I am certain that the art community is not going to appreciate my views on this matter and that is fine. I have been on the fence about the water tank art project. On the one hand, I have argued that in these tough times, we ought to stop doing business as usual.
So, there we have a tension, and I suppose in a way, given that it was a non-general fund expense, I kind of justified it in my mind.
The artists say, when interviewed by the Davis Enterprise, we should not judge it until the massive spray paint project is completely done – but I have to wonder, looking at it, what is the point here.
$75,000 is a lot of money when apparently we have graffiti artists running amuck in this town, looking for direction.
So, I decided to look up the municipal code, and section 15.06.060 establishes the municipal arts fund: “There is established a special fund designated ‘municipal arts fund’ into which funds appropriated as contemplated by Section 15.06.030(b) shall be deposited. Each disbursement from such fund or from other appropriations for works of art shall be authorized by the city council.”
What becomes less clear is where the money is coming from and whether the money is fungible.
Code 15.06.030(a) suggests it may be more fungible than otherwise believed.
The code reads: “All city department heads shall include in all estimates of necessary expenditures and all requests for authorizations or appropriations for construction projects, an amount for works of art equal to at least one percent of the total cost of any such construction project as estimated in the capital improvement program for the year in which such estimate or request is made. If the source of funding or other appropriate law with respect to any particular project precludes art as an object of expenditure of funds, the amount of funds so restricted shall be excluded from the total project cost in making the aforesaid calculation.”
In other words, the money comes from a percentage of construction or capital improvement programs to be deposited into an account that is marked “municipal arts fund.”
The council then has the option as to how to spend it: (B): “The city council may make appropriations for works of art to be selected and implemented by the commission in connection with construction projects as provided in Sections 15.06.040, 15.06.050 and 15.06.060, and may also provide for the appropriation of funds to the ‘municipal arts fund’ established in Section 15.06.060 for works of art to be selected and implemented by the commission as provided in Sections 15.06.040, 15.06.050 and 15.06.060.”
What becomes clear now is that, while we are not talking about a lot of money and we are talking about one-time funds, $75,000 going to paint a water tank seems inappropriate, when you are talking about closing swimming pools and laying people off.
I do not wish to put down the artists here. I hope the final rendering of the painting on the water tank is more aesthetically pleasing than the current view.
But if council wants their employees to buy into the notion that business as usual has changed, they might start by looking into what funds are siphoning money that could be better spent for other purposes.
Municipal art is important. I would ask that the council, instead of eliminating the funds, suspend the ordinances and transfer the funding to more general purposes for the time being.
On the other hand, short of a masterpiece recognized in their own time, I fail to see how this water tank is going to do as the council suggested last fall – bring people into the downtown.
As Mr. Dunning noted, “At its meeting Tuesday night, the council said the concept, selected by the Civic Arts Commission, is too subtle to capture the attention of freeway drivers.”
Added Councilmember Stephen Souza, “I want it to grab people and pull them into town. I don’t want them to drive by and say ‘fantastic art.’ “
It is one thing to not want a rear-ugly concrete water tank structure to be what greets westbound travelers to our city, it’s another thing to believe that somehow we are going to produce the Sistine Chapel in Davis as a tourist draw.
For a while, I was fine with the notion that at least it was not general fund money. But it looks like, while true, there is nothing to prevent it from becoming general fund money in the future and that it is a waste of money that could be used to keep the integrated pest management program or prevent the closure of a swimming pool for another year.
–David M. Greenwald reporting
I like something fun to look at as we zoom into town from the East! It just needs a big red tomatoe on the roof!
At this time of our fiscal downfall money being blown like this should be going into the general fund. You can barely see the tank, a crop of redwoods planted around the base would’ve done the job for a lot less. I’ve got a couple of of benches down the street that the city paid $5000 to have painted. That money could’ve been better spent.
Perhaps I don’t understand this process, so anyone can step in and explain where I am going wrong in my thinking. If projects such as the water tank are publicly funded, why isn’t the artwork part of the construction costs? In other words, any company who bids to do the project must also make sure the project is artistically pleasing. That is part of the contract. And the companies bidding on the project will have to get the okay from the Civics Art Commission/City Council as to design/artwork and whether it passes muster as aesthetically pleasing.
