"It is time to secure funding for public art in Lexington, and it seems to me, an overwhelming majority agree.
There is a new energy when it comes to the issue of public art and its ability to reinforce our sense of place — a higher aim, a change in attitude, a move beyond the rhetoric, and a willingness to cooperate and collaborate. Many of our citizens have been working toward this day for a long time and will not let it pass without seeing real results and solid progress.
Ongoing conversations with the editor-in-chief of Business Lexington, the president of LexArts, the executive director of the Kentucky Arts Council, a former vice-mayor, the current vice-mayor, past and present council members, and a number of local artists have inspired me to look more closely at a concept that over 350 cities have implemented nationwide — a Percent-for-Art Program. I specifically wanted to examine what measures we should take to enact such legislation.
In response to numerous inquiries that I posted over the last four months on the Public Art Network listserve maintained by Americans for the Arts, managers of public art programs in Charlotte, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Jose, and Tampa agree on one thing: although there are many similarities in all percent-for-art ordinances, the most successful programs were tailored to fit a specific time and place. In my opinion, many of these ordinances were also established as a means to achieve a larger, common goal held by the community for which they serve.
A little history
Percent-for-art legislation is not a new concept to Lexingtonians. In 1999, councilman Bill Farmer brought this very issue to the attention of the council. According to Farmer, "the concept was defeated because, at the time, the government could not administer the program and the Lexington Arts and Cultural Council was opposed to the idea."
In July 2002, Vice-mayor Isabel Yates made a second attempt to pass this legislation. Her efforts resulted in the formation of an arts commission. According to Yates, "The commission was established because there was not enough support to require the one percent for public art and because the arts council opposed the ordinance; they wanted to have a voice in all decisions on art placed in the public realm."
This commission was never really active due to the lack of an appropriate funding mechanism. The final section of the ordinance states, "The commission shall be appointed and authorized to proceed upon the adoption by the urban county council of an ordinance or resolution approving the funding mechanism for the public art program."
Both Farmer and Yates agree that today the situation has changed and now is the time to bring this very important piece of legislation back to the table. Over the last four years and across the nation, new models for funding and administration have emerged, our community has come to a new understanding of and appreciation for public art, and, most importantly, we seem to be united in a common goal: that we must embrace the arts as a vital part of our economic development strategies.
Vice-mayor Jim Gray agrees and thinks that the arts play a key role in revitalizing our downtown. "An arts-centric downtown is equivalent in the 21st century to an industrial park in the 20th. Arts and entertainment are essential to recruit and retain creative, technology-driven talent... and sure, percent-for-art legislation is a viable strategy toward that end," stated Gray.
A percent of what?
The answer to this question should be carefully considered; the most traditional model states that a percent of the construction budget for public buildings and sites be used for public art.
Specifically, recent public art ordinances stipulate that anywhere from 1-3 percent — not to exceed $200,000 for any one project — of the total construction costs for all eligible construction projects be placed in an interest-bearing public art fund. The money is then allocated for administration, fabrication, installation, maintenance, and educational programming.
The national trend for funding mechanisms, however, is to include some sort of private development requirement. Depending on the correct fit for the circumstance at hand, that requirement could be mandatory or voluntary. In 2003, the city of Coral Springs in Florida adopted an ordinance mandating that "both public and private development shall contribute to the public art fund in order to enhance and maintain the aesthetic character of the built environment and the cultural enrichment of the community."
With so many focused on developing or redeveloping an active urban core, Lexington should seriously address the inclusion of funds from private developers. There are any number of ways to ease into this requirement: implement an incremental increase beginning with a much smaller percentage or adopt a voluntary requirement to encourage private developers to give a charitable donation in the same amount toward the public art fund.
Phil Holoubek, president of Lexington's Real Estate Company stated, "I am a fan of the percent-for-art program, which stems from my belief that economic development means that we must have the amenities in place to draw knowledge-based young professionals to our city, in particular, to our downtown. Once the professionals are here, companies will follow."
"However, I do not think a mandatory requirement would be good for downtown development; a voluntary requirement is much more realistic," stated Holoubek.
According to Patrick McGee of Churchill McGee, lead developer of the Blackhorse, "I do not know enough about the issue to say I support this initiative, mostly because the cost to develop downtown is relatively high."
"However, I would be very careful about opposing such legislation, because what we are looking for are sophisticated customers, and when those potential customers say 'There is not enough eccentric living in downtown Lexington to demand those prices,' or 'Is your development located in the arts district?' I have to say, I do not think there is any way around the issue of including more of the arts," stated McGee.
Administration
A typical ordinance will define precisely who should administer the program and funds; this might be a public art committee established by the ordinance or an existing government agency. Because this entity is managing public funds, the council and even mayor are often involved in key decisions.
Precisely who should administer such a program and under which arm of the government that body is situated is a common concern. In a recent online survey conducted for Louisville by Arts Kentucky, 68 of 70 respondents said yes to the question "Would Louisville benefit from a percent-for-art program?' However, answers to the question "What agency should administer the program?" were widely varied and included Planning and Design Services, the Mayor's Committee on Public Art, the Department of Neighborhoods, and the Metro General Services Administration.
According to Jean Greer, vice president of the Public Art, Arts and Science Council in Charlotte, N.C., "Charlotte's government held a task force in order to determine precisely where to locate the governing authority." The administrative body for Charlotte's program is a unique collaboration between the city, the local arts council, and a public arts commission formed by the ordinance.
In Houston, Texas, the city government has contracted the local arts council (Houston Arts Alliance) to manage the city's percent-for-art ordinance.
In order to examine the issues of funding and administration for a percent-for-art ordinance for Lexington, Jim Clark, president of LexArts, has suggested that Business Lexington, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government and LexArts form a "public art advance" — a sort of task force or study group to determine precisely what details should be included in a percent-for-art ordinance for our municipality.
During LexArts' public art forum, scheduled for March 9-11, public art consultant Jennifer McGregor will offer advice on what representatives should be included in this community visioning process.
When asked if he would support a "public art advance," Vice-mayor Jim Gray responded, "I will encourage this collaboration in any way I can, you bet!"
A percent-for-art program is long overdue for Lexington. It is a proven fact that such legislation can help a community realize its goals to enhance and enliven public spaces, promote cultural heritage, spur economic development and tourism and define a sense of place. It is even feasible that Lexington could devise a program that breaks with the norms and catches the attention of the nation — all we need to do is put our heads together.
Interested in more. Here is a link to "Train to the Museum? You're Already There" by the New York Times' David W. Dunlap from their January 21, 2007 edition.