager or the city council, as appropriate, shall approve the acquisition of works of art to be funded under the city's capital improvement budget. The redevelopment agency executive director or the redevelopment agency board, as appropriate, shall approve the acquisition of works of art to be funded through the redevelopment agency's capital improvement budget. (Ords. 21832, 23247, 24265.)

22.08.020 Exclusions from and additions to the art in public places program.

A. The city manager and the redevelopment agency executive director in conjunction with the submission of the annual capital budgets of the city and redevelopment agency, respectively, and subject to the provisions of any applicable law, each may:

1. Determine that certain proposed capital improvement projects not be deemed “eligible construction projects” for purposes of this title if the anticipated public visibility and/or public traffic usage of the capital improvement project is too minimal to warrant expenditures of funds for works of art; or

2. Designate funds to be added to the art in public places program, which funds may be utilized to place works of art in existing public places which do not otherwise qualify as “eligible construction projects.” B. In conjunction with submission of the city's and redevelopment agency's proposed annual capital improvement budget to the city council, and to the redevelopment agency board, respectively, the city manager and the redevelopment agency executive director shall notify the arts commission of:(i) those proposed capital improvement projects in said budgets which are not designated “eligible construction projects” for purposes of this title due to low anticipated public visibility and/or public traffic usage; (ii) those capital improvement projects which are designated “eligible construction projects” in said budgets; and (iii) any proposed discretionary funds added to the art in public places program.

C. The following provisions shall apply to the calculation of the not less than two percent to be expended for works of art pursuant to this title only in those circumstances in which the city or the redevelopment agency receives funds from persons, firms, organizations or other agencies which are restricted as to the use of said funds for expenditures for works of art, or which said funds are otherwise restricted by law or regulation:

1. If the terms of a contract, federal or state grant, law, or regulation prohibit or restrict the use of funds in connection with an “eligible construction project” for expenditures upon works of art, then the not less than two percent to be budgeted, appropriated and expended for purposes consistent with this title shall be calculated so as to exclude from the total cost of said project any funds which are so prohibited or restricted.

2. If the terms of a contract, federal or state grant, law, or regulation provide that any additional expenditure by the city or the redevelopment agency on works of art for an otherwise “eligible construction project” shall affect the amount of funds received by the city or redevelopment agency for said project, then the cost of said project may be excluded in its entirety from the calculations of the not less than two percent to be budgeted, appropriated and expended for works of art pursuant to this title.
(Ords. 21832, 23247, 24265.)

22.08.030 Approval.

Contracts for acquisition of works of art or for other purposes authorized by this title, which are in an amount of one hundred thousand dollars or less, may be approved by the city manager or redevelopment executive director, as appropriate. Contracts for acquisition of works of art or for other purposes authorized by this title, which are in an amount exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, shall be submitted for approval to the city council or redevelopment agency board, as appropriate.
(Ords. 21832, 24265, 26386.)

22.08.040 Other public agencies.

If the city or redevelopment agency enters into an agreement with another public agency, whereby city or agency funds are transferred to such agency for the purpose of performing a capital improvement project which would otherwise be deemed an “eligible construction project” under this title, such agreement shall provide, whenever it is lawful or appropriate to do so, that the recipient agency or its successor in interest shall take appropriate measures to insure that not less than two percent of the city or agency funds so transferred are expended for acquisition of works of art. (Ords. 21832, 23247, 24265.)
Tampa, FL
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 4-1. Intent.

The intent of this chapter is to establish a policy for the city, in keeping with the vitality for which it is nationally recognized, and in order to enhance its aesthetic environment, to encourage private developers/owners of commercial properties to commission a piece of art for each new development or mall or structure or, in lieu thereof, to donate monies to the city for public art. The private developers/owners should be inspired to invest time, effort and money into the art displayed on their sites, recognizing that the art not only will become integral, lasting components of the cityscape but will be of intrinsic value to their developments. Further, the city, desiring to expand public experience and exposure to culture through various art forms and to enhance the appearance of public facilities and improve the environment of the city on behalf of its citizens, intends to provide for the incorporation of visual art in the design and construction of public facilities within the city. (Code 1971, § 55-1; Ord. No. 8860-A, § 1, 4-18-85; Ord. No. 2000-227, § 2, 8-31-00)
Sec. 4-2. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Commercial structure means any building or structure, all or part of which is to be used as an auditorium, private convention center, professional or commercial office, bank, private library (other than school), manufacturing plant, factory, assembly plant, processing plant, mill, warehouse, shopping mall, store, shop, market, hotel, storage building, freight depot, and private automobile parking structure which is not connected to or incorporated in other structures.
(1) "Commercial structure" shall include that developmental project which involves more than one (1) phase of construction.
(2) "Phase" shall mean that portion of a developmental project which represents a completed portion of the entire commercial structure.

