Public Art Committee

Public Art Committee MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, October 8, 2024, 5:45 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. Location: General Services Department 2011 Fay St, Durham NC 27704 For more information on how to join, visit: https://durhamnc.gov/453/Public-Art-Committee Committee Members Present Jaime Chaves, Vice-Chair Anjali Mathew Lana Dennis, Chair Eliza Redmann Mark Iwinski DCAB Liaison Malinda Love Aya Shabu Committee Members Absent Kierston Deck Molly Trask-Price, excused Student Members Amanda Frystock-Ronan, excused Bren Vienrich-Felling Samantha Gonzalez Rachel Mutschler, excused Myra Weise Oliver Hess Tony Santiago Heather Wilson, excused City, County, and Guests Present Rebecca Holmes, City of Durham Brenda Hayes-Bright, Durham County Jo Palazuelos-Krukowski, City of Durham Sarah Martin, Durham County Stephanie Minor, City of Durham Mya Castillo-Marte, Guest Margaret DeMott, Durham Arts Council I. Call to Order and Guest Introductions a. Meeting called to order by Dennis (Chair) at 5:50 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes a. September 2024 meeting minute approval was deferred to PAC’s November 2024 meeting, as the committee did not have quorum. b. Adjustment to correct typo on first page of the September 2024 meeting minutes (the incorrect repeated label “Committee Members Absent” replaced with accurate label “City, County, and Guests Present”) was made. III. Adjustments to the Agenda a. September 2024 Meeting Minutes approval was delayed to November 2024 due to lack of quorum. IV. Announcements a. City of Durham i. Stephanie Minor, City of Durham  1. Public Art Committee/Durham Cultural Advisory Board Student Member Applications a. Minor reminded the committee that PAC and DCAB student applications were open and advocated for outreach to local Durham youth. i. Minor explained that the appointment was a one-year term. b. Question: Hayes-Bright (County) asked if there was an age range for applicants. i. Minor stated that student member positions were open to high school, college, and graduate students living, working, or studying in Durham County. c. Mathew asked about where Student Member opportunities were advertised. i. Minor explained that they were shared in a communication map connected to various institutions and local high schools. They were posted online regularly in the Cultural and Public Art Program’s biweekly newsletter which has 850 subscribers, as well as on the program’s @creativedurham Instagram account. b. Durham County i. Board of County Commissioners Presentation 1. Brenda Hayes-Bright (County of Durham) a. Hayes-Bright shared that she and Sarah Martin (County of Durham) had presented the Public Art Program to the Board of County Commissioners on Monday, October 7, 2024, and that the presentation was well-received. i. Hayes-Bright stated that the recording was publicly available for anyone who was interested in viewing it. V. New Business & Presentations a. Advocating for a Public Art Plan for Durham i. Dennis (chair) stated that the letter from PAC for the new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) had been the culmination of research done with task force members Love and Mutschler for the past few years regarding the development of a Public Art Plan for Durham. 1. Eliza Redmann, Member and Public Art Plan Task Force Committee a. Presenting the Public Art Plan Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Advocacy Letter Draft i. The letter as drafted advocated for creating an environment of hospitality for art environment for the City. 1. Redmann explained that hospitality art environment would entail tapping into pre- existing Durham resources, specifically the  community organizations like Discover Durham and Downtown Durham Inc., and consolidating their various approaches to experiencing Durham into a kind of plan for how to approach visiting the city and exploring its art and culture scene. 2. Examples would include suggested walking routes, expanded signage, wayfinding support, to attract people to Durham to boost economic growth. ii. This hospitality art environment would be bolstered through the allotment of 1% of total project budgets for both private and public developments to go toward a Public Art Fund. iii. In exchange for this 1%, contractors would benefit from a list of potential incentives, like rezoning or an expedited site visit, etc. b. DeMott (Durham Arts Council) stressed the importance of a time expectation for the generation of public art projects, which she referred to as time texture. She also emphasized the importance of including a City maintenance plan into the Public Art Plan as well. 2. Question: Mathew asked for a clarification of the term “placemaking.” a. Minor (City) defined placemaking as efforts that allows individuals to feel grounded and connected to the location where they visit or reside. Public art installations, performance art experiences, temporary or traveling exhibitions, and cultural architecture all lent itself to this process. Minor mentioned that Roger Montelongo was Director of Placemaking for Downtown Durham Inc. b. Palazuelos-Krukowski (City) added that community connection was also an important part of placemaking, and of taking steps to create a specific sense of character to a particular place. She emphasized the distinction between space and place. c. Shabu (DCAB Liaison) emphasizing the importance of place- keeping as well, and the need to continue to maintain and promote the contributions of the City’s African American historic community within Durham’s cultural fabric. She stated it would be beneficial to attract empathetic capital from developers so that new buildings/construction could bear that bit of history in artistic ways that bring aesthetic value and maintain the historical significance of place to these new developments. Shabu specifically highlighted the historic Hayti District as a site for this kind of cultural investment. d. Redmann thanked Shabu for this distinction and said that it would be valuable to articulate that in the Public Art Plan and  have funding be allotted into two buckets: one of placemaking and one of place-keeping. 