Frankly, I am of the opinion this “municipal arts fund” is a boondoggle attempting to give local artists a leg up in garnering work for them. The problem is this “municipal arts fund” seems to siphon off public funds that could be used for better purposes, in an attempt to keep the evaluation/wisdom of such art expenditures within funding silos and thus not very accountable to the public. In other words, would citizens have accepted the expenditures on this project if it stood on its own as a stand alone endeavor? Somehow I doubt it. But if the funding is put in a special “silo” that can only be spent on art projects, then the expenditure suddenly becomes more “acceptable”.
Furthermore, I suspect some enterprising volunteers would be more than willing to do some pretty interesting art projects on public works projects for free as part of training/education, e.g UCD Art Dept, or DHS Art Depts.
Methinks we need to take a fresh look at the “municipal arts fund”, or perhaps just become more educated about it…
From the picture at the top of this piece, it looks like a camouflage
pattern to break-up the outline of the tank.. not a bad idea . Banksey, how about “popping over the pond” and running out to Davis and doing your street-municipal art thing(something like your rat stencil with the word “OBEY” would work)next time you’re in Northern CA? Now THAT would “grab people…”.
I’m wondering why the drivers on 113 are being neglected. All they get to see is the West area water tank in all its glorious drabness. Perhaps we should hire Lacin and Christophel to spiff it up a bit.
.[img]http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Arch_mural?sendfile=true&file=arch_mural_angle.jpg[/img]
[i]”What becomes clear now is that, while we are not talking about a lot of money and we are talking about one-time funds, $75,000 going to paint a water tank seems inappropriate, when you are talking about closing swimming pools and laying people off.”[/i]
This could have been done for free. Unfortunately, the City Council failed to heed my advice. My suggestion from the get-go was to use the water tank as a billboard for a few years. I was told by people who sell freeway billboard advertising that it could have generated from $200,000 to $250,000 in 48 months.
The City then could have taken those proceeds and agreed upon a permanent painting for the structure and had enough savings to maintain the painting long into the future.
I got responses from two members of the City Council whose identities I won’t disclose, but whose attitudes sum up what I think was wrong in this whole process: “I hate advertising;” and “The last thing we need in this town is another billboard.”
In other words, they would rather waste $75,000 now–it is going to cost a lot more money down the road to maintain this work of art–than live with a red and white Coca-Cola painting for a couple of years.
As to the art itself, I don’t think it is unattractive. Its real problem is that it does not in any way say “Davis” to me. That painting could be in 1000s of other towns and still I would not know what the point of it is. It is terribly generic in that respect.
My preference was to have a bright, bold painting which, through mural art, told our town’s story. We lost the artwork which was on the Terminal Hotel, depicting the 2nd Street Arch (which was over 2nd Street from roughly 1916-1920). The water tank could have depicted things like the indigenous tribe of our region, the Wintun Indians, prior to the arrival of American pioneers. It could have depicted the Cal-P Railroad, which is the reason Davisville became a place at all. It could have depicted more contemporary Davis things (bicycles, Unitrans, the Farmer’s Market, solar powered homes, Davis kids playing soccer, our greenbelts, etc.). But … the City Council approved instead some generic artwork that fits as well in Shreveport, Louisiana or Buffalo, New York as it does here.
[i]”If projects such as the water tank are publicly funded, why isn’t the artwork part of the construction costs?”[/i]
Effectively, it is. The water tank project cost roughly $8 million (please correct me if my memory on that is wrong). As you will note from the city code language which David quoted, 1% of the budget for the water tank project, or $80,000, was deposited in the Municipal Arts Fund. Even though it is not required by city code that the $80,000 go directly to this particular water tank, the council decided that is where it should go, and the council approved the recommendation of the Civic Arts Commission for this particular project using those particular funds.
[i]”On the other hand, I think the public does not sufficiently appreciate that non-general fund expenditures cannot go to operating costs.”[/i]
You don’t understand this, David. The City Council has full authority to spend that money as it likes. It is true that the current ordinance directs the money to the MAF. However, that ordinance can be changed. It is not state law. The Council could write up a new ordinance today and direct that the money which is currently going into the MAF go instead into another fund, including the general fund.
So when you say, “non-general fund expenditures cannot go to operating costs,” you are incorrect in this case.
