University Place council asks staff to study arts advisory commission

University Place city council members agreed Feb. 3 to ask city staff to study the community, financial and staff impacts of creating an arts advisory commission and to report back by Sept. 1.

The request, introduced as a legislative proposal co‑sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Wood and Council Member McCluskey, directs the city manager and staff to research possible goals, staffing and funding approaches and to identify benefits and costs before the council considers establishing a permanent commission.

The study request matters because council members said public art and cultural activity can support economic development, community pride and civic engagement, but they also flagged possible budgetary and administrative consequences that warrant a careful review. “Arts and culture will make a city fall in love with itself,” Mayor Pro Tem Wood quoted from a Toronto poet laureate while introducing the proposal.

During a roughly 36‑minute study‑session discussion, Council Member McCluskey walked council through University Place’s past public‑art work and the local volunteer group Up for Art, summarized the city’s legislative history on art (including Resolution 332 from February 2002 and Resolutions 545 and 546 from February 2006), and outlined potential goals a commission might pursue: recognizing local artists (including laurel or youth laureates), advising on temporary and permanent public displays, reviewing gifts of art, encouraging donations and grants, and partnering with existing advisory bodies such as the planning commission and park advisory commission.

Council members raised questions about costs and unintended consequences. Council Member Worthington warned of examples from other jurisdictions where set‑aside requirements tied to capital projects ended up diverting general‑fund dollars or limiting federal grant eligibility. Council Member Boykin and others sought assurance that the study be thorough and suggested exploring ways to involve youth and local businesses.

City staff and the city attorney responded to procedural questions. The city attorney stated the state has a public‑art funding requirement and advised the council the figure discussed in the meeting was 3% for certain projects. No specific statute was cited during the discussion; the city requested staff to identify applicable laws and policies as part of the study.

Council Member Fleming said the presentation provided sufficient background and urged staff to proceed: “Let the staff do their homework,” Fleming said, asking for the study to begin and be returned by the proposed deadline. Council members signaled general support and agreed to agendize the staff study; the legislative proposal itself did not establish a commission.

Clarifying points the council asked staff to cover include: whether a dedicated budget line for public art is required or advisable (the city currently has no dedicated art budget), potential sources of grant funding, the anticipated staff time to complete the study, examples of different commission structures used by nearby cities, and options for including culinary arts and youth laureates. The council also discussed renaming the body an “Arts and Culture Advisory Commission.”

The staff report requested will return to council with findings by Sept. 1; until that report is received no commission will be created and no binding budget commitments were made.

The council concluded the study session by asking staff to bring the item forward for formal placement on a future agenda so the council can review the staff report and decide whether to form a commission.