3. Redmann stated that structuring the Public Art Plan was a good opportunity to more precisely define the Public Art Committee’s role within the community. She suggested a few guiding questions, such as: a. “What does the Public Art Committee do?” b. “What are its values, goals and objectives?” c. “What roles does the Committee play in determining where artwork goes?” d. “How is public art funding collected and distributed in regard to where the funding is sourced locationally vs. where it is locationally reinvested?” 4. Question: Shabu asked for clarification regarding the difference between the Public Art (PA) Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). a. Redmann explained that the Public Art Plan is a separate effort that doesn’t involve regulation, but instead was focused on defining the key objectives for public art within the City. b. Minor added the relationship between how the Public Art Plan would be touched upon by various governing and community Bodies: i. The Public Art Commitee was putting together a list of what they wished to see within a Durham Public Art Plan, and then hand it over to the Durham Cultural Advisory Board. ii. The Durham Cultural Advisory Board would their approve these recommendations and then Roadmap hand off that vision for a Public Art Plan to the next Cultural Consultant that would be assisting with the Durham Cultural Roadmap. The Cultural Consultant would then work to add or remove ideas using community engagement and response as a guide. iii. This process will eventually define how funding is sourced for a public art plan in the future. c. Redmann returned to Shabu’s question and stated that the UDO was a regulatory entity that was based on the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which is a document that determines the values, goals, and objectives for the City of Durham, and where it wants to see itself in ten and twenty years. i. The UDO is the subsection sets the rules regulations on how those values, goals, and objectives within the Comprehensive Plan are enacted. Within the UDO, the Public Art Committe is advocating to have a revision for the policy toward public art, which was presently very weak. And within that provision, PAC is calling for funds to be collected as the 1% of the total budget of Capital  Investment Projects as an exchange for construction incentives. ii. Redmann reminded the Committee that Durham did not presently have a Public Art Plan, and the question of what to do with the funding could bolster the efforts of the creation of a Public Art Plan. b. Tracking Public Art as a Means of Guiding the Public Art Plan i. Dennis (Chair) asked the Public Art Committe what members would want to identify as key areas, communities, or concepts that they saw as important to the future of public art in Durham. ii. Minor stated that these points could be shared with the Cultural Consultant for the Durham Cultural Roadmap. 1. Redmann said it would be valuable to have a map of communities where public art funding had gone historically, and which areas were underserved. This information would be helpful in prioritizing future efforts. 2. Minor responded that there would be challenges to fulfilling Redmann’s request, because there were various sources of public art in Durham: a. City-funded public art b. County-funded public art c. Privately-funded public art 3. A comprehensive map tracking these myriad sources did not yet exist, but Minor said such an inventory could potentially be requested of the Cultural Consultant to take on. 4. Redmann discussed her support of this topic, and also suggested crowdsourcing as a way of collecting and tracking this information. 5. Question: Iwinski asked how public art held in offices within the City collection might be tracked. a. Redmann stated that such a project would utilize the definition of public art as art which was publicly funded or privately funded that is visible and experienced within the public realm. b. Minor added that both the City and the County have an understanding of the locations of all pieces that have been funded with taxpayer dollars. The more challenging aspect of creating a comprehensive public art map would be the tracking privately-funded art. c. Public Art Committee Community Advocacy i. Dennis (Chair) stressed the need for committee members to be the voice for communities in their area. 1. Dennis stressed the importance of addressing gaps in service and expressed needs, as well as connecting independent members of the community that were doing great work to each other and to beneficial resources. 2. DeMott (Durham Arts Council) stated that Redmann’s concept of using crowdsourcing to track public art sites could also serve as a platform for  identifying community needs. a. Redmann suggested an app where users could mark existing public art as well as neighborhoods and locations where they would like to see more art. b. DeMott added that this crowdsourcing concept could also be used to mark sites for historic preservation. She also offered the possibility of capturing place-linked community stories: immaterial heritage could lend itself to inspiring material art. c. Iwinski supported this idea of historic and narrative tracking, and said this concept connected well to the idea of place- keeping. He called this an enhancement of awareness the historical fabric of the place. d. Minor said it would be advantageous to have an intersectional map into a singular package. e. Shabu said this lent itself to a sense of community belonging, especially in regard to sharing history with newcomers to the city. f. Redmann stated that this preservation was invaluable in the face of gentrification. In the way historical houses were marked with plaques, she advocated for marking historically significant public areas with plaques. i. Mathew also offered the idea of connecting related public art pieces, using the Pauli Murray House and Pauli Murray murals as an example. ii. Redmann answered that color-coding roads the way they do in San Francisco could do that work. If Pauli Murray’s favorite color was purple, a wayfinding walkway painted that color could connect those adjacent culturally-linked pieces. 