HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-17; City Council; 8667; FUNDING FOR THE ARTS# c
Q w > 0 @z a a. 4
.. z 0 F 0
=!
a
0 z 3 0 0
,- i \ CIT~F CARLSBAD - AGEND~ILL
AB# % 6 7 TITLE: DEPT,
MTG. 6/12/86 FUNDING FOR THE ARTS CITY,
DEPT. FIN CITY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.g6/7, approving the transfer of $156,000 from the
Capital Construction Fund to the Arts Fund for the support of the CultL
Arts Program.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Section 2.18.130 of the Municipal Code states:
"In addition to any budget fund all City department heads shall
inczude in all estimates of necessary expenditures and all
requests for authorizations or appropriations for construction
projects, an amount for works of art equal to at least one
percent of the total cost of any such construction project as
estimated in the City's Capital Improvement Program for the
year in which such estimate or request is made. If there are
legal restrictions on the source of funding with respect to
any particular project which precludes art as an object of
expenditure of funds, the amount of funds so restricted shall
be excluded from the total project cost in making the required
estimate. I'
The City's 1985-86 Capital Improvement Program includes 36 projects totali
$15.6 million funded from a variety of different sources. The following t
summarizes the funding for these projects:
Unrestricted Funds
General Capital Construction $ 900,000
Revenue Sharing 1,300 , 000
Total: $2,200,000
Semi Restricted Funds
Public Facilities Fees $5,400,000
Redevelopment 1,800 , 000
Park-In-Lieu Funds 1,600,000
Total : $8,800,000
Restricted Funds
Gas Tax $ 200,000
Sewer Construction 1,000,000
Grants & Other 3,400 , 000
Total : $4,600,000
Total All Funds $15,600,000
. e 0
-2-
Agenda Bill No. 86 6 7
The City Council may elect one of several approaches to funding the Arts Prog
The primary alternatives are described below:
1. The Council may use a strict interpretation of the Municipal Code and
appropriate funds for the Arts on a project-by-project basis, as
capital projects are presented to the Council for approval. This
alternative provides the least funding for the arts. Appropriations
for the Arts would depend on the timing of project submissions and
the Council's position on the use of "restricted" funds.
2. Council may elect to appropriate funds from all unrestricted sources
as one lump sum. This approach provides about $22,000 for the Arts
Program this year. The appropriation would come from the unobligated
balance in each unrestricted fund.
3. Council may elect to include funds from semi-restricted sources in
the appropriation for the Arts. If this action appropriated funds
in one lump sum as described in alternative 112, a total of about
$110,000 could be provided for Arts Programs. The restrictions on
the use of PFF, Park-in-Lieu and Redevelopment funds would continue
to exist under this alternative, thus limiting the Council's ability
to allocate the total funds available in the City's Arts fund to a
wide variety of projects.
4. Council may choose to allocate 1% of all capital projects in the
85-86 CIP to the City Arts fund from an unrestricted source,
thereby eliminating any conflict with restrictions on use and
providing the maximum funding for the program.
would be provided to the Arts fund under this alternative.
A total of $156,000
The staff is recommending that Council adopt the concept described in Alterna
#4.
General Capital Construction fund is capable of providing $156,000 for this
purpose this year due to the high levels of revenue and relatively conservati
spending patterns of the City departments.
The proposed resolution is designed to implement alternative 14. Should Coun
wish to proceed, adoption of the resolution is all that is necessary. Counci
is not bound by ordinance to transfer any funds to the Arts program and may
simply take no action if a transfer is not desired.
This option provides maximum funding with minimum restriction on funds.
FISCAL IMPACT :
Any funds tranferred to the Arts program will reduce the amount of funds
available to finance capital projects. This transfer was considered when sta
was reviewing the 86-87 CIP.
If the proposed resolution is adopted, the total funds available in the Arts
for 1985-86 will be $206,000.
EXHIBITS :
1.
2. Memo dated 4/22/86 - Fund for the Arts.
3. Memo from manager, Cultural Arts Program, dated 4/21/86.
Resolution No.f&/7 authorizing the transfer of $156,000 to the Arts Prog
a*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
281
e 0
8617 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER
OF $156,000 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION
FUND TO THE CARLSBAD ARTS COMMISSION FUND FOR THE
SUPPORT OF THE CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAM.
