Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
58 <br />0 <br />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 far Art would ensure a continued <br />commitment to art in Orange Caunty. In North Carolina, there are Percent for Art programs in <br />Asheville, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, and Mecklenburg Gounty. 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 alsa 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 />