Bellingham Arts Commission

The Bellingham Arts Commission convened for its January meeting to address two significant public art projects and discuss systemic changes to the city's percent-for-art program. The commission unanimously approved combining two major infrastructure projects — the Roeder Lift Station reconstruction and the Squalcombe Creek Estuary project — for a combined public art budget exceeding $400,000. This innovative approach reflects the commission's recognition that some infrastructure locations are poorly suited for public art viewing, while adjacent projects offer better visibility and community engagement opportunities. Public Works Project Manager Tim Hohmann presented the proposal to integrate art into the Squalcombe Creek Estuary project, which will reconstruct three bridges and potentially realign the creek to improve fish passage and reduce flooding. The commission endorsed the city's plan to embed an artist early in the design process, following successful models from other regions where artists have collaborated with engineers from project inception to create cohesive, integrated public art solutions. The commission also received an update on the Lakewood Underpass mural project, where Paper Whale organization is working with the WURST crew artists to create wayfinding-oriented artwork that incorporates both traditional and anglicized spellings of "Whatcom." The design concept features large hands pointing east toward mountains and west toward water, with subtle iconography embedded within the composition. A significant portion of the meeting focused on addressing the city's growing backlog of percent-for-art projects. With over 20 projects worth approximately $2 million in the pipeline, staff proposed establishing an artist roster system similar to those used by Seattle and ArtsWA. This would streamline the selection process by conducting one comprehensive call for artists rather than individual competitions for each project, potentially reducing timeline from seven months to a more manageable timeframe while maintaining competitive selection standards.

**Squalcombe Creek/Roeder Lift Station Project Combination:** Unanimous approval to combine the 1% for art funding from both projects (approximately $400,000 total) and to investigate a process for selecting an artist to be embedded in the design team from the project's early stages. **Artist Roster System:** No formal vote taken, but commission expressed general support for exploring an artist roster system to manage the growing backlog of percent-for-art projects, with emphasis on maintaining equity and opportunities for emerging artists. **Lakewood Underpass Mural:** Commission provided positive feedback on the conceptual direction, allowing the project to proceed to the next development phase.

**Tim Hohmann, on procurement challenges:** "How do I tell them what an artist is to get them to put an artist on the team? I'd love to hear the Commission's thoughts on that." **Commission member, on artist integration models:** "I think what you're really looking for is an artist selection process early on so the artist is identified and can get into the trenches with your wonderful engineers to really figure out what is the best solution for incorporating art into the project." **Commission member, on roster system equity:** "I have concern that more people get a shot at things, and that's how we keep it more equitable. If you're sort of shut out because you missed the call... maybe the roster is for projects at this level and above right and smaller projects you know can still be one offs so that we provide emerging artists the opportunity to get their toe in the water." **Darby, on project volume:** "The truth is that we just don't have the time and capacity to do individual call for arts for each of these projects." **Commission member, on conflict of interest:** "If you hire an artist to be an integral part of the design team and it isn't a given that that person will then create the work, that person shouldn't have a shot at creating the artwork. So it's one or the other, and that should be determined in advance."

## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Arts Commission convened on January 7, 2025, for their first meeting of the new year, gathering virtually and in-person to tackle two major public art projects and address growing challenges in their percent-for-art program. Commission members were present to hear updates on significant infrastructure projects that would incorporate public art, including a substantial combined effort worth over $400,000 and updates on a highly visible downtown mural project. The meeting highlighted both the opportunities and complexities facing Bellingham's public art program as it enters 2025 with an unprecedented backlog of over 20 projects worth approximately $2 million in public art funding. The discussions revealed the tension between maintaining thorough, equitable artist selection processes and the practical need to move projects forward efficiently as construction timelines demand early artist integration. ## Squalcombe Creek and Roeder Lift Station Art Integration Tim Hohmann from Public Works presented what would become the meeting's most substantive discussion: a proposal to combine the 1% for art funding from two adjacent infrastructure projects to create a more impactful and visible public art opportunity. The Roeder Lift Station reconstruction and the Squalcombe Creek estuary fish passage project, each budgeted at approximately $20 million, would together provide over $400,000 for public art. Hohmann explained the challenge with the lift station location: "It's located way in the back here up against the railroad tracks. It's kind of not very terribly visible from the road. You can see it, but it kind of sits well set back from the road in this area back here behind a power station behind these trucks and we didn't... Staff felt it wasn't a very good location for art. Definitely not a place where people won't are going to want to go back in there and view art." The solution emerged from the proximity of the Squalcombe Creek project, which will reconstruct three bridges including the Roeder Avenue Bridge over Squalcombe Creek, the railroad bridge, and a port truck bridge. The creek may even be realigned as part of improving fish passage. This project offers significantly better visibility and public access than the hidden lift station. The innovative aspect of Hohmann's proposal involved hiring what he initially termed an "art coordinator" to be integrated into the design team from the project's inception. However, this terminology sparked immediate discussion among commission members who sought clarity about roles and processes. Commissioner concerns centered on ensuring proper artist selection procedures and avoiding conflicts of interest. As one member noted: "Some of that gets a little tricky because you've just created a conflict of interest situation. You know, if you're hiring kind of if you hire an artist to be an integral part of the design team and it isn't a given that that person will then create the work, the artwork. That person shouldn't have a shot at creating the artwork. So it's one or the other, and that should be determined in advance." Hohmann clarified his intent was to get "an artist on the design team" rather than a project coordinator, explaining the procurement challenges: "We have very strict procurement rules on how we can select our consultant teams. And so I think this was our attempt to do that on a project with a very healthy, robust budget." The discussion evolved toward a model where an artist would be selected early through the commission's competitive process and then embedded with the engineering team. A commissioner referenced successful precedents: "I don't know if people in the region know Vicki Scurry, who's based in Seattle. She's done projects all over the country. She did a huge project in Wichita that was a State and Federal highway project... she got in super early at the very beginning as all of that was being developed as being developed came up with a wonderful solution for how to incorporate the concrete that was used had patterning in it, the lighting was special and really wonderful. The plantings were and all of that was unified and you know, holistic and throughout the whole process." The federal funding aspect added complexity, as Hohmann explained: "This is a federally funded project. So I have to have to be somewhat limited on how I put that RFQ together, because there's some mandated language, fairly strictly mandated language that has to meet WSDOT standards." He emphasized the need to balance the 1% art component with the 99% engineering focus required for the complex project. After extensive discussion about procurement processes, artist qualifications, and integration methods, the commission reached consensus. A motion was made and unanimously approved to combine both projects for a larger art budget and have the city investigate a process to select an artist who would be embedded in the design team from the early stages. ## Lakewood Underpass Mural Development Gretchen Leggett from the Paper Whale organization presented updates on the Lakewood underpass mural project, part of the downtown activation and beautification initiative approved the previous year. The project faced an interesting evolution after the artists originally assigned to a library stairwell project were reassigned when that project became infeasible due to deteriorating concrete conditions. Leggett explained the artist selection: "The board of Paper whale being seven different members on our board reviewed a series of about 30 artists that I proposed for this project I hadn't even proposed the worst crew because they were assigned to the library project. After reviewing all of the artists that I had proposed. They're like, how about the guys from the library? So everyone just loved this team's work." The project now incorporates wayfinding elements requested by the Tourism Commission, but in an artistic rather than literal manner. Leggett described their approach: "What we are working with is the inclusion of words but hidden. So making more of a subliminal graphic message. And so each of these pieces