The Planning and Community Development Committee voted to advance a proposed digital media and arts pilot program that would allow a limited number of large-format digital displays on existing building facades and in designated districts, with revenue-share and public-art requirements, to the full City Council for final consideration.

Staff presented a draft pilot that would permit up to 10 digital displays citywide for a two-year period, include a mandatory public-art contribution tied to each permit (staff suggested an upfront art contribution in the range of $75,000–$100,000), reserve a portion of display time for city public-service messages, and require a share of advertising revenue be paid to the city. Staff offered three program options for committee feedback on variables such as revenue split and city timeshare; Option A — which envisions an upfront art contribution and a lower initial revenue-share threshold — was the version committee members moved forward.

The item drew sustained public comment, with multiple arts groups and individual artists urging that revenues be earmarked for the Department of Arts and Culture and that any public‑art commissions include funding for long‑term maintenance. Conservation and preservation advocates opposed the pilot in or near historic districts and the Riverwalk, warning that new digital signage could generate visual clutter and advertising that would change the character of downtown. Speakers also raised concerns about potential ecological impacts (including bird collisions) and questioned whether the program would meaningfully boost safety or economic returns compared with alternatives such as additional street lighting.

Committee members said they heard both the public’s objections and staff’s potential benefits, including activation of underlit streets and dedicated city messaging. Councilmember Villageran moved to advance Option A to city council and requested staff remove the King William Historic District from the map of potential pilot locations and to provide a more detailed map of the Pearl area for council consideration; the motion was seconded and passed. Councilmembers indicated they want the City Council to consider tighter advertising content controls (for example, excluding vaping ads) and to confirm how city time-share for public messaging would be enforced. Several members also asked staff to provide an estimate of how much city departments currently spend on external display advertising to understand the potential savings or value of in-kind city messaging on the new displays.

The committee vote was 4–0 in favor with one abstention (Councilman Courage). Staff said the pilot would be taken to full City Council with the requested amendments, and that vendor procurement would proceed via an RFP process to be shaped by the committee’s direction.

(Reporting note: Quotes and attributions in this article derive from speakers who addressed the committee during the public-comment period and the staff presentation; all named speakers appear in the meeting transcript.)