What Morgan Hill should do about a public art policy returned to
the City Council Wednesday night and made a little progress on
speed, how much money to involve and who should run the
program.
What Morgan Hill should do about a public art policy returned to the City Council Wednesday night and made a little progress on speed, how much money to involve and who should run the program.
Art policy proponent Wes Rolley wanted the process to move faster.
“I’m concerned that this has been dragging out for quite a while,” Rolley said. “It’s not important that all the “I”s are dotted and “T”s are crossed; I’m really concerned that the city develop a process by which it can acquire, install and maintain art for the community and cultural center and elsewhere in the city.” Otherwise, he said, the subject will still be under discussion next year.
Who should administer an art program was another matter causing some difficulty. The council had asked the Morgan Hill Community Foundation members if they would shoulder the project. They declined, saying it was not consistent with their mission statement.
“The only identified catcher refuses to catch,” said Councilman Steve Tate, a baseball fan.
Chuck Dillmann addressed the entire public art concept.
“You’re headed for a potentially a big program here,” he said. “It is important that the city try to get out of being involved in setting quality standards for art and turn it over to other organizations to administer and fund.”
Dillmann said he had watched the San Jose Fine Arts Commission at work and did not recommend that path for Morgan Hill.
Mayor Dennis Kennedy brought up requiring all new projects to allocate 1 percent of the project cost for an art project.
“We’ve already decided not to establish an arts commission (citing tight budgets an staff time),” Kennedy said, “but to rely on the private sector to handle it for our city. We need to move forward.”
Councilwoman Hedy Chang said she thought 1 percent might be a bit much for large projects.
“One percent of the $26 million for the Indoor Recreation Center comes to $260,000,” Chang said. Instead, she recommended, perhaps, $50,000 for a statue or other art. Chang mentioned a recent visit to Guadalajara, Mexico, where the populace is not wealthy but has managed to pay for fountains at most major intersections.
Tate was also opposed to a set 1 percent, not wanting to further reduce funds available for construction.
“I cannot support that,” he said. “Requiring 1 percent for each project is wrong.”
Councilman Greg Sellers suggested determining which public facilities should have art and develop that as part of the process.
That left the matter of approval.
“As we approve each one of these public projects,” said Councilman Larry Carr, “we should take responsibility for the art.”
Sellers was emphatic that the community be encouraged to enjoy and appreciate art and having space available – especially the rotating exhibits on community center walls – could encourage outside groups to provide the art.
“I want to guarantee that this will happen if we start it,” Carr said. He referred to the LEEDS (green) certification that had gone by the wayside at the aquatic center, falling victim to budget problems.
Carr said he was interested in continuing the conversation (on public art) and Kennedy said he would report back.
In the end, because no money was involved, the council voted 5-0 to move forward and City Manager Ed Tewes noted that the council had “checked another box” off projects suggested by the general plan.