that you're seeing do have words hidden within them. And after speaking with the Department of Transportation, we really love focusing on the idea of WHATCOM and Whatcom, the traditional word for our region." The design concept centers on large hands as directional elements, with the Tourism Commission's wayfinding request being fulfilled through symbolic iconography rather than explicit signage. Leggett elaborated: "So the idea of the hand to the east pointing to the mountains and including things like hills, evergreen trees in abstract symbols that might correlate with snow or bikes or skiing. And then to the west, we're pointing to, of course, the ocean. So including images that convey messages of the islands or water, fish and boats having very, very, very abstract, nuanced guides that really are um that that do point to iconography of of this region." The project faces practical challenges typical of infrastructure art. Site conditions include water seepage through concrete seams, which the artists have studied and will accommodate in their design through strategic color placement and material selection. The Washington State Department of Transportation has streamlined their approval process since the artwork won't be visible from the traveled way of Interstate 5. Color palette emerged as a significant design consideration, with Leggett emphasizing the neutral approach: "They have beautiful bold colors, but they are more neutral, and they're not going to be jarring, I think, with the idea of this being a pass-through that people are going to, you know, there can be traffic piled up under that at the Lakeway underpass... I think that this neutral background will really create a much more peaceful, really content environment." A commissioner suggested incorporating sign language as another communication layer through the hand imagery, which Leggett confirmed was under consideration. The timeline calls for final proposals by March, allowing for refinement through May before installation in June and July. ## Arts Commission Policy Updates and Member Renewals Commission business included updates on policy revisions and board appointments. Staff announced that Mayor's office policy now requires all board members to reapply for renewal, even those seeking to continue their service, to maintain equity in the appointment process. While this affects members whose terms end in 2026, it represents a significant shift from previous renewal procedures. The commission also discussed updating their policies and procedures document, with staff clarifying that commission members or a subcommittee would need to lead this effort. Two commissioners volunteered to develop a plan for these updates, recognizing the need to address evolving practices and challenges in the city's art program. ## The Artist Roster Solution and Program Challenges The meeting's most forward-looking discussion centered on addressing the growing backlog of percent-for-art projects. Staff reported having over 20 projects worth approximately $2 million in art funding currently in the pipeline, with additional projects being added regularly. This volume creates an unsustainable workload for individualized artist selection processes. Staff proposed investigating an artist roster system, similar to those used by Seattle and ArtsWA, where a single comprehensive call for artists would create a pre-vetted pool for project selection. As staff explained: "The truth is that we just don't have the time and capacity to do individual call for arts for each of these projects. So going back through the policies and procedures, I saw that one of the methods for artist selection is through an art roster, something that City of Seattle does." The proposal generated extensive discussion about maintaining equity and opportunities for emerging artists. Commission members expressed concern about potentially closing doors to artists who might miss the initial roster call or be excluded from what could become an insular system. One commissioner articulated the equity concerns: "I have concern that more people get a shot at things and that's how we keep it more equitable if it's if you're sort of shut out because you missed the call or it was competitive at this level, but not every project that the city has is going to be at that level that you would think long and hard about that and maybe the roster is for projects at this level and above right and small smaller projects you know can still be one offs so that we provide emerging artists the opportunity to get their toe in the water." Staff acknowledged these concerns while explaining the practical benefits: "The nice thing is because we have 20 projects plus in the pipeline, we can provide some snippets and descriptions of the range and then just blast it as far and wide as we can. And there would be no reason to really limit the number of artists that we put on the roster." The discussion revealed tension between administrative efficiency and the commission's successful existing process. Staff noted: "We've been really happy and the commission has been very satisfied with the process that we've been using for most projects, which is doing the RFQ narrowing it down to a handful of artists and then have it paying them to prepare a proposal." Alternative approaches emerged, including potentially using existing rosters from other jurisdictions or creating hybrid systems where roster selection could be combined with project-specific competitions. The Seattle model allows artists to specify their preferences and capabilities across different project types and scales, from temporary installations to major sculptures. The conversation touched on comparison with Western Washington University's art acquisition process, which benefits from significant private donations that allow for direct artist selection outside public procurement requirements. This highlighted the constraints facing municipal programs that must balance public accountability with artistic vision. ## Storybrook Park Project Updates Staff provided updates on the Polymedis Group's Storybrook Park installation, addressing concerns raised at