Construction costs means the total value of the construction of, or reconstruction work on, commercial structures as determined by the chief building inspector in issuing a building permit for the construction or reconstruction. Relative to a municipal construction project, construction costs shall include architectural and engineering fees, site work and contingency allowances. It does not include land acquisition or subsequent changes to the construction contract. All construction costs shall be calculated as of the date the contract is executed.

Municipal construction project means any project to be paid for wholly or in part by the city, regardless of the source of the monies, to construct, remodel or reconstruct any public buildings, decorative or commemorative structures, parking facilities and parks, or any portion of any of such buildings, structures, facilities or parks, belonging to the city within its geographical boundaries as they now exist or shall exist in the future.

Reconstruction means alterations or repairs made to a commercial or municipal structure within any twelve-month period, which alterations or repairs exceed fifty (50) percent of the value of the existing structure, so that such structure is required to conform to the requirements for new buildings pursuant to chapter 5 of this Code.

Works of art or artworks means tangible creations by artists exhibiting the highest quality of skill and aesthetic principles, including but not limited to paintings, sculptures, stained glass, statues, bas reliefs, engravings, carvings, frescoes, mobiles, murals, collages, mosaics, tapestries, photographs, drawings, monuments and fountains.
(Code 1971, § 55-2; Ord. No. 8860-A, § 1, 4-18-85; Ord. No. 89-07, § 1(55-2), 1-5-89)
Cross references: Definitions and rules of construction generally, § 1-2.

Sec. 4-3. Public art fund.
(a) There is hereby created a public art fund which shall be a separate account set up by the city to receive monies appropriated for the public art program and shall consist of the following:
(1) One (1) percent of the construction cost of a municipal building project as bid, contracted and accepted by the city. Unexpended monies in this fund may be used for works of art at existing public properties and facilities as deemed appropriate by the public art committee as established in this chapter.
(2) All funds donated to the city by private developers/owners or by others. (3) Other funds allocated by the city through the budgetary process. (b) The public art fund shall be used solely for the selection, commissioning, acquisition, installation, maintenance, administration and insurance of the works of art or in relation thereto; and such funds shall be administered by the mayor.
(Ord. No. 89-07, § 2(55-3), 1-5-89; Ord. No. 2000-227, § 3, 8-31-00) Cross references: Finance generally, § 2-231 et seq.

Sec. 4-4. Appropriations of funds.
(a) All appropriations for municipal construction projects shall include an amount of not less than one (1) percent of the construction cost of a municipal building project as bid, contracted and accepted by the city, but not to exceed the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for any single municipal building project; provided that the public art committee may recommend to the mayor an increased expenditure for those projects of exceptional size or unique function, however, in no event shall the appropriation exceed one (1) percent.
(b) The public art committee shall recommend to the mayor the amount of monies to be allocated for selection, commissioning, acquisition and installation of individual works of art to be incorporated as a part of the municipal construction project for which the monies were appropriated. (c) Monies appropriated pursuant to this section as part of one (1) such project but not spent in connection with the project may be utilized to supplement other appropriations for the acquisition of works of art or to place works of art in, on or near either city facilities which have already been constructed or city properties.
(Code 1971, § 55-4; Ord. No. 8860-A, § 1, 4-18-85; Ord. No. 89-07, § 3(55-4), 1-5-89; Ord. No. 2000-227, § 4, 8-31-00)
Cross references: Finance generally, § 2-231 et seq.

Sec. 4-5. Commercial construction participation.
(a) Any private developer/owner who applies to the city for building permits to construct or reconstruct a commercial structure shall be encouraged to commit one (1) percent of construction or reconstruction costs up to but not limited to the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) to the provision of fine art in conjunction with such commercial structure. (b) Those private developers/owners constructing commercial structures, to be accomplished in phases, need contribute only one (1) percent of construction or reconstruction costs up to but not limited to two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for the entire phased project. (c) If the private developer/owner constructing or reconstructing a commercial structure does not wish to have fine art in conjunction therewith, he may donate to the city an amount equal to the percentage of the construction cost of the commercial structure as a charitable donation. (d) Each building permit issued by the city to any such private developer/owner will include data relative to the private developer/owner participating in the public art program in the city.
(e) Any building permit for construction or reconstruction of a commercial structure shall be reported to the public art committee. (Ord. No. 89-07, § 8(55-11), 1-5-89; Ord. No. 2000-227, § 5, 8-31-00) Sec. 4-6. Ownership and maintenance.
(a) Ownership of all works of art acquired by the city shall be vested in the city which shall obtain title to each work of art.
(b) Artists, as a part of any contractual agreement with the city for the provision of a work of art, shall be required to submit to the public arts committee a "Maintenance and Inventory Sheet," including annual cost projections, which details the maintenance and ongoing care of the artwork.