WHEREAS , Chapter 2.18 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code which goverr
operation of the Carlsbad Arts Commission allows the City Council to a]
1% of the estimated cost of each capital project funded from unrestrici
funds for the Cultural Arts Program, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the 1985-86 Capital Improvc
Program totaling $15.6 million from all sources of funds, and
WHEREAS, in order to eliminate any conflict with both major and 1
restrictions on funds, the City staff has recommended that the Council
authorize the appropriation of funds from the General Capital Construe
Fund in the amount of 1% of the Capital Improvement Program, $156,000,
the Arts Program, and
WHEREAS, as this action also provides the maximum funding for th
Program and is consistent with Council's intention to provide support
Cultural Arts in Carlsbad, and
I WHEREAS, the City Council retains full control of all funds resi
in the City's Cultural Arts Fund, and
WHEREAS, the Council is not obligated by this action to continue -
transfers imo the Cultural Arts Program Fund in future years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City o
Carlsbad , California, that the amount of $156,000 is hereby transferr
the General Capital Construction Fund for the purpose of providing sup
to the Cultural Arts in Carlsbad.
XXX -
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
e 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Cou
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17thday of
1986, by the following vote, to.wit:
June
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettint
NOES: None
ABSENT: None -”*;; i;/ piL
MARY H. CA ER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRAN‘Z, City Clerk
(SEAL)
18
19
20
21
1
~ I
I -
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
e e
APRIL 22, 1986
TO : RAY PATCHETT - ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
FROM : Jim Elliott - Finance Director
FUNDING FOR THE ARTS (REVISED MEMO)
Thank you for sharing the Mayor's note on the Arts Program with me. I'm glal
to see that the Mayor and City Manager have had a chance to review the propo
transfer of funds to the Arts fund. Perhaps this would be a good time to di
where we are with the funding for the Arts and how we got here.
First, a little history is in order. In 1984-85 the City Council appropriatl
$50,000 for support of the Arts. This was added to the budget in mid-year ti
provide funding for an Arts Coordinator and operating expenses. By June 30,
the Coordinator had not been hired and the total $50,000 remained unspent.
$50,000 balance was transferred from the general fund to the new Civic Arts
The balance in the Arts fund at June 10, 1985, as shown by the City's Annual
Financial Report, was $50,000.
The 1985-86 operating budget includes an appropriation of $50,000 from the
general fund for the Civic Arts Program (p.257). This is in addition to the
$50,000 held in the Civic Arts fund, and pays for administrative expenses
including staff salaries and other overhead expenses.
The second area of discussion is the appropriation of 1% of capital projects
Arts programs. Under Section 2.18.130 of the Municipal Code, the staff is
directed to include 1% of the cost of each capital project for works of art.
The code further states that the Council may transfer funds to the City's Ar
fund leaving the final decision to transfer open to Council action on a
project-by-project basis, if so desired.
Staff's recommendation to the Council is to take the 1% contribution for all
capital projects from the general capital construction fund rather than from
each capital fund. This is intended to avoid conflicts with existing Counci
policy, the Municipal Code and legal controls or grant restrictions that exi
on many of the other funds. This option also provides maximum funds for the
Council's Arts fund with a minimum of controls.
conflicts which could occur:
The following illustrates
Grant Funds - Each grant is provided to the City by the granting agen
for a specific purpose. Contributions to Civic Arts are typically no
considered as part of the reasonable construction costs. The Grant f
Highway Bridge Repair and Replacement funds for the Agua Hedionda
Bridge would not allow an expenditure for the Arts.
Drainage Funds - The City is split into numerous drainage areas by th
City's Master Drainage Plan (adopted in mid 1980). The stated purpos
of these fees is to provide storm drains and flood control measures t
specific areas of the. City. Contributions to the Arts Program would
be typically considered as part of the drainage control costs.
* 0 -.
- 2-
Park in Lieu Fees - These fees, collected under the State Subdivision
Map Act, allow the City to collect fees from developers in lieu of
accepting land dedication. These fees may be used to purchase land
or develop parks within the park area in which they were collected.
Funding for art objects which become part of a specific park could
be considered as reasonable expenditures of these funds, however, a
contribution to an Arts fund for use anywhere in the City would not
generally be acceptable.
Public Facilities Fees - This fund, created by Council Policy #17, has
been established to provide a funding vehicle for infrastructure proje
required because of new development. In 1982 a list of projects to be
funded by this fee was presented to Council as part of the Public
Facilities Monitoring System report. Funding for the arts specificall
related to these projects could reasonably be provided by this fund, b
funding for arts in general is not included in the Council policy or b
the PFMS listing of projects.
