Title
Public Art Request for Proposals. The Public Art Commission will hold a public hearing to consider staff recommendations related to the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for physical public art, and cultural arts and arts programming in the City of Alameda. Release of a RFP is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
Body
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Public Art Commission
From: Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Date: January 18, 2017
RE: Public Art Request for Proposals. The Public Art Commission will hold a public hearing to consider staff recommendations related to the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for physical public art, and cultural arts and arts programming in the City of Alameda. Release of a RFP is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND
Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-65 Public Art in New Commercial, Industrial, Residential and Municipal Construction (the "Ordinance”) was adopted in 2003, to require that major development projects include on-site public art. The Ordinance also permits an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of providing the art on-site. Any in-lieu fees collected are deposited in the dedicated Public Art Fund (the "Fund"). The Fund can then only be used by the City to provide or support public art.
As described in the staff report for the January 18, 2017 Public Art Commission (“PAC”) meeting, City Council has requested that the PAC provide input regarding the distribution of public art funds, including the creation of a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for physical public art and cultural arts and arts programming.
DISCUSSION
In order to create an RFP for physical public art and cultural arts and arts programming in the City of Alameda, staff is seeking PAC input on a series of topics related to the design of the public art program and the evaluation process. These topics are outlined below, and a proposed RFP is attached as Exhibit 1.
Program Design
This section includes discussion topics that relate to the design of the public arts program and the distribution of funds.
1) How should the location of physical public art be determined?
Deterring the location for public art is a major component of the public art program. Staff originally recommended that the majority of public art funds be appropriated for citywide physical art installation and cultural arts and arts programming, and a portion of funds be appropriated for the design and installation of public art in Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. At the October 18th City Council meeting, members of the arts community voiced a desire that the PAC and the public have a larger role in selecting the locations for the installation of public art. As a result, City Council provided direction to staff that a single RFP be issued without a “set aside” for public art at Jean Sweeney Park.
There are a range of factors regarding locating public art to consider when soliciting public art. PAC can recommend that:
a. Option A: Locations for all physical public art be defined by the PAC at a public hearing. In this option, the PAC would hold a public hearing to define specific locations for public art. Once defined by the PAC, staff would seek feedback from the representatives of the publicly owned locations regarding suitability for on-site artwork. If sites located on private property are selected, staff would seek feedback from private property owners. Recommended sites, including public and/or private property owner feedback, would be submitted to City Council for approval. Only sites approved by the PAC and City Council would be eligible for public art funding.
Staff research into existing public art programs suggests that it is typical for the PAC and/or City Council to define locations for public art, and to issue site-specific requests for proposals. This option places the burden of ensuring location suitability on City staff, PAC and/or City Council, rather than artists or artist teams. Arts administrators interviewed by staff report that location suitability - including visibility, public access, appropriate environmental and soil conditions, and property owner support - is critical to the success of a public art program. If this option is selected, the same arts administrators also recommended including some parameters about the type of art that might be most appropriate for a given location - for example, suggesting a mural for the side of public building, or a sculpture for a public space.
b. Option B: Locations for public art be defined by submitting artists and/or artist teams, through the RFP process. In this option, locations for public art would not be defined by the PAC or City Council prior to the RFP process. Rather, the RFP would require artists and/or artist teams to suggest locations, and include a letter of support by the property owner in their application.
This option provides the most flexibility for the arts community to choose locations for public art, but also requires them to identify and evaluate the suitability of sites as part of their initial proposal. Artists and/or artist teams would be required to obtain letters of support from public and/or private property owners prior to submitting a proposal, and additional documentation once the project is selected.
c. Option C: Suggested locations for public art be defined by the PAC at a public hearing, and by submitting artists and/or artist teams through the RFP process. In this option the PAC would hold a public hearing to select locations for art on public property. Once defined by the PAC, staff would seek feedback from the representatives of the public locations regarding suitability for on-site artwork. If sites located on private property are selected, staff would seek feedback from private property owners. Recommended sites, including public and/or private property owner feedback, would be submitted to City Council for approval. In addition to sites recommended by PAC and Council, artists and/or artist teams could suggest locations through the RFP process. Artists and/or artist teams would be required to submit a letter of support from the property owner for any location not approved by City Council.
