PURPOSE   

The purpose of this report is to discuss the existing Art in Public Places Guidelines for publicly funded art projects and, if desired, amend the guidelines or establish new guidelines.

BACKGROUND

The Art in Public Places Ordinance became effective as of November 16, 1993. At that time, staff felt that it was important to define procedures for design selection, construction, and installation of publicly funded art projects. On December 14, 1993 City Council adopted these guidelines (Attachment I).  They include the following: 1) Selection of an art consultant to be paid up to 10% of the project�s budget; 2) Selection of a Site Specific Art Selection Committee to provide public input, select the artist and select a design proposal for the project; 3) Final approval of art installation by the Site Specific Art Selection Committee, which would be forwarded to City Council for consideration and approval; 4) Review and approval of the project by the Council appointed Art in Public Places Committee for Ordinance compliance.  These guidelines have been followed for most of the publicly funded projects which include, but are not limited to, the Police/Fire Headquarters project, the McCambridge Park project, the Stough Canyon Nature Center project, the Buena Vista Library project, the Water Reclamation project, and the Ovrom Park project.

DISCUSSION

The guidelines provide procedures that direct various tasks, which ultimately lead to how an art proposal is presented to City Council for selection and/or approval.  The previously adopted guidelines have worked successfully.  However, the guidelines can also be altered, as City Council has directed numerous times during the past couple of years.  Since all proposed public funded art projects are brought before City Council prior to initiating the process of selection, the procedures have been altered as seen fit at that time. 

In recent years, City Council has directed staff not to utilize the services of an art consultant.  Staff has assumed the responsibility of the consultant.  The Burbank Water and Power project and the Community Services Building project were conducted in this manner.  And recently, City Council has directed staff to bring back all the final proposals, as selected by the Site Specific Art Selection Committee, with their recommendation. City Council would choose a proposal from the finalists.  This was the methodology employed with the DeBell Clubhouse project and the Five Points project.  An additional methodology was employed with the most recent Chandler installation.  Staff was directed to conduct an artist search, evaluate the proposals, take the selected finalists to the community-based Friends of Chandler for input, and bring all of the finalists to City Council for the selection.  In all of the previously discussed methodologies, the art proposals were also approved by the Art in Public Places Committee for Ordinance compliance.

Projects vary greatly in size and scope.  A project similar to the Chandler Art installation can be very directed. The Burbank Water and Power project and the Police Fire Headquarters project were both collaborative efforts.  In both those instances, as with most of our installations which are tied directly to a major capital construction project, it is important to the success of the project to obtain input from a number of community resources (i.e. a Site Specific Art Selection Committee).  When the desire is to integrate the art projects into a new facility, it is beneficial to select one artist to work extensively with the Site Specific Art Selection Committee to fully develop an art proposal.  This is how the proposed continuum of art concept was developed for the Community Services Building.

There are some issues associated with the various guidelines.  These are addressed below, along with the pros and cons for each.

ISSUE #1:   USING THE SERVICES OF AN ART CONSULTANT

PROS:

• They are professionally trained in the field of public art.

• They provide resources in terms of conducting an artist search, matching artists who possess previously proven abilities with the stated desire of a specific installation.

• They assist the Site Specific Art Selection Committee in developing concepts for a particular project, utilizing their professional expertise from prior public projects.

• Once a project is approved, they provide project oversight during fabrication and installation.

• By performing the stated tasks, they save staff time during the entire process.

CONS:

• Payments to the art consultant are taken from the overall art budget.

• Since they are selected utilizing a competitive process, more time is required prior to initiating an artist search.

ISSUE #2:   UTILIZING A SITE SPECIFIC ART SELECTION COMMITTEE

PROS:

• Provides an opportunity to obtain input from a number of individuals, including community representatives, architects, and staff.

• Forms a basis of support for the selected art proposal. Site Specific Art Selection  Committee members have enjoyed the experience and have ownership of the installations. There is a real sense of accomplishment.

• Individual Committee members offer differing opinions and during the selection processes, projects can change.  This collaborative effort between the artist and the Committee strengthens the final proposal.

CONS:

• The process of utilizing a Committee is time consuming.

• The use of a Committee is usually less directed.  Each member might have a different opinion about what constitutes an appropriate art installation for a specific site.

ISSUE #3:  ASKING CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR REJECT ONE RECOMMENDED ART INSTALLATION

PROS:

• Selected artist will have engaged the Site Specific Art Selection Committee on numerous occasions to insure that both the entities have had ample time to work through issues, resulting in a consensus of thought in regards to the recommended art proposal.

• Selected artist enters into a design agreement (10% of the art budget) with the City. This is to ensure that the proposal will be fully developed and includes a model, site plan and budget.   

CONS:

• The City Council will only see one proposal to either approve or reject.

• Rejection of the project will require the initiation of a new selection process.

ISSUE #4:   PRESENTING ALL FINAL PROPOSALS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A SELECTION

PROS:

• City Council will be given an opportunity to select from a number of proposals rather than just approving or rejecting the recommended project. The City has utilized an artist honorarium fee to cover costs of developing a model, site plan and budget.

CONS:

• City Council will select an art project based upon a singular presentation with limited discussion. 

• Some City Councils have experienced some political issues when they are the selecting body as opposed to the approving body.

There are four basic options which have been utilized in selecting previous public funded art projects.  They include the following:

Option I           Employing the current guidelines

Option II          Employing the current guidelines, without utilizing an Art Consultant

Option III         Employing the current guidelines, without utilizing an Art Consultant, and bringing all artist finalists proposals to City Council for selection

Option IV        Staff conducts an artist search, selects finalists and presents them to City Council for selection

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact with the proposed recommendation; however, it does affect how the art budget is expended.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff recommends that City Council expand the existing guidelines and adopt all of the four stated options, which will become the Art in Public Places Guidelines for publicly funded art projects.

Attachments

go to the top