3. Palazuelos-Krukowski mentioned ArcGIS technology’s potential capability to pin and track art. She also suggested the Durham Neighborhood Compass as a resource to track community demographics related to civic engagement, crime, economy, education, environment, health, housing, infrastructure, and amenities. a. Minor stated that Durham Neighborhood compass could be used to layer information about the City into potential proposals the Public Art Committee would make in the future. 4. Shabu commented that it was also necessary to consider what would be culturally appropriate for Durham’s communities. Some might not have as much familiarity with apps, for example. She went on to say that historically African American neighborhoods have not had public art: their public art is in buildings, many of which were raised and demolished during urban renewal. She used the Hayti Heritage Center as an example of art in the architectural sense with its design, stained glass windows, and chapel. She encouraged the committee to be creative and expansive in how public art was both conceptualized and  identified. 5. Shabu also discussed Google Maps as an avenue for marking significant sites – the question would be how people could find all these pieces easily, rather than having to stumble across them. VI. UDO Advocacy Letter a. Eliza Redmann, Public Art Taskforce b. Redmann presented the letter that the taskforce had drafted as something that the Public Art Committee, Durham Area Designers, and Resident Art Enthusiasts would put forward to the Durham Cultural Advisory Board and the Unified Development Ordinance’s team. i. The letter discussed the changes that the aforementioned stakeholders would like to see in the new UDO. ii. Redmann presented the letter for Public Art Committee approval, where the PAC and local stakeholders recommended integrating improved public art policy incentives into the revised UDO. The letter stated that public art was seen as essential for enriching Durham's social, economic, and cultural landscape. Key points included: 1. Public Art's Importance: a. Public art was recognized as a catalyst for community engagement, economic development, and placemaking, aligning with the City of Durham’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. Current UDO Limitations: a. At present, the opportunity to incorporate public art into new construction projects was limited to an alternative to the City’s Street Tree Requirement, resulting in minimal successful project completions. 3. Proposed Investment Paradigm: a. The letter stated that PAC was advocating for the establishment of a robust public arts fund applicable to both private and public developments through a new incentive framework. The recommendations for sourcing this funding was as follows: i. Offering an Opt-In Incentive Program: Private developers would contribute 1% of total project budgets to a Public Art Fund. Incentives could include: 1. Expedited site plan reviews 2. Height increase allowances 3. Additional units approval 4. Opt-out of open space requirements 5. Zoning changes a. Redmann clarified that this was an opt- in incentive program and not a requirement, though the opt-in benefits would be very beneficial and attractive to developers. b. Redmann also stated that Duke  students who spent a semester-long course researching public art plans across the US had recommended this model singularly. ii. Involving the Community: Implement a review process to ensure projects reflect local needs and involve local artists, including giving local artists priority in producing this public art. 4. National Precedents a. The letter cited successful examples from cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Scottsdale, and others to demonstrate the effectiveness of similar incentive programs. 5. Benefits of Proposed Changes a. Enhanced Quality of Life: Improved aesthetics and inviting public spaces. b. Cultural Enrichment: Showcasing local talent and cultural heritage. c. Economic Development: Boosting local businesses and attracting visitors. d. Increased Community Engagement: Fostering pride and a sense of belonging among residents. 6. Conclusion: 7. The Durham Public Art Committee looked forward to collaborating with the Planning Department to ensure public art was central to Durham's development and community identity, and was signed by the Durham Public Art Committee, the Durham Cultural Advisory Board, Durham Area Designers, and Resident Art Enthusiasts. iii. Question: Shabu cited her hesitance regarding expedition from a community standpoint, especially in areas that have recently had a lot of development. She asked how the expedited process take into account the needs of neighbors to these developmental projects? iv. Iwinski stated that this was a fair question, especially considering where the oversight of these processes would take place. He continued to say that it would be outside of the Public Art Committee’s ability to administer. City and County would be responsible for this oversight. v. Question: DeMott asked for confirmation that this money would theoretically go into a fund, and the use of the crowdsource map would determine where that money was spent, and the funding did not necessarily have to go to the site where it was first sourced from. 1. Redmann confirmed this to be the case. 2. Iwinski stated that those kinds of matters could be decided within the Public Art Committee. 