previous meetings about material longevity and maintenance requirements. An upcoming meeting with the artists and parks project manager will focus on developing a comprehensive maintenance plan and establishing clear parameters for the artwork's expected lifespan. The discussion revealed the commission's growing sophistication in addressing long-term sustainability of public artworks. Staff outlined plans to require information about how the piece may age over time and establish language distinguishing between routine maintenance and potential deaccession decisions. This represents a significant evolution in the city's approach to public art stewardship, moving beyond initial installation to consider the full lifecycle of artworks and the municipal resources required to maintain them. ## Project Coordination and Future Planning The meeting concluded with recognition of the significant coordination challenges ahead. With multiple major projects requiring artist integration at early design stages, staff announced they would provide a comprehensive overview of the project pipeline at the next meeting to help the commission prioritize efforts and ensure critical opportunities for early artist involvement aren't missed. The discussion of the Illinois Meridian project illustrated this challenge - a project where the decision to wait until construction completion may have relegated it to lower priority, potentially losing the opportunity for integrated artistic elements that could have enhanced both the infrastructure and the artwork. ## Closing Reflections As the commission adjourned, the scope of challenges and opportunities facing Bellingham's public art program was evident. The successful integration of art into major infrastructure projects like Squalcombe Creek, combined with community-focused installations like the Lakewood underpass mural, demonstrates the program's growing sophistication and impact. However, the sheer volume of projects in the pipeline forces difficult questions about maintaining the commission's commitment to thorough, equitable artist selection while meeting the practical demands of construction schedules and municipal capacity. The solutions being explored - from artist rosters to embedded design team members to hybrid selection processes - will likely define the program's effectiveness and character for years to come. The meeting ended with a sense of both opportunity and responsibility, as commissioners grappled with stewarding not just individual artworks but the broader system that connects public investment, community identity, and artistic expression in Bellingham's evolving urban landscape.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-ART-2025-01-07 ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Arts Commission met on January 7, 2025, to discuss two major public art projects: the Squalcombe Creek Fish Passage and Rotor Lift Station percent-for-art approach, and an update on the Lakewood Underpass mural project. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Percent for Art (1% for Art):** A policy requiring that 1% of eligible capital construction project budgets be dedicated to public art. In this meeting, the combined Squalcombe Creek and Rotor Lift Station projects have over $400,000 available for art. **Request for Qualifications (RFQ):** A procurement process where potential contractors or artists submit their credentials and experience, used to narrow down candidates before moving to the proposal stage. **Artist on Design Team:** An approach where an artist is embedded with engineers and architects from the early stages of a project to integrate art seamlessly into the infrastructure design, rather than adding art as an afterthought. **Art Roster:** A pre-vetted list of qualified artists that jurisdictions can use to select from for projects, potentially streamlining the artist selection process rather than doing individual calls for each project. **WSDOT:** Washington State Department of Transportation, which has jurisdiction over projects involving state highways and must approve artwork visible from traveled roadways. **Fish Passage:** Infrastructure designed to allow fish to move around human-made barriers like dams or culverts, in this case improving salmon access up Squalcombe Creek. **Paper Whale:** The organization working with the city to coordinate the Lakewood Underpass mural project and manage artist selection. **Tourism Commission:** A city body that provided input on the underpass mural project, requesting wayfinding elements pointing toward downtown and mountains. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Tim Hohmann | City Public Works staff presenting the Squalcombe Creek project | | Gretchen Leggett | Representative from Paper Whale presenting the underpass mural update | | Taylor | Arts Commission staff coordinator | | Darby | Arts Commission staff | | Tara | Arts Commission staff (referenced) | | Jonathan Shilk | Parks project manager (referenced) | ### Background Context The city of Bellingham is dealing with an unprecedented volume of percent-for-art projects—over 20 projects worth approximately $2 million in art funding. This creates both opportunities and challenges: opportunities to create significant public art throughout the city, but challenges in managing the administrative workload of individual artist selection processes for each project. The Squalcombe Creek Fish Passage project represents a new model where the city is trying to embed artists early in the design process rather than retrofitting art onto completed infrastructure. This approach could lead to more integrated, meaningful public art but requires navigating complex procurement rules and federal funding requirements. Meanwhile, the city is exploring whether to create an artist roster system similar to Seattle's, which would pre-qualify artists and streamline selection for multiple projects, though this raises questions about equity and opportunities for emerging local artists. ### What Happened — The Short Version Public Works presented a plan to combine art funding from two projects—a sewer lift station reconstruction ($200,000) and