The Lexington City Public Art Commission spent a substantial portion of its March 4 meeting reviewing proposed revisions to the Phase 2 scoring sheet used to evaluate public-art project applications and discussed process changes for scoring and documenting decisions.

Commission staff described edits that add criteria drawn from the Public Art Master Plan, including site-specific relevance, activation of public space, and originality. The proposed changes move several previously scored questions into yes/no checks at the end of the form, including whether the project includes conservation and maintenance plans and whether it has addressed required safety and permitting issues.

Commissioners agreed in the meeting that those two items — conservation/maintenance planning and addressing safety/permits — should be treated as pass/fail requirements rather than scored on a sliding scale. Commissioners also said they would document a minimum funding threshold of 80 points on the Phase 2 score sheet and in the commission’s guidelines and master-plan materials; staff said they will add formal language to the guidelines to reflect that verbal decision.

Discussion also covered how scores are collected and tabulated. Commissioners suggested using a digital form that would automatically average scores and create a paper trail, and they asked staff to investigate whether a council or voting platform could be used to register votes or indicate whether an individual member’s score met the 80-point threshold. Commissioners emphasized that applicants should still present at meetings and answer questions; several members said live presentations help commissioners assess projects beyond the written application.

Commissioners discussed procedural details to reduce perceived awkwardness during live scoring, including options to collect score sheets out of the public view, convene briefly after presentations, or accept digital submissions between meetings. Staff said they will consult the council office about platform options and will return with a recommended workflow at a future meeting.

Next steps: staff will revise the Phase 2 score sheet to reflect the changes discussed, add language documenting an 80-point minimum for funding, and propose an approach for digitizing scores or otherwise streamlining tabulation to present at a future commission meeting for formal adoption.