My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 89527
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
RES 89527
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2012 4:11:47 PM
Creation date
11/23/1999 11:09:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
12/12/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4. Where should the funds for public art come from? <br /> <br /> The PCAC does not recommend a fee for public art, and it <br /> does not wish to supplant capital improvements funded from <br /> the CIP. It recommends a position of the hotel/motel tax <br /> and donations be the sources of public art funds. <br /> <br /> [Other cities use developer fees (see issue #1 above), fixed <br /> percentages of CIP and/or redevelopment revenues, and <br /> general fund revenues. Staff cautions against tying the <br /> program to any one revenue source (e.g. hotel/motel tax), as <br /> each year potential state legislation is introduced <br /> affecting use of specific revenue sources. Staff recommends <br /> a simple policy using General Fund monies, a more flexible <br /> and practically equivalent method.] <br /> <br /> 5. Should art be funded ad hoc or from a designated fund? <br /> <br /> The PCAC recommends that a fund be established as it could <br /> receive donations, could carry-over if unspent, and could <br /> provide "seed money" to allow the selection process to <br /> begin. <br /> <br /> [A fund has the advantages of creating a known range for <br /> artwork price as well as the ability to cover any "up-front" <br /> costs (an invited "competition" typically pays a nominal <br /> amount for entrants' efforts). A case-by-case method, while <br /> seemingly more "budget-exact," creates long-term budgeting <br /> difficulties (unknown estimate) and, by being potentially <br /> open-ended, could lead to selection of artwork more <br /> expensive than the City's desires.] <br /> <br /> 6. Should public art be limited to outdoor areas or building <br /> interiors/courtyards? <br /> <br /> The PCAC has focussed on only outdoor sites as those <br /> eligible to receive art through this policy. <br /> <br /> [Outdoor, public places yield highest visibility, but they <br /> severely limit art types. Certain indoor spaces--City Hall <br /> and other public building lobbies, libraries, and theaters-- <br /> are historically locations for public art of all types. <br /> Broadening the allowable location of public art would likely <br /> broaden the number of local artists desiring to participate, <br /> a laudatory goal. The City has several unplaced art pieces <br /> unsuitable for outdoor locations and has received donations <br /> of "indoor" public art in the past. A policy governing such <br /> artwork may be needed even if not a high priority for <br /> funding.] <br /> <br />IR:89:87 -3- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.