the Squalcombe Creek fish passage project ($200,000+)—because the lift station location is too hidden for effective public art. They want to hire an artist as part of the design team for the more visible creek project. The commission approved this approach but clarified they want an actual artist embedded with engineers, not just a project coordinator. Paper Whale updated the commission on the Lakewood Underpass mural, showing concepts that incorporate hidden text (including "Whatcom" in traditional and contemporary spellings) and directional hand imagery pointing toward mountains and water. The Tourism Commission requested wayfinding elements, which the artists are incorporating more subtly through symbols within the hand designs. The commission also discussed creating an artist roster to manage their heavy workload of 20+ percent-for-art projects, weighing efficiency against ensuring opportunities for emerging artists. ### What to Watch Next • The final artist selection process for the Squalcombe Creek project, whether through separate Arts Commission selection or integrated into Public Works' design team procurement • March presentation of refined concepts for the Lakewood Underpass mural • Development of the potential artist roster system and its impact on local artist opportunities ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-ART-2025-01-07 **Q:** What is the total combined budget for percent-for-art funding from the Squalcombe Creek and Rotor Lift Station projects? **A:** Over $400,000 (approximately $200,000 from each project, with each project costing around $20 million total). **Q:** Why did Public Works propose combining the art budgets from two separate projects? **A:** The Rotor Lift Station is located in a hidden area behind power stations and railroad tracks where public art wouldn't be effectively viewed, while the Squalcombe Creek project is much more visible to the public. **Q:** What is the main purpose of the Squalcombe Creek estuary project beyond art? **A:** To provide better fish passage up Squalcombe Creek by reconstructing three bridges and potentially realigning the creek, with additional benefits like flood reduction. **Q:** Who are the city's partners on the Squalcombe Creek Fish Passage project? **A:** The Port of Bellingham is a key partner on the project. **Q:** What procurement method must Public Works use for federally funded projects like Squalcombe Creek? **A:** Request for Qualifications (RFQ) with language that meets WSDOT standards, focusing on the 99% engineering requirements while incorporating the 1% art component. **Q:** What artist duo was reassigned from the library stairwell project to the Lakewood Underpass mural? **A:** The "Worst Crew" artists, who were reassigned after the library project was cancelled due to crumbling concrete that couldn't feasibly be repaired. **Q:** What traditional word for the region do the underpass mural artists plan to incorporate? **A:** "Whatcom" (both traditional and contemporary spellings), which references the Coast Salish people whose land the region sits on. **Q:** How are the underpass mural artists planning to incorporate wayfinding elements requested by the Tourism Commission? **A:** Through large hands pointing east (toward mountains with symbols like trees, snow, bikes) and west (toward water with symbols of islands, fish, boats), with iconography hidden within the hands. **Q:** When do the underpass mural artists plan to install their work? **A:** June-July 2025, with final proposals due for review by March to allow for refinement through May. **Q:** How many percent-for-art projects does Bellingham currently have in its pipeline? **A:** Over 20 projects worth approximately $2 million in combined art funding. **Q:** What is an artist roster system and why is the city considering it? **A:** A pre-vetted list of qualified artists that can be used for multiple projects, similar to systems used by Seattle and ArtsWA, being considered to manage the administrative workload of 20+ projects. **Q:** What advantage does embedding an artist early in the design process provide? **A:** It allows art to be seamlessly integrated into infrastructure rather than retrofitted afterward, potentially creating more meaningful and cohesive public art. **Q:** What organization manages Seattle's artist roster that Bellingham is studying? **A:** The City of Seattle, which has over 300 artists on their roster across different categories and price ranges. **Q:** What concern was raised about using artist roster systems? **A:** Whether it might shut out emerging artists or reduce opportunities, especially if artists miss the initial call or if the system favors established artists. **Q:** What was the timeline for artist selection on the Storybook Park project? **A:** About seven months from RFQ release to final artist selection, which staff considers lengthy for their current project volume. **Q:** What organization is Paper Whale collaborating with for the underpass mural project? **A:** The Arts Commission and Tourism Commission, balancing artistic vision with practical wayfinding requirements. **Q:** What happens to the Polymedis Group (Storybook Park artists) next? **A:** They will meet with Parks staff to create a contract scope of work, establish a maintenance plan, and develop final material selections before returning to the commission. **Q:** Why can't the Squalcombe Creek art project be combined with the nearby bridge reconstruction project? **A:** Legal review determined the projects are not "in the vicinity" of each other for percent-for-art purposes, even though they're about a block away. **Q:** What approach does Western Washington University use for major art acquisitions that differs from the city's process? **A:** They use significant private donations to supplement 1% funding and often have donors personally select artists, bypassing competitive public processes. **Q:** What is the commission's next major administrative task regarding policies? **A:** Updating the Arts Commission policies and procedures, which commission members (rather than staff) will need to undertake as a subcommittee. ---