Federal Way staff says 2% public-art funds must stay with Operations & Maintenance project; recalculated art budget $174,998

Federal Way City Council held a special study session April 1, 2025, to review how the city’s “Art in Public Places” (2% for the arts) requirement applies to the new Operations and Maintenance Facility. Public Works Director EJ Walsh told council the city’s general-obligation bond documents require that funds generated by the project be spent on that property and cannot be transferred off‑site, and staff recalculated the eligible art budget at $174,998.

The session focused on Federal Way Revised Code chapter 4.15, which requires the city to allocate a minimum of 2% of qualifying capital project construction costs for publicly accessible original visual art, and on how the code interacts with the bond documents tied to the maintenance yard. “We cannot supplant money out of the bond documents, or the bond proceeds to spend on a different project off‑site,” Walsh said during his presentation.

Why it matters: the 2% requirement is intended to fund public art on qualifying capital projects; bond restrictions can limit where and how that money may be used. Council members pressed staff on how the 2% was calculated for the maintenance facility, why the available amount fell from earlier figures, and how the Arts Commission and council will participate in artist selection.

Walsh told council the code’s calculation is based on the awarded construction contract value and explicitly excludes land acquisition, demolition and equipment. Staff initially presented a higher figure (2% of the full contract at one point was described as about $810,444), then presented a smaller number to the Arts Commission ($244,596), and after a line-by-line review — removing items that should not have been included such as demolition and adjusting the base to include a prior change order — arrived at the currently available art budget of $174,998. Walsh described how parts of the required art contribution were incorporated into the project design: the design team absorbed some art-related work (for example the enhanced wall design and integration of irrigation, lighting and plaques), while the artist would be responsible for the art design and any additional landscaping or fixtures the artist needs.

Walsh reviewed how the Performing Arts and Events Center (PAC) process was run as a point of reference: the PAC used an enhanced selection process that solicited artist qualifications, formed a public advisory committee (including Arts Commission members, a youth commission member, a Federal Way Arts Coalition representative and staff), paid finalists stipends ($2,000 per finalist for the PAC), and presented finalists’ proposals to council for final selection. For the maintenance facility staff proposes a similar process but with three finalists instead of four.

Council members raised objections to the size of the remaining art budget. “I am disappointed that out of $810,000 less than 200,000 will be used for an artist to do something on the wall,” a councilmember said during public questioning of the process and figures. Several council members asked whether staff had applied the ordinance correctly; Walsh and the city attorney’s representative said the $174,998 figure follows the code’s calculation and the bond constraints, and that the figure represents the minimum available for art.

On legal and financial options, Walsh said the bond structure requires that project proceeds be held in a project-specific account and used on the parcels identified in the bond documents; if the city wished to fund a separate, off‑site art project it would have needed to include that as a separate project in the bond documents or pursue a different financing approach. Walsh outlined two general ways to handle project savings at closeout: return unspent proceeds to the bond agency (reducing the bond amount) or use the proceeds to pay down debt in the project’s early year payments — both options are financial decisions to be made later in the project closeout process and, in all cases, would be subject to bond‑document requirements and disclosure to bondholders.

Staff described limited installation locations on the O&M site that meet the code’s requirement that art be publicly accessible: (1) the retaining wall area where an enhanced cedar plank art wall is planned, (2) a grass area outside the main building that includes trees identified by code as significant and therefore difficult to alter, and (3) the facility lobby, which is publicly accessible only during limited hours and, after value engineering, too small for stand‑alone work. Because the project required value engineering for security and budget reasons following a 2023 break‑in at the existing facility, staff said much art‑related work was folded into the design team’s scope to avoid asking council for additional capital.

Council members and an Arts Commission alumna discussed the Arts Commission’s role. Walsh said the code gives the Arts Commission responsibility to recommend art projects annually but does not give the commission final selection authority; historically, staff and design teams have incorporated art during design and the council has made final awards when a separate artist selection process was used. A council member who identified prior service on the Arts Commission described past work cataloging and conserving city public art and urged clearer future collaboration.

No formal motion or vote occurred at the study session. Walsh said the immediate next steps are to finalize the eligible budget calculations, issue the call for artist qualifications with stipends and finalists proposed in the packet, receive artist proposals, and return to council for selection and contract award consistent with the city’s purchasing manual and the bond documents. Walsh also said staff will consult the bond counsel and, if applicable, the bond agency about any questions regarding use of remaining proceeds if artist proposals come in under the $174,998 amount. “Art is super subjective,” Walsh added, describing why a formal, documented selection process matters.

The study session closed without a decision; council indicated it expects staff to return with artist proposals and any additional financial or legal analysis needed before award of an art contract tied to the Operations and Maintenance Facility.