Publ *lc rt Ord *inance
By Gordon Jackson, Director of Tourism and Events
Colleen Ghiglia, Recreation Manager
Meeting Date: January 24, 2025
Current Ordinarw. � -
_=d
• Program voluntarily created by the City Council in 2015 to meet beautification goals
• Applies to both private and municipal development • Private = commercial or multi-family projects (5+ units) • Municipal = Capital projects except utility / work in ROW • Triggered by project value of $250k or more
• Requires art contribution worth 1% of project value • Contribution may be actual art or in-lieu fee if approved • Actual art must be developed at same project site YO
'sMC
Current Ordinarw. � -
_=d
"Public art" is art that is visible from public property/ROW, including:
• Sculptures, including kinetic art
p
• Painting and graphics, including murals
• Large-scale photography and digital media
• Mosaics and tile, chalk and sand art and sand sculpture; • Capital improvements or other art forms determined by the city council to be artistic in value
Approved public art shall:
• Fit the character of the area
• Include timeless qualities for enduring enjoyment • Stand out as a work of artistic merit
,TYoF • Be compatible with the coastal, historic, or natural characteristics Of the city.
Current Ordinance
Public Art Accounts
• Used to store public art in-lieu contributions (from developers or city), grants, and all other art-related appropriations or revenues (e .g. voluntary contributions made by City Council )
• Expenditures :
• At least 80% must be used for art
• Acquisition, installation, and maintenance of art • Improvement of real property to display art
• Up to 20% may be used for administrative costs ,TY OF
A�s�'O B�P`�
Process Overview — Private Development
Development PRBC Ad-hoc Art Concept
Application Committee Call for Artists Proposals Submittal Selection Submitted
Ad-hoc Committee PRBC Review and Formal Art
Review of Selection/Approval Submittal Plan Review Concepts
Art Installation Final Inspection Maintenance Period
mnuirthiail
Process Overview — Municipal Development
M
0 Development PRBC Ad-hoc Art Concept
IM
Application Committee Call for Artists Proposals 11M
Submittal Selection Submitted
Ad-hoc Committee PRBC Review and City Council F0 Review of Recommendation Review and Formal Art Submittal
Concepts to City Council Approval
Plan Review Art Installation Final Inspection Maintenance Period
mnuirthiail
urrent Projects
Mir _JW
• James Way Beautification Project
• Project value: $2.6M / Public art funds spent: $4K (Estimated $20k) • Decorative bench concepts have been reviewed by PRBC and Council • Final designs still need to be returned for Council approval • Addie Street Restroom Project
• Project value: $1.2M / Public art spent: $1.5k
• PRBC has reviewed art concepts including mosaics • Potential future changes to project design may mean needing to redesign art proposals
• Public Safety Facility
• Project value: $56.8 M / Public art contribution : $500k • More expensive than potential capital project values contemplated by original ordinance
�,TY OF
' Challenges and Opportunitie .""
ML Md
Challenges Opportunities
• $250k is worth less than it • Adjust thresholds used to be. This means : • Raise "trigger" threshold • Smaller projects are ( higher than $250k value) triggering art • Would result in fewer, requirements; and larger, higher-quality
• 1% of the value isn't projects
enough to develop • Eliminate site-specific art significant art
g (i .e.si as little p
requirements for capital
as $2,500) projects to allow flexibility • Results in more, smaller,
lower-quality art projects
TY OF
As�'O BP`�
' Challenges and Opportunitie .""
ML md
Challenges Opportunities
• Ordinance did not • Create upper limit on total anticipate very large art requirement for public projects like the Public projects ( i .e. 1% or a Safety Facility. specific $ amount,
• May create unrealistic art whichever is less) contribution obligation for
the City for very large
capital projects
TY OF
As 'O BP`
' Challenges and Opportunitie .""
I ML Md
Challenges Opportunities
• specifies rigorous
Ordinance spec es go ous • Reduce administrative administrative processes, ,
like recruitment of public specificity of ordinance, ad-hoc art committees leave more to staff
suitable for each individual discretion, to achieve art proposal, that aren t same results
feasible with current staff
resources
• Ordinance was developed • Refresh ordinance to when Recreation was part of reflect actual current CDD, creating ambiguity
about current roles administrative practices.
TY OF
Policy Questions
• Should the $250k project value "trig er" threshold be increased, to account for inflation and other rising project an art costs? • Should a maximum be imposed on the total contribution amount? ( 1% art contribution, but capped at a certain dollar amount to account for unusually large projects)
• Should the site-specific art requirement for municipal projects be eliminated, to allow greater flexibility in the City's spending of collected in-lieu fees? • Should the City Council determine the intended art expenditure (if any) for a capital project at the time the project is initially budgeted? TY OF
As�'08Q`�
Recommendations
Direct staff to review and refresh the Public Art Ordinance, incorporating Council direction provided at this workshop, and return the updated ordinance to the Council .
yo
SM08EPCr