Subject
title
Chapter IV Arts and Cultural Affairs Ordinance Revisions
end
Department
City Manager's Office (CMO)
Discussion
Chapter IV Arts and Cultural Affairs Ordinance was first adopted in 1975, 50 years ago before Arts Management and Public Art were professions. The Ordinance’s Articles establish the Arts and Culture Commission (Article II, 1975), Incorporating Works of Art in Public Architecture (Article III, 1978), Publicly Accessible Art in Private Development (Article IV, 2001), and Art in Public Places (Article V, 2003).
The City of Rockville has indicated it intends to implement recommendations from the 2019 Arts and Culture Study. The Study provides many recommendations for developing arts and culture in Rockville, first and foremost creating the Arts and Culture Program Manager position placed in the City Manager's Office, which was done in Fiscal Year 2023. Recommendations also include that the Arts and Culture Program Manager evaluate and determine what needs to be done to develop arts and culture programs in Rockville so the city can fulfill its potential as an arts destination and integrate the arts into economic and community development and tourism. The job description and workplan for the Arts and Culture Manager echo the Study’s recommendations and an assessment of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Ordinance is an important part of the foundation for future program development.
The revisions recommended for Chapter IV are based on professional practices established in the arts and culture sector and Public Art field, the practical implementation of the ordinance having evolved over time, and the need to formalize and professionalize the city’s role in developing artistic and cultural assets. Now that Rockville has made a commitment to formalizing its arts and culture programs, roles and processes need to reflect best practices established in these professions.
Requested Feedback
Does the Mayor and Council support:
1. Merging Incorporating Works of Art in Public Architecture and Art in Public Places Articles into a Public Art Program Article?
2. The recommendations for the Publicly Accessible Art in Private Development Article?
1. Redefine acceptable art forms.
2. Clearly define "publicly accessible.“
3. Define roles in program administration.
4. Eliminate the option to remove artwork.
5. Change formula to determine required contributions.
6. Modify the options for how contributions can be applied.
3. Enhanced community engagement in Public Art Program delivery?
1. Modify administrative processes to consistently meet standards and expectations.
Background and Suggested Revisions
As previously stated, Chapter IV was first adopted 50 years ago, and the most recent article was adopted 22 years ago. It is necessary that the programs established by Chapter IV have administrative processes that are formalized to reflect best practices in the Arts Management and Public Art professions.
Chapter IV Article II established the Cultural Arts Commission in 1975.
Chapter IV. Article III established the Incorporating Works of Art in Public Architecture program in 1978. This program allows for public art in city construction projects and is funded by at least 1% of the annual Capital Improvement Projects’ appropriation.
Chapter IV. Article IV established Publicly Accessible Art in Private Development in 2001. This requires developers of qualifying construction projects to make a required contribution for publicly accessible art.
Chapter IV. Article V established Art in Public Places in 2003. This article allows for Public Art on city property and is funded by 1/10 of 1% of the previous fiscal year’s General Fund budget.
Structurally, it is recommended the article be revised as follows:
|
Current Structure |
Proposed Structure |
|
|
Preamble |
|
Article II - Cultural Arts Commission |
Article II - Cultural Arts Commission |
|
Article III - Incorporation of Works of Art in Public Architecture |
Article III - Public Art Program |
|
Article IV - Publicly Accessible Art in Private Development |
Article IV - Public Art in Private Development |
|
Article V - Art in Public Places |
|
Preamble: The addition of a Preamble would provide clarification about the parameters and scope of work for the Arts and Culture Program and differentiate it from the arts and culture programs produced by Recreation and Parks.
Revisions to Article II: It is suggested that process-related language be moved from Article II to program guidelines because processes need to be responsive to how communities and technologies evolve, and guidelines are updated more easily and efficiently than Ordinances. It is also recommended that budget and administrative responsibilities be moved to city staff because there is now staff capacity to do this work.
Revisions to Articles III and V: Combining Articles III and V to create one Article entitled Public Art Program is recommended because Article V was created to supplement the budget for Article III, and the programs have similar purposes and seek the same outcomes. The funding mechanisms are not suggested to change. Process-related language needs to be moved to guidelines for the same reasons previously discussed.
The definitions of acceptable art and eligible sites for artworks need to be revised because the Public Art field has evolved since the Articles were adopted, and, if we expand eligible sites to be those in the public realm, we can potentially integrate Public Art into transportation, housing and community development, economic development, and tourism plans and projects led by the city, and other agencies.
