Wednesday
’s workshop on public art in Morgan Hill produced emphatic
opinions from citizens and a City Council determined to toward a
simple, working policy for the town.
Wednesday’s workshop on public art in Morgan Hill produced emphatic opinions from citizens and a City Council determined to toward a simple, working policy for the town.
Joyce Maskell, manager of city Business Assistance and Housing Services, took the council and audience through a list of questions that would have to be answered before adopting such a policy, including what projects would be required to install art or contribute to an art fund – private and/or public – how it would be paid for, who would select or approve the art.
Council made no decisions, deferring that to a public hearing at a regular council meeting to be announced later. Council also delayed deciding the big question, “What is public art.”
City Manager Ed Tewes addressed the primary question – should the city have a public art policy at all.
“It’s typically the case that projects are required to have art, without review,” Tewes said about other cities’ policies. “Or, if they ask for RDA (Redevelopment Agency) help, we ask them to contribute in a quid pro quo.”
Quid pro quo is generally explained as “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”
Council agreed they would want a policy – as opposed to no policy and no art.
Robert Benich, an early proponent of art available to the public, after hearing Maskell’s multi-part policy possibilities, pleaded for a simple plan.
“This is getting way too complicated,” Benich said. “I wanted one concept: to have some public art for civic projects.”
Funding, he said, should be a percentage of the building project cost for city projects (1 percent is often mentioned) plus another quarter percent to pay for staffing to support a proposed art commission.
At a goal setting session in February, the Council declared its interest in supporting the Morgan Hill Community Foundation as the art-governing agency. On Wednesday members of the MHCF board said they were not really equipped to supervise the public art policy; possibly a public arts commission would be a better way to go.
Sylvia Cook, a member of both Downtown Association and MHCF boards, said she and Dave Reisenauer, the foundation’s president, had met with Tewes and Recreation Manager Julie Spier.
“We were told the city does not want an arts commission,” Cook said. “This is not a defined role for the foundation.”
Chuck Dillmann suggested an art impact fee and a survey of public opinion.
“We need a general sensing of popular support for this,” Dillmann said. He questioned whether spending money on public art was the best way to go.
“We have other needs that can be served by excess funds,” he said. “Sunday hours at the library would serve more people.” Dillmann is a library commissioner.
Jeannie Gregg, who was part of the original public art workshop, said she took an informal poll of residents after that workshop and was surprised at the reaction.
“They all thought it was ridiculous,” she said. Gregg said she supported the idea of a public art policy but that, to make it work, the city would have to provide serious leadership to sell it to the community. The “man on the street,” Gregg said, was clear about one thing.
“If we have a public art policy, it must be the opposite of San Jose’s,” Gregg reported, referring to a brouhaha over a statue of an Aztec god in Cesar Chavez park. The sculpture attracted many graphic, unappealing descriptions of what turned out to be a coiled snake.
Artist and businessman Don Jensen, who lives downtown, said he didn’t care if the public reaction to a particular piece of art was good or bad.
“The reaction is what excites me,” Jensen said. “Bad or good, it’s good if it causes lots of discussion.”
Artist Wes Rolley related the positive effects of public art unrelated to culture, having studied it elsewhere.
“As towns grow and support creative endeavors,” he said, “that drives the economic engine of the community. Successful cities establish an environment where creativity is valued.”
When the council weighed in, Councilman Steve Tate said, while he wants a policy, he is opposed to setting a certain percentage. He wants built-in flexibility; different standards for different projects – more art for the library, less for an indoor recreation center.
“The time is right,” said Councilman Larry Carr, “but keep it simple.”
Carr said he wants no new taxes or fees to pay for art and no new committees.
“I’m happy with the City Council doing it,” he said.
Councilman Greg Sellers said it was not financially feasible to set up a new committee at this time.
“A 1.25 percent for the community center would have been more than $200,000,” Sellers said. “What do you leave out to pay for the art? This is not the most creative way to go.”
Sellers suggested tacking on an art requirement to the Measure P process.
Measure P is the voter-approved residential growth-control ordinance under which developers compete to earn points that can lead to building permits. To succeed in the competition, developers work to make their projects attractive with parks, proper access and other items from a predetermined list.
Councilwoman Hedy Chang closed the workshop with her opinion that a quarter percent might be a better figure than 1 percent.
“Money is tight right now,” Chang said.
Mayor Dennis Kennedy was out of town.
