HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form dated October 27, 2009 ITEM # 20
DATE: 10-27-09
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD STREET ART ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND:
On August 25 the City Council gave conceptual approval to the painting of local street
intersections by groups of neighbors, based on a model established in Portland, Oregon.
Since that time staff has consulted with the City of Portland and has met twice with the
City's Public Art Commission (PAC) and Mr. Nitin Gadia to develop an ordinance
formalizing this program.
The attached ordinance follows the Portland model closely and is recommended by City
staff for approval. Key portions of this ordinance are section 22.27, which describes the
defensible governmental purposes of this program, and section 22.29(2), which defines
content limitations.
During review of the draft ordinance with the PAC and Mr. Gadia, lively discussion
occurred around two issues. The first was the role of the Public Art Commission in
approving street art proposals. The PAC considered two approaches to this question.
Under one, the PAC would make a recommendation on each and every proposal
brought to the City for approval. Under the other, the PAC would simply advise Council
on the basic content criteria to be included in this initial ordinance. Ultimately the PAC
voted in support of the second approach, and recommends that Council follow the
Portland model where the Traffic Engineer approves proposals based upon content
criteria included in the ordinance.
The second issue related to whether or not "text" should be included among the
impermissible types of content in Section 22.29(2). Staff feels that excluding text
brings an added measure of safety to street art installations, since drivers' eyes might
naturally be drawn to wording which could distract them from the roadway ahead.
Excluding text also eliminates discretionary decisions as to what types of wording would
be "offensive, disruptive or disturbing," with attendant first amendment judgment calls by
the Traffic Engineer.
Some present at the PAC meetings felt strongly that text should be allowed in street
artwork, since text could allow an increased measure of artistic expression. However,
the PAC ultimately voted to recommend that text not be allowed, primarily out of
concern for public safety.
Finally, in following the Portland model, staff wrestled with the requirement for
applicants to hold the City harmless from claims for damages resulting from activities
under these permits. This practice is followed in Portland, where even block party
applicants must provide hold harmless releases and liability insurance. In Portland's
case, the city itself funds seven large "neighborhood coalitions" that assist
l
neighborhood associations in fulfilling the liability insurance and hold harmless
requirements.
In Ames' experience, localized neighborhood events such as block parties and
Neighborhood Improvement Project (NIP) Grant projects do not include requirements
for applicants to provide added legal or liability protection to the City. Staff has some
concern that imposing such a requirement in the street art program might create a
barrier to neighborhood cooperation, which is the Council goal being addressed through
these City-supported initiatives. Out of deference to the success of Portland's approach,
however, the hold harmless requirement has been included as Section 22.30(1) in the
proposed ordinance. If problems develop with applicants' willingness to sign the hold
harmless agreement, this issue may need to be revisited in the future.
At the conclusion of the second PAC discussion, support was expressed for the City to
evaluate this ordinance and program next year after the first group of citizens follows
the ordinance and installs the City's first street artwork. That process will allow staff, the
PAC and the public to evaluate how the program worked and to recommend to Council
any needed changes before other street art is authorized.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve the attached Street Painting Program Ordinance.
2. The City Council can approve the Street Painting Program Ordinance, but remove
"text" as an impermissible type of content.
3. The City Council can approve the Street Painting Program Ordinance, but remove
the section requiring applicants to hold the City harmless from damages related to
these activities.
4. The City Council can choose to not approve the Street Painting Program Ordinance.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This innovative program appears to have true potential for strengthening neighborhoods
within Ames. Both artistically and socially, this program supports the City Council's goal
to strengthen our neighborhoods. Such localized efforts could nurture connectivity
between neighbors who might not otherwise interact, and could facilitate their creating
an aesthetically pleasing neighborhood connection spot.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve
Alternative #1, approving the attached Street Painting Program Ordinance.
If this ordinance is adopted, the ordinance and program will be evaluated after the first
group of citizens installs their street artwork. This evaluation will allow staff, the Public
Art Commission and the public to evaluate how the program worked and to recommend
any needed changes to Council before other street art is authorized.
2