The roles need to be formalized to reflect that staff lead administrative processes in consultation with the Cultural Arts Commission, with the Mayor and Council approving the Public Art Strategic Plan and contracts over $250,000 in alignment with Procurement.
The chart below summarizes the current and proposed changes to the consolidation and administration of the program. Staff leading the administrative, planning, and project management processes will ensure consistent community engagement practices that meet standards and expectations, as well as the ability to integrate Public Art into broader city planning initiatives. Combining the programs eliminates confusion for city staff, residents, and stakeholders about the city’s programs and provides for more efficient program administration.
Community Benefits
Community benefits resulting from Article III and V revisions are the ability to 1) combine funding and integrate public art into broader city plans and projects, 2) be responsive to the community and provide consistent community engagement practices, and 3) partner with county and state agencies and private entities on projects that affect the public realm.
Revisions to Article IV: Publicly Accessible Art in Private Development revisions begin with renaming the Article to simply Art in Private Development. The definition of acceptable artforms needs to be redefined for reasons previously discussed, and where the art can be installed on site needs to be clarified because the Ordinance allows for artworks to be placed indoors where they are not publicly accessible. The option to remove the artwork should be removed so that Public Art will be permanent.
The formula for determining the required contribution needs to be revised because the required fees have been adjusted annually over time and are now arguably excessive. There is a fee schedule in the Article with a footnote that the fees are updated annually according to the Builder’s Cost Index published by McGraw Hill. The developer is then referred to the program’s Implementation Manual that has the current fee schedule that has fees more than three times the amount in the Article. This creates confusion and does not provide good customer service.
Rockville is the only locality with the complex fee schedule in the Article. When assessing the 90+ localities in the United States that have Ordinances requiring Public Art in private development, the most common practice in Public Art is that developers with qualifying construction projects may either install public art onsite, the value or which is 1% the cost or value of the construction project; or they may make a contribution to the locality’s Public Art program that ranges from .8% to 1.5% of the cost or value of the construction project depending on the locality. Additionally, some localities have a cap on the maximum amount required for the Public Art contribution.
Rockville is also the only locality in the country with an Ordinance requiring Public Art in private development that has more than two options to apply the required contributions. The city has six options for how a required fee may be applied. It is proposed that two options be provided, rather than six, and that those two options be to install Public Art on site or make a contribution to the city’s Public Art Program valued at 1% of the cost of the development not to exceed $300,000. Developers may contribute more than $300,000 if they prefer.
|
Current Options for Contributions |
Proposed Options for Contributions |
|
1. Installation of art on site (Selected most often.) |
1. Installation of art on site in the amount of 1% of the cost of the development not to exceed $300,000. |
|
2. Monetary contribution to city’s Friends of the Arts Fund (Selected frequently.) |
2. Monetary contribution designated to the city’s Public Art Program in the amount of 1% of the cost of the development not to exceed $300,000. |
|
3. Provision of an arts space (Chosen once.) |
|
|
4. Provision of an arts-based infrastructure (Never selected.) |
|
|
5. Monetary contribution to a qualifying arts nonprofit organization (Not often selected and contributions most often given to organizations with closest proximity to city staff.) |
|
|
6. Combination of any of the above options (Selected twice: contributions were made when there were small balances left from installing art on site.) |
|
Community Benefits
The city will 1) have permanent public art that is publicly accessible, 2) eliminate confusion for stakeholders and provide excellent customer service, 3) provide a more equitable program, and 4) align with established best practices in the Public Art profession.
Resources:
• Chapter IV Arts and Cultural Affairs Ordinance: <https://library.municode.com/md/rockville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CICO_CH4ARCUAF>
• 2019 Arts and Culture Study: <https://www.rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37644/City-of-Rockville-Arts-and-Culture-Study---Final>
• Public Art in Private Development Database: https://explore.publicartarchive.org/papd-database/#browsedb <https://explore.publicartarchive.org/papd-database/>
• Attachment 2: Helpful Information About the Public Art Field
Boards and Commissions Review
The Cultural Arts Commission was encouraged to attend this worksession and have a role as proposed in Next Steps.
Next Steps
Staff will draft a revised ordinance based upon the Mayor and Council’s feedback, present the ordinance to the Cultural Arts Commission for its review and comments, and present the revised Ordinance to the Mayor and Council.