That said, the problem with relying on this sort of funding for long-run operating costs is that it is inconsistent. One year it will be $60,000 or $80,000; another year it will be $400,000. But if the council wanted to change the ordinance, it has every right to do so.
[quote]We lost the artwork which was on the Terminal Hotel, depicting the 2nd Street Arch (which was over 2nd Street from roughly 1916-1920). [/quote]
I’m still disgusted about that loss.
[quote]Effectively, it is. The water tank project cost roughly $8 million (please correct me if my memory on that is wrong). As you will note from the city code language which David quoted, 1% of the budget for the water tank project, or $80,000, was deposited in the Municipal Arts Fund. Even though it is not required by city code that the $80,000 go directly to this particular water tank, the council decided that is where it should go, and the council approved the recommendation of the Civic Arts Commission for this particular project using those particular funds. [/quote]
I’m arguing no 1% set aside for art. The builder has to do the art as part of the bid. It is up to the builder to make the tank look appropriate. To me, when you “set aside” or “silo” the funding, it is no longer a cost effective use of public monies. It makes it too convenient to spend the set aside. This art could have been done for free by the UCD Art Dept or DHS Art Dept. if the bidder was willing to work with volunteers to decorate the tank. But once the money is placed in a “silo” that cannot be used for any other purpose, then it is going to be spent one way or another on local artists only and not necessarily cost effectively – yet the art could have been done for far less than $70K with volunteers engaged in the process…
Does that make sense?
Related to funding art projects, I have a branch office in Pasadena. They have an ordinance/mandate that all commercial development over 25,000 sq. ft. include 1% of private development costs be allocated to public art.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. One the one hand it stifles some development, increases property costs and rents, and is another tax and wealth redistribution scheme. However, there is no doubt that Pasadena is one of the more beautiful Southern California cities and supporting artists this way keeps them from sleeping in open doorways and urinating on the sidewalks.
[i]”To me, when you “set aside” or “silo” the funding, it is no longer a cost effective use of public monies.”[/i]
Elaine, your larger point makes sense to me. However, there is a reason why you don’t want all public art tied to specific capital improvement projects, as would be done if you simply made the contractor responsible for the artwork.
For one, a lot of CIP money goes to things like the sewage pipes which run underground. There simply is not much use for beautifying those facilities. But by way of the art funding ordinance, the city still collects its 1% for public art.
Second, the idea of public art is much bigger than a beautified structure. It is used to fund sculptures in places like Central Park or to pay for children’s arts programs or even dance instruction. (I don’t know all the uses of the arts money, but I am currently looking into that question.) If we simply required contractors on specific projects to beautify them with some artwork on the facade, we would not have the funding available for a larger scope of what is “public art.”
I should add that you are well within your rights to disagree with the city’s philosophy about public art and the ordinance and so on. But that is the origin of the thinking that 1% be taken from each CIP and be made available for a wide variety of supports for “the arts” in Davis.
[quote]I should add that you are well within your rights to disagree with the city’s philosophy about public art and the ordinance and so on. But that is the origin of the thinking that 1% be taken from each CIP and be made available for a wide variety of supports for “the arts” in Davis.[/quote]
I understand the purpose behind the municipal arts fund, as you say. But can we afford it is the million dollar question! The problem with creating “silos” of this sort, is that there is less flexibility in an economic downturn…
If you want to say we should not spend money on art when money is tight, you are entitled to your opinion, but please stop missing how much of this particular project’s budget is being spent on materials. So if you think it can be done for free by volunteers, you are sorely mistaken, unless you think they would donate the materials. But I also find it unfortunate how little value is often placed on artwork. There would be a lot of culture missing without it and I wonder if you realize just how much there is of it around you that you may be taking for granted in thinking you don’t need it.
I am quite sure I could come up with several things I believe are wasted funds if I knew what all the expenditures are.
Well I guess in this day and age of city cutbacks one has to decide if they want to pay for expensive art or pay for new tires because they drove over that unfixed pothole.
“You don’t understand this, David. The City Council has full authority to spend that money as it likes. It is true that the current ordinance directs the money to the MAF. However, that ordinance can be changed. It is not state law. “
Right, and that’s the same conclusion I came to later in the piece.
dlemongello: I think that art is very important, as I believe I said in the piece, during good economic times, this would be an important – one reason during these hard times I recommend we suspend rather than eliminate the provision.