HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-17; City Council; 8895; FUNDING FOR THE ARTSca h' 3 z
k- 2 0 0
z 0 F 0
-
..
a e z 3 0 0
p< ~ CIWCJF CARLSBAD - AGENWILL c-
DEPT. L1B CITY I
T
AB# aP99s'- TITLE: DEPT.
MTG.2/17/87 FUNDING FOR THE ARTS CITY A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.8971 approving the transfer of $214,000 from the General Capital Construction Fund to the Arts fund
for the support of the Cultural Arts Program.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Section 2.18.130 of the Municipal Code states:
"In addition to any budget fund, all City department
heads shall include in all estimates of necessary
expenditures and all requests for authorizations or appropriations for construction projecs, 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.''
The City's 1986-87 Capital Improvement Program includes 28 projects totaling $21.4 million funded from a variety of different sources. The following table summarizes the funding for these projects:
Unrestricted Funds
General Capital Construction $ 1,035,000
Total: $ 1,035,000
Semi Restricted Funds
Public Facilities Fees $ 7,190,000 Redevelopment (Tax Increment Bonds) $ 2,500,000 Park-In-Lieu Funds $ 2,600,000 Total: $12,290,000
Restricted Funds
Sewer Construction $ 6,691,500
Traffic Impact Fees $ 1,290,000 Water $ 45,000 Total: $ 8,026,500 -
Total All Funds $21,351.500
0 0
Agenda Bill No. 889( Page Two
The City Council may elect one of several approaches to fundinc the Arts Progrm. The primary alternatives are described below:
1. The Council may use a strict interpretation of the Municipa 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 tht Council's position on the use of "restricted" funds.
2. Council may elect to appropriate funds from all unrestrictec sources as one lump sum. This approach provides about $10,000 for the Arts Program this year. The appropriatior
would come from the unobligated balance in each unrestrictec
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 No.2, a total of about $133,000 could be provided for arts programs. The restrictions on the use of PFF, Park-in-Lieu and Redevelopment funds would continue tc
exist under this alternative, thus limiting the Council's
ability to allocate the total funds available in the City'$ Arts fund to a wide variety of projects.
4. Council may choose to allocate 1% of all capital projects in the 1986-87 CIP to the City Arts fund from ar unrestricted source, thereby eliminating any conflict with restrictions on use and providing the maximum funding for the program. A total of $214,000 would be provided to the Arts fund under this alternative.
The staff is recommending that Council adopt the concept described in Alternative No. 4. This option provides maximum funding with minimum restriction on funds. The General Capital Construction fund is capable of providing $214,000 for this purpose this year.
The proposed resolution is designed to implement Alternative No.
4. Should Council wish to proceed, adoption of the resolution is all that is necessary. Council 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.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Any funds transferred to the Arts program will reduce the amount of funds available to finance capital projects.
0 0 ,-
..
rt
Agenda Bill No. 8895- Page Three
If Council elects to transfer 1% of all projects appropriated ir the current capital improvement program, $214,000 would be provided for works of art. Funding for this transfer would have
to come from the general capital construction fund and/or the
general fund.
If Council wishes to exclude "restricted funds" but include public facilities fee projects the total transfer required woulc be $82,000. This transfer would be supported by the general capital construction fund--$10,000 and the public facilities
fund-- $72,000.
EXHIBITS :
1. Resolution No.897/ authorizing the transfer of $214,000 to
2. Memo dated February 5, 1987 - 1% for the Arts.
3. Memo from manager, Cultural Arts Program, dated February 5,
the Arts Program.
1987.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e 0 l
RESOLUTION NO. 8971
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $214,000 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND TO THE CARLSBAD ARTS COMMISSION FUND FOR THE
SUPPORT OF THE ONE PERCENT PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.18 of the Carlsbad Municipa
which governs the operation of the Carlsbad Arts Commission
the City Council to appropriate 1% of the estimated cost c
I
26
27
28
continue any transfers into the Cultural Arts Program F
future years.
///I
Ill!
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
28
0 e
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Coun
the City of Carlsbad, Califor
hereby transferred from the G
the purpose of providing supp
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED a regular meeting
City Council of the City of C
day of February, 1987, by the
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
(SEAL)
I
-2-
?I e 0
FEBRUARY 5, 1987 “6
TO : ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER-VATCHETT
FROM : Finance Director
ONE PERCENT FOR THE ARTS
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF 1985-86
In May of 1985 the City Council adopted an ordinance forming the Carlsbad Ar
Commission. This ordinance (No.1279) set out the rules for the creation of
commission, its duties, powers and funding. A copy of this ordinance is
attached for your information.
In consideration of funding the City‘s Arts Programs, the Council establishel
the two separate funding methods to be used to support the Arts Programs.
