Title
Presentation on the History of the City of Alameda Public Art Program and a Summary of Lessons Learned
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Initially established in 2003, the City of Alameda’s Public Art Program (the Program) has resulted in the installation of 21 public artworks on private development sites. Over the last seven years, the Program has also awarded over $600,000 in public art funding through more than 40 individual grants. This report includes a brief history of the Program, case studies from recent activities, and series of lessons learned to help staff, the Public Art Commission (PAC) and the community best understand how to implement the Program moving forward.
BACKGROUND
The Program began in 2003 with the adoption of Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-98 (the Ordinance) which requires that major development projects dedicate 1% of development costs to public art. The applicant can choose to install the artwork at their development site or can contribute an equivalent amount to the Public Art Fund (the Fund) in lieu of providing the art on-site. The Fund can then only be used by the City to provide or support public art. Artwork installed at the development site is typically referred to as “on-site,” while physical artwork funded through the Fund is typically referred to as “off-site.”
The Program has grown and evolved in the 21 years since it began, and the goal of this report is to provide the PAC and the Alameda community with a short history, as well as some key lessons learned. These lessons are intended to provide insight into Program activities moving forward, including planning for upcoming grant opportunities and the site selection process.
Program Overview
Although activities have varied over the years, today’s Program consists of five main efforts:
• Issuing and administering grants for cultural arts programming and physical art,
• Facilitating the review of on-site public artwork,
• Managing and maintaining the public art collection,
• Staffing the Public Art Commission, and
• Other activities such as disseminating Public Art updates via an email newsletter, writing talking points for Commissioners, developing Program materials and resources.
More information about these activities can be found in the Public Art Master Plan (the Plan).
Program Accomplishments: 2003 - early 2015
Between 2003 and early 2015, the majority of developers with large projects chose to install public art on-site, rather than contribute to the Fund (see Exhibit 1: Public Art Requirement Summary 2003 - 2024). Nine on-site public artworks were installed during this time, with a combined value of over $750,000.
In comparison, the contributions to the Fund were much smaller. The average contribution size was around $7,000, and the total in-lieu funding received from 2007 through early 2015 was just over $64,000.1 The highest balance of the Fund at any one time during this period was $83,807.
The Program did not issue any grants during this time, for a variety of reasons including a lack of dedicated staff to manage and administer grants, the relatively small balance of the Fund, and language in the Ordinance which did not allow grants to non-profit organizations. The main expenditures were staff administrative time and the development of the 2012 report Synergy: Public Art for Alameda.
Program Accomplishments: late 2015 - Present
The years 2015 and 2016 marked a turning point for the program, with several key developments in chronological order:
• Developers made two large contributions to the Fund, resulting in a balance of approximately $375,000 in 2016.
• The first public art staff member was hired, with 30 percent of their time dedicated to Program implementation.
• City Council approved a series of revisions to the Ordinance, including:
• Removal of the $150,000 cap on Fund contributions
• Removal of the requirement that all artwork be historic or maritime in nature
• Allowing grants to non-profit organizations
• Removal of maintenance and administrative costs as allowable uses of the Fund
In 2017, the City released the first Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for public art in Alameda. From 2017 to 2024, the City has completed a total of 6 RFP processes, awarding more than $600,000 in public art funding, through the administration of more than 40 individual grants (see Exhibit 2: Public Art Grant Summary 2017 - 2024).
During this time, staff also:
• Facilitated the application and approval of seven new on-site public artworks;
• Oversaw installation of four permanent off-site physical art projects;
• Facilitated City Council approval of a second series of revisions to the Ordinance;
• Supported local non-profit organizations in their applications for national arts grants
• Managed the development of the Plan, and facilitated the adoption by City Council, and
• Oversaw the marketing of the Program, including the development of a new Alameda Public Art website (https://www.alamedapublicartwork.com/), and a series of ribbon-cutting ceremonies for new on-site and off-site artworks.
DISCUSSION
Over the last seven years staff has administered more than 40 public art grants, researched industry best practices, and interviewed experienced public art administrators from cities with established public art programs. The case studies and lessons learned below reflect a combination of staff experience in Alameda as well as insight from other Bay area cities.
Case Studies
The following case studies are from the City’s first (and only) RFP for physical art. They reflect lessons learned during the RFP process itself, as well as the installation and administration periods.