Sewer Captial Fees - Section 13.10.030 of the Municipal Code specifies
that the City may charge a $1000 per equivalent dwelling fee for conne
to the sewer system. Generally this includes sewer lines, pump statio
and improvements to the Encina sewer plant. Contributions to the arts
program associated with improvements of facilities other than those
owned or operated by the City for sewer purposes would be difficult.
The above list of negatives is not intended to inhibit the City's ability t\
fund the arts program. On the contrary, it is listed to point out that the
City can avoid many problems that could be associated with funding the arts
by turning our attention to the unrestricted sources available to the City.
These sources are the General fund, General Capital Construction fund, and
Revenue Sharing fund. The General fund, although available, is typically
designated €or other services. However, it could be used as a source of
funding. The Revenue Sharing fund is committed to the Safety Center develo]
ment (or has been in the past) and may not even exist past 1987, if the
federal government does not take positive action soon.
The best source of General Purpose funds, not otherwise committed, is the
General Capital Construction fund. This fund is the accumulation of the
surplus of the General fund set aside for future capital improvements.
These funds are thought of as tax dollars and are not restricted by any
Council policy, ordinance or practice.
Staff's recommendation is that Council approve the transfer of $156,000 fron
the General Capital Construction fund as defined in Option I to the Arts fur
for public works of art €or 1985-86 and continue this practice in future yer
as we adopt each capital budget.
I would be pleased to help-explain any of my comments to the City Manager 01
/ I ,I
1' 1
d) e -r _.,
April 21, 1986
TO : James Elliott, Finance
FROM: Connie Beardsley, Arts
FUNDING FOR THE ARTS
The possibilities for public art in Carlsbad are many. Works of art com-
monly are-defined as follows:
All forms of original creations of visual art, including
but not limited to: painting of all media, including
both portable and permanently affixed works, such as
murals; sculpture which may be in the round, bas-relief,
high relief, mobile, fountain, kinetic, electronic, etc.,
in any material or combination of materials; other
visual media including, but not limited to, prints,
drawings, stained glass, calligraphy, mosaics, photography,
clay, fiber and textiles, wood, metals, plastics, or
other materials or combination of materials, or crafts,
or artifacts.
This means that the 1% of the Capital Improvement Program can be used for
works of art such as a large outdoor sculpture, murals, or paintings; or
it can be used to bring in temporary exhibits for Carlsbad residents,
e.g. a sculpture exhibit in a park, or to start a collection for a muni-
cipal art gallery, or a combination of ideas.
The newly formed arts commission has met once , and therefore, has not
yet recommended a policy, direction or focus for these funds to the council.
The sum of $156,000 is sufficient to implement a strong public art program,
but is not excessive. Materials used in sculpture, for example, are
expensive. Engineering stated that to color the concrete for the proposed
seawall (not including texturing and design fees) would cost $40,000.
Administrative costs for the public art program include artists fees,
competition costs if there is one, transportation fees, education materials,
and panelist honoraria.
Close to home the City of San Diego expects to receive $300,000 - $500,000
annually for their public art program. The City of Santa Monica received
$139,000 last year for their 1% program and expects to receive over
$200,000 next year. Elsewhere, the City of Sacramento has increased their
ordinance to 2%, and Portland, Oregon has increased theirs to 1.33%.
Attached is a partial list of California public art projects funded in
part by the National Endowment for the Arts from 1972-1980. I have included
# * * ,* -
Page 2
this to give you an idea of costs involved for public works of art, these
costs having increased since 1980.
Alternative No. 1 gives the maximum flexibility in types of projects the
city is able to fund, and it gives greater latitude should special opportunir
arise. Should the appropriate opportunity not arise in a given year the fun(
will roll over and will be available for a following year. This creates a
stable base on which to build should funds become scarce in future years. I1
is important to have this allocation in the Arts Commission Fund this year.
Alternative No. 3 permits the least flexibility. Many projects require that
the artist work with the Engineering Department and architect during plan
development, e.g. a public art project that integrates stained glass into bu:
construction. In this case waiting to appropriate 1% for art at the contraci
award stage would make art integrated with building construction an impossib
To wait until the contract is awarded to determine if funds are available, a
what amount, is toolate and precludes this whole category of projects.
For the above reasons I recommend Alternative No. 1.
CSB/vs