This hybrid option provides the surety of sites that have been suggested by the PAC and approved by City Council, but also allows artists the flexibility to choose other locations for public art, provided they submit a letter of support from the public or private property owner prior to submitting a proposal.
d. Option D: Any other location selection process, or variations on the processes described above.
Given that a public process to determine the location for public art could delay the issuance of an RFP by six to 12 months, staff recommends that locations for public art be defined by submitting artists and/or artist teams in the initial RFP (Option B). As noted above, a letter of support from the property owner should be required. This would enable the RFP to be released in the short-term. For future RFPs, staff recommends that the locations for public art be defined both by the PAC at a public hearing, and/or by submitting artists and/or artist teams through the RFP process (Option C).
2) How much total public art funding should be distributed at this time?
At the October 18th Council meeting, staff recommended the appropriation of $350,000 to be distributed for physical art, cultural art and arts programming through the RFP process. This would reduce the fund balance to $24,065. While City Council is required to appropriate funds before they can be distributed at the conclusion of an RFP process, the PAC can make recommendations to City Council regarding the appropriation of funds. Suggested recommendations for the distribution of funding include:
a. The majority of the Fund balance be appropriated and distributed immediately through one RFP, or a series of RFPs in short succession. This would distribute the largest amount of funding and result in the greatest amount of public art in the shortest period of time. However, the timing of future RFPs would be dependent on future contributions to the Fund, and therefore unpredictable and market-dependent.
b. The Fund balance be appropriated and distributed over two or three years through annual RFPs in smaller amounts. This option would allow for longer-term planning around public art in the City of Alameda, and for the refinement of the public art RFP process through a series of RFPs over a longer period of time.
c. Any other distribution process, or variations on the processes described above.
Staff recommends that all of the funds be distributed immediately through one RFP or a series of RFPs in short succession, in order produce the greatest amount of public art in the shortest period of time.
3) In what increments should public arts funds be distributed?
Depending on the total amount of funding the PAC recommends for immediate distribution, the PAC will need to consider whether the funding should be available to a single piece of artwork and/or cultural program, or if smaller award amounts should be set within the initial distribution. Considerations for this decision include:
a. Larger award amounts would result in physical artwork and cultural programming of a larger scale, in fewer locations. For example, this could result in an iconic piece of physical art to serve as a City landmark, and/or a longer-term cultural program serving the Alameda community. However, fewer locations within the City would receive physical artwork.
b. Smaller award amounts would enable the Fund to leverage more public artwork and arts programming for the benefit of Alameda community, and support the work of a greater number of artists and arts organizations. Smaller award amounts would also encourage the creation of artwork and arts programming of different scales and lifetimes in a wider variety of locations within the City of Alameda. For example, award amounts for a $350,000 appropriation might be:
§ Physical public art
• One $100,000 award
• One $50,000 award
• Three $25,000 awards
• Three $12,500 awards
§ Cultural arts or arts programming
• One $50,000 award
• One $25,000 award
• One $12,500 award
Staff recommends that the funds be distributed in a manner that would fund artwork of different scales and lifetimes, in a wide variety of locations within the City of Alameda.
Evaluation Process
This section includes discussion topics that relate to the evaluation and selection process to be included in the RFP.
4) Should a local preference for artists and/or artist teams proposing physical public art be adopted?