1. THE CARLSBAD ARTS COMMISSION FUND - This fund was established by
Section 2.18.110 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of this fund
is to receive grants, gifts and bequests given to the Arts Commission.
The Arts Commission must submit a budget request to the City Council by
April 15 each year outlining the expenditure of any monies held in the
fund. There is a zero balance in this fund at this time.
2. APPROPRIATION FOR THE ARTS - Section 2.18.130 of the Municipal Code
says three things:
a. All capital projects submitted to the Council shall include at
least 1% of the project cost €or works of art.
b. If there are legal restrictions on the source of funds that
precludes arts as an expenditure, these restricted funds shall
be excluded from the above requirement.
The City Council - may make appropriations for works of arts as
provided in this section of the code. The Council is not bound
by this ordinance to appropriate funds, nor is the Council
limited to only 1% for the Arts if the Council wishes to provide
greater funding.
c.
The current balance in this fund is $212,000.
The Code specifically states that nothing within this section is intended tc
limit the powers of the City Council in any way. The Council does not delei
any authority or discretionary powers to the Arts Commission that are imposc
by law on the City Council.
In June of 1986, the City Council authorized the transfer of $156,000 to thc
Council’s 1% for the Arts fund. This figure represented 1% of the total ca]
improvement program and was transferred from general capital construction fi
Council elected to make this appropriation because it provided maximum fund
for the Arts and avoided any conflict with restricted funds.
Council was provided with other alternatives that eliminated projects fundec
from restricted funds. These other options would have provided between
$22,000 and $110,000 for the Arts Fund.
4 0 0
-2- ‘4
1986-87
Council will be asked to appropriate funds for the Arts Program again during
1986-87. The same basic alternatives are available to the Council as were
presented in June 1986.
If Council elects to transfer 1% of all projects appropriated in the current
capital improvement program, $214,000 would be provided for works of art.
Funding for this transfer would have to come from the general capital con-
struction fund and/or the general fund.
If Council wishes to exclude “restricted funds” but include public facilitie
fee projects the total transfer required would be $82,000. This transfer wo
be supported by the general capital construction fund--$10,000 and the publi
facilities fund--$72,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
The possibility of funding the Arts Program this year is clouded by the
unresolved issue of Hosp Grove. If the voters approve the purchase of Hosp
Grove, and if the Council elects to use available cash in that purchase, lit
or nothing will be left in the general capital construction fund for this tr
This limits the Council’s ability to support the Arts Program.
The public facilities fund could support the contribution of $72,000 to the
arts fund if Council determines that the use of public facility fees are not
restricted to use on or in specific public facility fee funded projects.
Use of restricted or semirestricted funds may also be considered where art
objects can be linked to specific improvements. For example, park-in-lieu f
may be used to purchase works of art for placement in parks in specific
quadrants of the City, or Redevelopment tax increment bond money could be us
in the downtown area for works of art. Council should consider that the Cit
fee schedules for public facilities fees, traffic impact fees, etc. have not
been set with funding art programs in mind.
e 0
February 5, 1987 ?
\ d-.' TO : James Elliott, Finance Department 3
/ LO FROM :
SUBJECT: FUNDING FOR THE ARTS
Connie Beardsley, Arts Program[,,'c.
Works of art commonly 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% all Capital Improvement projects can bc used for works of art such as large outdoor sculpture, murals, 01 paintings; or it can be used to bring in temporary exhibits foi Carlsbad residents, e.g. a sculpture exhibit in a park, or tc start a collection for a municipal art gallery, or a combinatior of ideas.
The available funds are sufficient to implement a strong public art program, but is not excessive. Materials used in sculpture, for example, are expensive. Plazas, fountains, "gateways' require high construction costs as well as design fees. Administrative costs for the public art program includf competition costs if there is one, transportation fees, educatior
materials, and panelist honoraria.
Close to home, the City of San Diego expects to receive $300,00C
-$500,000 annually for their Public Art program. The City of.
Santa Monica received $139,000 last year for their 1% program ana
expects to receive over $200,000 next year. Elsewhere, the City of Sacramento has increased their ordinance to 2%, and Portland, Oregon has increased their program to 1.33%.
Alternative No. 4 gives the maximum flexibility in types of projects the city is able to fund, and it gives greater latitude should special opportunities arise. Should the appropriate opportunity not arise in a given year the funds 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.
Q *
Memo to Jim Elliott
Page Two
Alternative No. 1 permits the least flexibility. Many project5 require that the artist work with the Engineering Department anc architect during plan development, e.g. a public art project that integrates stained glass into building construction. In this case, waiting to appropriate 1% for art at the contract awarc stage would make art integrated with building construction an impossibility. To wait until the contract is awarded to determine if funds are available, and in what amount, is too late
and precludes this whole category of projects.
For the above reasons, I recommend Alternative No. 4.
CSB : a