AGENDA 2b(2)
|
TO: |
Mayor and Town Council |
|
FROM: |
The Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission |
|
DATE: |
April 11, 2007 |
|
RE: |
Commentary on the Chapel Hill Public Art Contextual Plan |
In response to your request, the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission (CHPAC) commissioned a study of ways in which Chapel Hill could further enhance our civic environment through public art. The resulting draft plan was transmitted to you in June 2006 and then forwarded to relevant Town boards and commissions for their review and comment. In recent months we have met with each of those boards and commissions, with several members of the private development sector, and with representatives of other constituent groups to discuss the draft proposals. Those conversations have served to identify provisions of the draft plan that appear to warrant particularly close attention. Accordingly, in addition to the evaluations you are receiving from the Town boards and commissions and the views that may be expressed at tonight’s public hearing, we offer these additional comments to assist your evaluation of the proposed plan.
1. Municipal Percent-for-Art Program
As one of three North Carolina municipalities that have percent-for-art programs applicable to municipal capital improvement projects, Chapel Hill has made a significant commitment to enlivening the environment in which we live and work. The results are impressive. The proposed plan now identifies measures that would make that program more effective.
a. Proposed Funding Level
Three primary considerations underlie the proposal to increase the set-aside for public art to 2 percent.
1) Chapel Hill can be justifiably proud of what has been achieved with the current level of support for public art. The proposed plan suggests that we should move to the next level of commitment. Increased funding would further enhance the appealing quality of our Town facilities with exciting artwork having an even greater impact on the quality of our civic experience.
The budgets for public art generated by a 2 percent set-aside would substantially enlarge the pool of public artists who could be invited to submit proposals for creating artwork in Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill could more often attract prominent public artists, who have an established track record of exceptional creativity and experience in addressing the challenges of collaborating with municipalities to implement such complex projects.
The outcome of Chapel Hill’s investment in public art could be even more satisfying if we had the options of choosing from among both “emerging” artists at the local, state, and regional levels as well as established public artists with national and international reputations. A 2 percent set-aside would permit that breadth and variety of choice.
2) It is essential that a clearly defined source of funds be established to insure proper long-term conservation of completed percent-for-art installations. Currently there is no adequate reserve account to address that requirement. The provisions of the current ordinance apparently do not permit use of any part of the set-aside for conservation and there is no annual Town budget appropriation applicable to such conservation needs. The Chapel Hill Public Art Fund could be used to repair and maintain public art, but current sources generate only a modest fund balance. We suggest that 5% of each percent-for-art budget be deposited in a reserve account for conservation, repair and maintenance.
3) With increased funding, we could implement a more rational and efficient structure for addressing the costs associated with bringing a public art project on line. Aside from the primary expense of designing, fabricating and installing a public art project, there are other costs incurred in managing such an undertaking from start to finish. In addition to administrative staff time, other collateral costs include:
Regular operating funds currently available to the CHPAC do not take account of variations in administrative workload generated by the evolving and frequently multi-year municipal schedules for capital construction that are to have a public art component. Typically our budget is not adequate to address such expenses on a reliably predictable basis.
The proposed increase in funding would permit a project-specific allocation of revenue to address some of the administrative costs for each public art project. We suggest that 15% of the total set-aside be reserved for such expenses.
In summary, if the public art funding level remained at 1% and the two proposals above (addressing conservation and project overhead costs) were adopted, the scope and quality of actual artwork necessarily would be reduced. Thus we advocate an increase in the total set-aside in order to address adequately all components of a fully effective percent-for-art program. (Please refer to Attachment A.)
b. Budget Clarification
During our discussions with relevant Town boards and commissions to which the draft plan was referred for comment, questions arose about how percent-for-art funding is identified and incorporated within a CIP budget. In some cases funding for the artistic component may not receive sufficiently clear advance treatment, and the cost for public art may depend ultimately on use of the contingency reserve established for the project. Specific concern focused on possible instances in which original estimates of total project costs are exceeded, resulting in the appearance that funding the artistic component is in competition with realization of other elements of the construction project.
To resolve this possible source of conflict, steps should be taken to insure the consistent establishment of a specific line-item budget entry for public art in each project at the earliest feasible time, when cost estimates are formulated and corresponding funding sources (including bond issues) are identified. Since the original budget thereby would have been expressly augmented to accommodate public art, few occasions for controversy about appropriate use of any contingency reserve would arise.