2017 Physical Art Grant RFP Case Study
In 2017, in response to a community request for public art grants to be distributed as quickly as possible, the City issued an RFP for physical art grants that was not aligned with the industry best practice of using a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), rather than an RFP process.
In the first round, the RFP required artists to submit a detailed public art proposal, including a conceptual design, location, budget, project schedule, and information on color, size, materials, lifetime and fabrication processes. Applicants were not provided with a location for the proposed artwork; rather, they were expected to select a location on their own and obtain permission from the property owner. As a result (and in the absence of information about a potential project site), many artists submitted proposals for existing designs or even prefabricated artworks, rather than new designs that were site-specific or reflective of the Alameda environment and/or community.
One prominent Bay area artist who creates large-scale, site-integrated artworks gave feedback that he did not apply for the grant due to the level of work required to identify a project site and because the RFP process would require him develop and share designs without compensation.
Rockspinner Case Study
In 2018, City Council awarded $150,000 to Zachary Coffin for the installation of two Rockspinners in Jean Sweeney Park. Several challenges soon arose.
• The artist was unable to secure a contractor to install the artwork foundations, due to the small size of the job. In order to resolve this issue, the City agreed to have a City contractor do the foundation installations, funded by budget “assigned” to the City from the artists contract. This resulted in a significant project delay.
• During installation, it was determined that an additional $23,000 of site preparation work was required to make the artwork accessible under the Americans with Disabilities act. Staff worked with the PAC and the Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) to secure this funding, with half coming from the Fund and half from ARPD. In addition to the 15% budget overage, this also contributed to project delays.
The Rockspinners were finally installed in Jean Sweeney Park in 2022. In addition to the project delays and budget overage, the unanticipated issues associated with the project site required substantial staff time to resolve.
Egrets with No Regrets Case Study
In 2018, City Council awarded $12,500 to Dan Fontes for the installation of the Astro Mural at 1512 Webster Street, a privately owned property. The artist’s application included a letter from the property owner indicating their interest in having the mural on their property.
Unfortunately, despite good faith efforts to come to an agreement with the property owner regarding the insurance, maintenance and access to the artwork, in November of 2019 the property owners notified City staff that they no longer wished to proceed with the mural project.
Staff worked with the artist and the PAC to identify a new location for the artwork, and in August of 2020, the PAC recommended 1925 Everett Street as the new location for the mural. In May of 2021 City Council approved a new, site-specific design for the mural, as well as a fee increase of $1,500 from the Fund to cover the cost of the redesign.
Due to the complexity of locating public art on private property, this project also included a lengthy contracting process, including recording both a maintenance plan and easement to the property deed, and giving temporary ownership of the artwork to the property owner during the mural’s lifetime, so that it could be properly insured.
In March of 2022, Egrets with No Regrets was installed. The relocation and redesign process required a total of six PAC and City Council meetings over a 16-month period, each of which required substantial staff time for preparation and attendance.
Lessons Learned
1. The administration of public art grants often continues long after each grant is awarded.
In addition to the public-facing aspect of public art grants (events and performances, sculptures and ribbon cuttings, application and evaluation periods, etc.), staff performs substantial behind-the-scenes work to support each grant. This work can take up to two years for cultural arts and arts programming grants, and up to four years (or more) for physical art grants.
For cultural arts and arts programming grants, this can include:
• Contracting and paperwork assembly (insurance, W-9 forms, business licenses, etc.)
• Technical assistance with special event permits, marketing, and other City functions
• Invoicing, tracking and distribution of funds
• Documentation and metrics
• Other miscellaneous functions (grant extensions, etc.)
Physical art grants require substantially more staff time for oversight and installation, with more detailed contracts, insurance requirements, troubleshooting, inspections, permitting and maintenance plans. See Exhibit 3: Physical Art Checklist for a comprehensive overview of the work required to install a physical artwork in Alameda. This list reflects the steps included in the legal agreement between the City of Alameda and the artist, which itself is based on a “model” public art agreement provided by Americans for the Arts, a national non-profit organization with a focus on advancing the arts.
In order to develop a realistic work plan for the Program, it is critical to account for the full lifecycle of each round of grants: from RFP and evaluation, to award and contracting, to installation/performance and payment, and maintenance and deaccession.
2. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for artwork is the industry standard for most physical art grants.
Americans for the Arts recommends the use of an RFQ process for most public physical arts grants.
