Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz <br /> to approve the draft policy with the changes —2.4b as stated by Commissioner Pellisier and <br /> adding "non-permanent" in 2.1.9. <br /> Geof Gledhill suggested a change in language to 2.2.4 — "Renaming a public building, <br /> facility, or land which has previously been named in honor of or in memorial of an individual <br /> shall only be done in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the Board." <br /> The Board agreed with this language. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> c. Orange County Percent for Art Program <br /> The Board considered establishing an Orange County Percent for Art Program by <br /> Resolution and Ordinance. <br /> Gordon Jamison, an artist and resident in Orange County and member of the Arts <br /> Commission, summarized this item. He said that this Percent for Art would ensure a continued <br /> commitment to art in Orange County. In North Carolina, there are Percent for Art programs in <br /> Asheville, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, and Mecklenburg County. He asked the County <br /> Commissioners to adopt the proposed resolution. He introduced Jeffrey York, Public Art <br /> Administrator for the Town of Chapel Hill, and Janet Kagan, Chair of the Public Art Network, <br /> Americans for the Arts. <br /> Jeffrey York pointed out the public art projects that Orange County was involved in for <br /> Chapel Hill — aquatics center and Southern Park. <br /> Janet Kagan said that there are about 450 art programs across the nation and she <br /> reviewed statistics for the Percent for Art programs across North Carolina. She said that these <br /> programs require a professional staff. <br /> Martha Shannon said that public art could also be included in public schools. <br /> Commissioner Hemminger said that she has worked on four different Percent for Art <br /> projects and it was frustrating because of the lack of funds, but in the end, each project <br /> enhanced the facility it became a part of. The project became more connected to the <br /> community. She is concerned about doing it for school buildings or renovations of school <br /> buildings, since they do their own art. However, she is supportive of it for public projects. <br /> Commissioner Nelson said that he is very excited about the possibility of doing this and <br /> he thanked the Arts Commission. He said that this represents the community and he believes <br /> this is important, but he is concerned about economic times. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier suggested not doing the 1% at this time because of the <br /> message to the public economically. She is very conflicted about this. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz suggested looking at this when it can be done and tying it to <br /> some external economic indicator. He made reference to Section 4a and said that he is <br /> concerned that the first sentence says that, "the BOCC shall consider the appropriation of 1%," <br /> and then the last sentence says, "the minimum amount to be appropriated for artwork shall be <br /> the total Eligible Construction Budgets multiplied by 0.01." He would like to get this clarified. <br /> Also, in Section 4n, he has a problem with committing 1% for art projects related to a building <br /> and then not using the money in that building. <br /> Chair Foushee made reference to Section 5c and said that the wording is contradictory <br /> regarding "deemed eligible" and "not appropriate." <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz said that 1% of $3 million is some money, but 1% of $25 million <br /> is significantly more money. He said that 1% is an admirable goal, but it may not be <br /> appropriate in every construction project. <br />