2. Percent-For-Art in Private Development
The Plan’s proposal for enlisting private developers as partners with the Town for enhancing our civic environment offers an opportunity for major progress. Such a synergistic public-private endeavor could have a dramatic effect, serving as a catalyst for realizing previously unachievable levels of publicly accessible art.
Our informal discussions with various members of the private development community have elicited gratifying expressions of general enthusiasm for including publicly accessible art within their projects. As realistic business people, as well as civic-minded members of the community, they understand the benefits – both public and personal – that can accrue from enhancing the civic environment. They also have questions about their proposed contributions that deserve thoughtful attention.
The Town Attorney has expressed the opinion that any mandatory participation by private developers would require the adoption of enabling legislation by the North Carolina General Assembly. Whether the Town decides to pursue (and is successful in its request) for such State permission or opts for a voluntary program is a public policy issue for the Town Council to resolve. In either case, the concept of constructive partnership between the Town and the private development sector suggests the desirability of considering ways in which the attendant financial equities might be balanced.
For example, one option would be the waiver or pro-rated reduction of application fees exacted by the Town at the outset of project proposals. In a mandatory program requiring the 2% contribution by a private developer, all or a prescribed uniform percentage of the application fee could be waived.
With respect to a voluntary program, a pro-rated portion of the application fee could be waived, calculated on the basis of the extent of the developer’s commitment within the 2% parameter; such a clearly established formulaic approach in a voluntary program would avoid variations in treatment that otherwise might be legally challengeable as being capricious and arbitrary.
Modification of the application fee requirements is but one example of steps the Town might wish to consider in encouraging voluntary participation or ameliorating the financial impact of a mandatory program.
b. Options for Private Contribution
The draft plan would accord private developers three options for contributing to public art in Chapel Hill: (1) On-site artwork, (2) creating or upgrading a cultural facility, or (3) an in-lieu payment into the Chapel Hill Public Art Fund. While the first two options appear to constitute the most straightforward and immediate ways of addressing the desire to enliven our community through public art, we believe that the potential benefits of the third option – in-lieu payments – should not be underestimated. Any number of pertinent considerations, from the perspective of either the developer or the Town, might induce the conclusion that an in-lieu payment is preferable. Significant public art projects of the Town’s choosing could be realized without the expenditure of additional tax revenues if the Public Art Fund were substantially augmented by in-lieu payments from private developers. Such projects could prove to be preferable to on-site artwork in private developments which might not be accessible to most Chapel Hill residents.
3. The Legal Status and Role of the Public Arts Commission
At the Town Council’s request, in 2004 the Commission accomplished its transformation to non-profit corporate status, displacing its former identity as a conventional Town commission. That change did not materially alter the close working relationship between the CHPAC and Town government.
The Plan now suggests the possible utility of reconstituting the CHPAC as a charter commission of the Town with prescribed regulatory authority. It also envisions CHPAC representation on relevant Town boards and commissions, mutual liaison relationships, and an augmented public education and communication function concerning public art, exercised on behalf of the Town. We acknowledge both “pros” and “cons” of any such change in the legal status of the CHPAC.
We have found that the present arrangement for administering the municipal percent-for-art program is entirely satisfactory, except for concerns about long-term conservation and overhead expenses addressed above. Thus, analysis should focus on whether our conversion to Town commission status would improve the transaction of percent-for-art programs in the private development context.
For a private sector program there would be three parties involved, viz., the Town proper, the CHPAC, and the private developer; in the current public sector program there are only two closely conjoined entities at work, viz., the Town and the CHPAC. In the latter setting, with the CHPAC performing its advisory and implementation role, there is no occasion for conflict. However, in the former setting disagreements could arise between a private developer and the Town concerning various aspects of the undertaking. If the Town preferred to authorize the CHPAC to exercise regulatory authority for resolving such issues, it would be necessary for the CHPAC to become an instrumentality of Town government, rather than a separate corporate entity. On the other hand, if the Town government retained final regulatory authority, with the CHPAC performing its accustomed advisory role, no change in CHPAC status would be necessary or desirable.
Additionally, the proposed percent-for-art program in private development suggests that substantial portions of the administrative process entailed in bringing an on-site public art project on line could be addressed by the private developer in either of two ways: (1) by contracting with the CHPAC on a fee-for-service basis to perform such administrative tasks on behalf of the developer; or (2) leaving such administrative tasks to the developer. If the first option were selected by the private developer, the transaction would be simpler and more efficient if the developer contracted with the CHPAC as a separate corporate entity.
Based on the foregoing considerations, as well as other possibly relevant factors, the CHPAC stands ready to assume whatever role the Town Council considers most appropriate and useful.