Council weighs 1% ‘‘percent for art’’ proposal tied to public capital projects

City staff and the Arts and Culture Board returned to the City Council on Aug. 26 with a revised percent-for-public-art proposal recommending a 1% surcharge on eligible public capital construction projects over $500,000 and a fee-in-lieu mechanism to fund public art where direct incorporation is impractical.

The board’s recommended policy applies only to city public projects (it excludes private development and federal/state grant-funded projects), establishes a $500,000 threshold to exclude routine maintenance work, and would calculate the 1% on actual expenditures reconciled at fiscal year end rather than on projected budgets. The board also proposed a higher fee-in-lieu option and a maintenance-accounting approach, noting an earlier draft had recommended 1.5% with a dedicated maintenance allocation; the board’s revised recommendation lowered the percentage to 1% and added a stronger fee-in-lieu.

Why it matters: a percent-for-art policy would institutionalize a revenue stream for public art and place-based design elements across city capital projects, affecting how large public investments are designed and scoped.

Financial context presented to council: - A five-year projection using currently approved capital projects estimated the 1% yield would total about $313,886 (a five-year average of roughly $62,008 per year). - A backward-looking calculation based on the past four years produced a smaller figure — roughly $27,000 per year in eligible 1% funds — reflecting lower recent capital spend.

Council discussion centered on predictability, equity with the ballot-authorized 3A capital fund, and whether the policy should include caps on unusually large bond-funded projects. Councilmember Pat and others cautioned that some capital funds — referred to in the discussion as “3A” — were set by ballot language for capital infrastructure and should not be redirected without explicit voter guidance; other councilmembers suggested the capital fund or a separate capital account could be used to house percent-for-art receipts rather than altering 3A allocations.

Several councilmembers asked for programmatic clarity on what constitutes ‘‘public art’’ beyond bronze sculptures — for example, site-specific integrated elements, specially designed bike racks, entrance treatments or stamped concrete — and for clearer administrative language on offsets when a project already incorporates art. Staff replied that incorporated artwork on a project would offset the calculated 1% on that specific project and that fee-in-lieu funds would be used to address city ‘‘art deserts’’ where incorporation is not feasible.

Actions and direction: Council members expressed general support for the concept but asked staff to return with policy refinements and fiscal scenarios during the budget process. Some councilmembers urged delaying final adoption until after the budget so the percent-for-art impact can be modeled alongside other capital priorities; others supported moving forward with modest limits or review thresholds for very large projects. Staff said a facilities capital planning and budget exercise would include estimates of the policy’s cash impacts.

Ending: The council did not adopt a final ordinance at the study session. Staff and the Arts and Culture Board will return with refined policy language, clearer definitions of eligible projects and recommended caps or thresholds as part of upcoming budget planning and a future council action item.