Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 | Page CHOCVB BOD Meeting March19 , 2014 <br /> <br />administration. With new administration in place, a request to reinstate the art project was proposed. Since then it was <br />determined that the piece is too large for the space in front of the library and a new location, behind the County Justice <br />Building, was considered. The piece would be slightly visible from Churton Street and viewable from RiverWalk. The total <br />cost for the project would be approximately $20,000 and include the artist’s commission and cost for set up. With lack of <br />funding from two sources, Friends of the Library and the CIP fund, it was suggested that the Arts Commission request <br />support through the Visitors Bureau. With that, the floor was opened for discussion. <br />Discussion <br />Penny Rich inquired why a line item could not be designated through the county’s general fund, when it’s the County is <br />interested in art. She expressed her thoughts that this should be a BOCC matter. Martha Shannon explained that the <br />new policy for CIP consideration is a minimum amount of $100,000, so that option was out. Upon meeting with <br />Commissioner Jacobs to propose the art project be reinstated, he was all for it and suggested asking the Visitor Bureau <br />for support. <br />Laurie Paolicelli commented that it is unfair for the Arts Commission’s budget to stay static. However, she thought that <br />the board should be aware that when budget time comes around, it would be hard to request more funding from the <br />Town of Chapel Hill, if the Bureau is using occupancy revenue to fund public art. Paolicelli noted that this situation is <br />precedent setting. <br />Mike Gering said he‘s interpreting the discussion so far to be a policy question about where the lodging tax dollars are <br />allocated, and the fact that the Arts Commission is under the same budget doesn’t mean that all the revenue for their <br />activities should come under the lodging tax. Additionally, as a precedent setting decision, it’s also important to realize <br />that a public art piece like this has some tourism impact, therefore deserves some kind of contribution, however not <br />100%, and believes the BOCC should find other sources as well. Gering advocated for some funding perhaps, 60% <br />County and 40% Visitor Bureau. <br />Anthony Carey agreed, noting that our mission statement is to generate overnight stays and this would not generate <br />overnight stays. He also expressed concern that this would open up more indirect requests such as roads, wayfinding, <br />and parking. <br />Laurie Paolicelli agreed that it’s very reasonable to offer seed money, however it sends a message that it would be for <br />something that does not directly influence tourism. She referred to the Town of Chapel Hill as using their occupancy tax <br />to fund initiatives other than tourism. <br />Mike Gering commented that Orange County and Chapel Hill do not have restrictions in their policies as does <br />Hillsborough and Carrboro regarding usage of tax. <br />Penny Rich inquired if the Visitor Bureau has a policy dictating how funds should be distributed. Laurie Paolicelli replied <br />that the Bureau follows best practices guidelines established through a respected international DMO organization <br />whereas fifty-percent is dedicated to advertising and marketing, thirty-percent allocated to personnel and the remaining <br />funds are used for operations. <br />Lee Storrow inquired if these funds could be pulled from our existing budget or dedicated fund balance. Paolicelli replied <br />that it could and is a proposed line item for next year’s 2014-15 budget.