In the first round, RFQs typically require artists to submit examples of their previous work, selected references, and a statement of interest about the project. The first round does not include a detailed concept for the potential artwork, as that would be asking artists to share intellectual property with no compensation.
Based on an evaluation of these responses, the City would identify a short-list of artists to move to the second round of the process. Selected artists would then be asked to create a more detailed proposal, generally consisting of an original and site-specific conceptual design, budget, etc. Short-listed artists are also provided with an honorarium to compensate them for their time, as well as any travel expenses related to the process (for site visits, etc.).
Based on lessons learned in 2017 and in alignment with industry best practices, staff recommends utilizing an RFQ process, including an honorarium, for future rounds of funding. This would increase the likelihood of receiving a greater number of high-quality proposals, as well as adequately compensate artists for their time and work.
3. Prior to releasing an RFQ for physical artwork, staff should identify a location for the artwork, evaluate its appropriateness, and assemble a budget and work plan for any needed site preparation.
The 2017 Physical Art Grant RFP required the applicants to identify a location in Alameda where they would like their artwork to be installed and obtain permission from the property owner.
In addition to creating further unpaid work for applicants, many found this approach confusing and were unsure of how to identify a location or get permission from the property owner. We received feedback at the time that artists would prefer the location to be identified and permissions arranged by the City ahead of time, as is standard practice in most other Bay area public art programs.
The City’s unusual approach also created challenges during artwork installation, since many of the artists had not considered or budgeted for site preparation or accessibility in selecting their locations, as evidenced during the installation of the Rockspinners.
For future rounds of physical art funding, staff recommends that locations be identified ahead of time to simplify the application process and ensure high-quality, site-specific proposals. In addition, staff recommends that the identified locations be evaluated for site preparation and accessibility needs. Any additional work that is needed should be included in the project budget at the outset of the project, together with a contingency amount for unexpected expenses.
4. In most cases, public art should be limited to public property.
The placement of public art on private property presents several important challenges:
• Maintenance: Maintenance of public artwork on private property needs to be completed by the City through an easement on the property, by the property owner through a legal agreement for artwork maintenance, or through a combination of both methods. Any maintenance agreements and/or easements need to be recorded to the property deed.
• Insurance: Generally, insurance companies will not insure artwork that is located on someone else’s property. In the case of the City, this means that the City would likely not be able to ensure publicly owned artwork on private property. Similarly, the property owner’s insurance company would likely refuse to insure artwork not owned by the property owner.
• Compliance with state and federal law. In California, public art is protected by state and federal laws which, in some cases, prohibit the intentional modification or destruction of artwork without the artist’s permission. Property owners would need to understand the implications of these laws for their property and be willing to comply.
In the case of Egrets with No Regrets, these challenges caused the owner of the initial property to drop out, resulting in a relocation and redesign of the artwork over a 16-month period and six public meetings. Given limited staff time and public art funding, staff recommends that most future physical public artworks be limited to public property.
5. Successful implementation of public art in Alameda requires efficient use of staff time and opportunistic use of resources.
With only 30% of one full-time staff person dedicated to the Program (approximately 10 hours per week), staff time can often be a bottleneck to moving projects forward. The lessons listed above provide insight into administrative methods that can help us to use staff time more efficiently, thereby enabling more public art in Alameda.
The Plan can also be an important tool for the efficient implementation of public art, by prioritizing projects and policies chosen by the Alameda community and approved by City Council.
Successful implementation also requires the ability to nimbly respond to unexpected opportunities which may arise. For example, in 2023 the City was able to hire an additional public art staff person through the CivicSpark program, which allowed staff to complete certain elements of the Plan ahead of schedule.
ALTERNATIVES
This report is for information purposes only. No action is required.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the City from accepting this informational report.
CONSISTENCY WITH MUNICIPAL CODE, PUBLIC ART MASTER PLAN AND OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS
This staff report and corresponding presentation are consistent with the Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-98 and the Public Art Master Plan which was adopted by City Council December 19, 2023.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 and therefore no further CEQA analysis is required.
CLIMATE IMPACT
There are no identifiable climate impacts or climate action opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the history of the City of Alameda Public Art Program and a summary of lessons learned.
Respectfully submitted,
Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director
By,
Amanda Gehrke, Special Projects Manager
Exhibits:
1. Public Art Requirement Summary 2003 - 2024
2. Public Art Grant Summary 2017 - 2024
3. Physical Art Checklist
4. Program History Presentation Final