3. Minor referenced a developer’s guide to public art provided by a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, which provided a rubric of application and oversight processes for public art incentives for developers that set the program up for success. City of Suwanee, GA Developer’s Guide to Public Art  4. Redmann stated that these were really great questions that merited addressing, but also stressed the importance of getting this letter to the UDO’s committee as soon as possible as they were currently in a limited time window for public feedback. She encouraged getting the letter into the right hands for consideration and then refining details later. 5. Shabu advocated for advertising for community engagement via flyers and other means so as to better incorporate more diverse perspectives into the UDO’s new iteration. 6. Minor followed up by saying there would be future additional opportunities for community feedback in the public review and revision time period. 7. PAC members thanked Redmann for spearheading these efforts. c. Minor stated that since the Public Art Committee was lacking adequate numbers for quorum to approve this letter for the Durham Cultural Advisory Board’s perusal, a virtual vote would be held online on Tuesday October 15, 2024 prior to DCAB’s meeting on Wednesday, October 16, 2024. d. Iwinski stated that there would be time to incorporate minor revisions and then the letter would be sent to committee members for review before Tuesday, October 15, 2024. VII. Old Business a. PAC Membership i. Dennis (chair) stated that a member had resigned from the committee, and recommended that Aya Shabu become an official part of the Public Art Committee. 1. Holmes (City of Durham) stated that since there was no quorum, the vote could be postponed to November 2024 or a virtual vote. 2. Question: Shabu asked if this would shift her role as liaison, and committee members stated it would not. b. PAC Meeting Scheduling i. PAC Committee Members were asked to vote on preferred scheduling via a QR code. 1. Holmes noted that Wednesdays from 5 PM – 6:30 PM were leading in popularity, followed by Tuesdays from 5 PM – 6:30 PM. c. PAC Attendance Report & Review i. Palazuelos-Krukowski reported that Minor would be checking in with PAC members privately regarding their attendance. ii. Holmes reminded those in attendance that members of DCAB and PAC were required to attend 50% of meetings within any calendar year. Members who had not been compliant go through a City Clerk process were members contacted to request reasons for why they are not attending and what can be done to help them attend. d. Durham Cultural Roadmap Updates i. Holmes stated that the Durham Cultural Roadmap process was underway. The City was reviewing proposals for consultants. The Creative Engagement Team of the Creative Community Partners call was in the process of being developed and would be released in October.  ii. The City is looking for panelists to serve on the Creative Community Engagement Team call. If anyone was interested in helping review and assess artists and engagement workers, that call once open would be open for about 30 days. The Culture and Public Art Program is looking for panelists to review those applications on who the City should contract with. iii. Holmes stated that there were a couple of members from DCAB and from the Cultural Roadmap Planning Group, who were currently serving, and that the City was eager to have PAC members participate. iv. Holmes added that it would be a 20-to-25-hour commitment, with panel meetings and discussions along with interviews that would be planned for late November and December 2025. v. Question: Dennis asked if there was a schedule for those meetings. vi. Holmes stated that once the call was released, a schedule would be made available to interested parties. vii. DeMott stated that the Durham Arts Council would put the call out as well. VIII. Public Questions a. Castillo-Marte (guest) requested an update on the Wheels Roller Rink project and its completion. i. Holmes responded that Durham Parks and Recreation (DPR) and General Services are managing the construction part of it, while the Cultural and Public Art Program are working on the exterior public artwork. Dare Coulter was the artist that was selected to create that artwork, and the project was presently in fabrication. The design would be a combination of mural work and metal work. Holmes stated that anyone interested in the schedule of the project’s construction should communicate with Durham Parks and Recreation. She said interested individual could follow the public art project’s progress on CPAP’s @creativedurham Instagram page. IX. Final Announcements a. Shabu shared that the Village of Wisdom would be hosting a Black Genius Neighborhood Showcase on Saturday, November 9, from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM at the Holton Resource and Career Center. This event aimed to celebrate and elevate East Durham as a hub for Black genius, featuring a survey for community members to share their talents and experiences. Local businesses along the Angier-Driver Corridor were engaged in this initiative. The showcase would also highlight the Village of Wisdom's year-long collaboration with parents of Black children, which is part of a three-year residency focused on equity in education. Attendees will have the opportunity to learn about the participants' transformative journey of unlearning and reprogramming around educational equity, with art serving as a tool for learning, inspiration, and liberation. Community members were encouraged to come out, support the neighborhood, and enjoy the festivities. X. Adjournment a. The meeting was adjourned by Dennis (chair) at 7:10 PM.  XI. Documents a. Durham Cultural Roadmap b. City’s Comprehensive Plan c. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) d. Durham Neighborhood Compass e. ArcGIS f. Durham Area Designers g. Durham Cultural Advisory Board For updates on City of Durham’s Cultural & Public Art Program, visit: https://www.durhamnc.gov/450/Cultural-Public-Art-Development For updates on Durham County’s Public Art Program, visit: https://www.dconc.gov/county-departments/departments-a-e/engineering-and-environmental- services/durham-county-public-art-program Submitted respectively by, Jo Palazuelos-Krukowski