HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment - Jim Mosher - Agenda Item 3September 12, 2024, Arts Commission Agenda Comments
These comments on Newport Beach City Arts Commission agenda items are submitted by:
Jim Mosher
Item No. 5. Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park Phase X
Proposal
An Alternative Way of Estimating Cost Savings
The Commission is being asked to consider recommending the Council go from funding a new
two-year exhibition every year to funding a new three-year exhibition twice every three years (or,
on average, once every 1.5 years).
The individual two-year exhibitions are said to currently cost $173,000 each. If that cost were
independent of the length of the exhibition, the Council would be going from paying for one new
$173,000 exhibition each year to two-thirds of an exhibition per year at an annual cost of
(2/3)x$173,000 = $115,333, which would be a savings of (1/3)x$173,000 = $57,666 per year.
The actual savings would be less because the cost of a three-year exhibition will likely be
somewhat greater than for a two-year exhibition (for example, with increased management and
possibly advertising or honorarium costs, as explored on later pages).
It might be noted this model could extended to funding, for example, a new four-year exhibition
every two years, which, by the same reasoning would result in, on average, starting one-half of
an exhibition every year, at as little as one-half the current annual cost (again assuming the cost
of an exhibition is independent of its length).
An Alternative 3-year Model with the Same Ongoing Cost Reduction
It might also be noted that although the subcommittee recommendation is to achieve two new
three-year exhibitions every three years by skipping the launch (and end) of an exhibition in
every third year, an alternative with the same ongoing cost savings would be to launch a new
three-year exhibition every 1.5 years.
For example, there could be a “Spring” and a “Fall” class, with Phase VIII (currently set for
deinstallation in June 2025) extended to September (or October) 2025 and Phase IX (currently
set for deinstallation in June 2026) extended to March (or April) 2027, with new three-year
exhibitions starting 1.5 years apart, in those same months every third Spring and Fall into the
future.
This alternative three-year length model with a launch every 1.5 years would provide a more
regular, rather than sporadic, replacement of sculptures in the park and would require shorter
extensions for Phases VIII (by three or four months) and IX (by nine or ten months), which
might be easier to negotiate. However, because the extensions of these already-paid-for Phase
VIII and Phase IX exhibitions would be shorter than the subcommittee’s proposed 12 months
extensions of each, the savings achieved by extending them during the transition period would
be less.
September 12, 2024, CAC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
Will There be Budgeting Impacts?
Under the current model of one new two-year exhibition launching each summer, the City
Council is asked to approve a contract with Arts OC each year and there is a constant level of
funding needed in each fiscal year’s budget.
Under either model being considered for three-year duration exhibitions (either skipping a
launch every third year or launching every 1.5 years), there will be years in which no new
contract will be needed and in which no installation/deinstallation activity will occur. As a result,
the funding appropriations will vary, being high for two years, then very low in the third year.
While that could be worked out, it may create new problems. For example, if it worked as
described, in the year where the high appropriation returns after a low- or no-appropriation year,
questions might be raised about it that would not have been raised if the level were steady.
How Will Cost Vary with Length of Exhibition?
As indicated in the staff report, the costs of putting on the exhibitions consist primarily of the
contract with Arts OC followed by the artist honorariums.
The cost of honorariums for a three-year versus a two-year commitment (currently $50,000 for a
two-year exhibit) is dealt with in the staff report: Option #1 would increase the cost per
exhibition to $60,000 (a $10,000 increase), while Option #2 would reduce it to $45,000 (a
$5,000 decrease).
As to Arts OC, like most City contractors, they operate on a “not to exceed basis,” submitting a
schedule of estimated costs that have to be substantiated by invoices before being paid. All
their past and present contracts can be reviewed in the City Clerk’s contracts archive, including
those for Phase VIII and Phase IX. The schedule for Phase IX is as follows:
Phase VIII was initially identical, but for reasons unknown to me, it was amended a year after
the initial approval to reduce the “contingency” allowance by $2,500. The Phase VII schedule
was identical to Phase IX. The line items, including management/curation fees, were lower prior
to Phase VII, and did not include the “equipment rental” charge for cranes and forklifts. But they
September 12, 2024, CAC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
specifically indicated the site preparation estimate assumed only five new pads, and Phase VI
had to be amended for a higher-than-normal contingency.
Most of the anticipated costs in the Arts OC schedule appear to be one-time charges that would
not change with the duration of the exhibit. However one would expect the $44,500
management/curation costs (at the red arrows, above) to be somewhat higher if the exhibit has
to be curated for three years rather than two. The exact amount is difficult to guess since the
management/curation cost is not further itemized in the Arts OC contract, but I would expect
most of it reflects the one time per exhibition costs associated with managing the selection,
installation and deinstallation, and that increasing the length of stay by 50% (from two years to
three) would increase the $44,500 by much less than 50%.
For example, if increasing the duration of an exhibition from a two years to three increased total
management costs for each exhibition by about 10%, or $5,000, that could be offset by the
Option #2 honorarium reduction, leaving the total cost of the new three-year exhibits the same
as the existing two-year exhibits. In that case, the annual cost estimate of $115,333 and savings
of $57,666 per year provided in the first section above would remain valid.
Alternatively, if the management/curation costs increased by $5,000 and the honorariums were
increased to $7,500 per artist, for a total of $75,000 per exhibition (a $25,000 increase), to
reflect the artist’s longer commitment, the cost per exhibition would increase from $173,000 to
$173,000 + $5,000 (management) + $25,000 (artists) = $203,000. With two exhibitions
launching every three years, the annual cost the Council would have to fund would then be
(2/3)x$203,000 =$135,333 and the savings (compared to the current $173,000 per year) would
be only $37,667 per year.
To produce more accurate projections than these, one would hope: (1) Arts OC could provide a
better estimate of what management/curation costs they actually incur in the middle months of
an exhibition when there is normally no selection, installation or deinstallation, and (2) the Arts
Commission would rethink what the honorarium is for (that is, a fixed gift to assist with
transportation, or a “rent” proportional to the length of stay).
Other Alternatives
Did the subcommittee consider the cost of other alternatives, such as an annual launch of a
reduced number of sculptures for a longer stay. For example, six or seven new sculptures each
year for a three-year stay? Or five per year for a four-year stay? These would maintain 20
sculptures in the park but spread the costs of selection, installation and deinstallation over a
greater number of years, similar to the proposal presented. The savings would likely not be as
great, but the annual costs would not have the ups and downs.