Possible preferences include:
a. A requirement that all artists and/or artist teams live or work in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, or any other geography selected by the PAC. This option would ensure that all of the public art funding directly supports artists in the selected geographic area. However, it would also limit the pool of eligible artists and/or artist teams, which will result in fewer and less diverse submittals.
b. A point preference for artists and/or artist teams who live or work in the City of Alameda, to be incorporated into the evaluation criteria. For example, local artists and/or artist teams could receive a 5-point bonus compared to proposers from other locations. This option would support the local arts community, while still allowing applications from a wide variety of artists and/or artist teams.
c. No preference for artists and/or artist teams who live or work in the City of Alameda. Under this option, artists and/or artist teams who live or work in the City of Alameda would be evaluated on an equal basis with artists from a wide variety of locations.
d. Any other preference or requirement identified by the PAC.
Staff recommends artists and/or artist teams who live or work in the City of Alameda receive a 5-point preference in the evaluation process.
5) What selection criteria should be used to evaluate the proposals?
Providing selection criteria as part of the RFP establishes the priorities of the PAC and the public art program, and assists artists as they craft their applications. Based on a review of RFPs from a variety of other cities, including Emeryville, Burbank, Albany, San Jose, and Berkeley, staff developed suggestions for weighted selection criteria for the physical public art and cultural arts and arts programming categories. Staff is seeking PAC feedback and changes to the criteria listed below.
For physical art, suggested criteria and weights are:
|
Artistic Merit and Experience |
Overall creative and aesthetic nature of the artist’s or team’s conceptual design and narrative, and past works. Past work on projects of similar scope and scale, including familiarity with public art installations. |
50% |
|
Placemaking: |
Capacity to improve the overall appearance of the vicinity of the physical art and create a community asset and sense of place. |
20% |
|
Budget |
Inclusion of reasonable cost estimates within desired grant amount. |
10% |
|
Communication |
Ability to communicate clearly and work cooperatively with City staff, Commission members, and members of the general public, |
5% |
|
Schedule |
Inclusion of realistic schedule and construction process. |
5% |
|
Leveraged funds |
Use of additional Federal, State, philanthropic or other funds for the project. |
5% |
|
Local Preference |
Artist and/or artist team lives or works in the City of Alameda |
5% |
For cultural arts and arts programming, suggested criteria and weights are:
|
Proposed Event or ProgramAn assessment of the proposed event or program and how it will benefit the broader community and engage local arts and culture groups and individuals.50% |
|
|
|
Experience |
An assessment of the organization’s past experience and level of expertise in implementing programs and projects to enhance local arts and culture. |
20% |
|
Budget |
Inclusion of reasonable cost estimates within desired grant amount. |
10% |
|
Schedule |
Inclusion of realistic program schedule. |
10% |
|
Communication |
The ability to communicate clearly and work cooperatively with City staff, Commission members, and members of the general public. |
5% |
|
Leveraged funds |
Use of additional Federal, State, philanthropic or other funds for the project. |
5% |
Staff recommends using the criteria and weights listed above.
6) Should finalists be awarded an honorarium for completion of a detailed artwork proposal, and if so, how much?
For physical artwork, the proposed selection process in the draft RFP (Exhibit 1) includes two rounds: in the first round, artists submit a general artwork concept, along with work samples, a resume, and other background information. The PAC would review these applications and select three finalists. In the next round, the finalists would submit a longer proposal, including detailed renderings and/or models, a budget, schedule, and high level installation and maintenance plans. It is common for public entities to provide finalists with a small honorarium for the completion of an in-depth proposal, to compensate for their ideas, time and any travel expenses. Typical honoraria range from $500 to $3,000, and vary in size based on the size of the award. The Public Art Network, a professional organization dedicated to advancing public art programs, considers this a best practice in the field. A funding source for the honoraria has not yet been identified.
Staff recommends that finalists for the largest award amount ($100,000) receive an honorarium of $1,500 as compensation for the completion of an in-depth project proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The RFP is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
A public hearing was advertised in the newspaper and posted on the City website.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PAC review and approve staff recommendations related the creation and release of a RFP for physical public art, and cultural arts and arts programming in the City of Alameda.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amanda Gehrke
Management Analyst
Exhibits:
1. Draft Request for Proposals for Public Art