God Save the Rourke

The brouhaha following a November Moorhead City Council discussion of a leaky roof at the Rourke Art Museum in Moorhead is still simmering. At issue is whether the City of Moorhead or the Rourke Art Museum, or both entities, will pay for necessary roof repairs on the stately building, which is one of only two structures in the entire city of Moorhead in the National Register of Historic Places.

A firestorm of passionate interest followed a November 18th Fargo Forum editorial that addressed the issue. The editorial, which began, “Municipal governments are notorious for lacking vision,” elicited numerous online comments and letters to the editor.

One online commenter accused Moorhead councilmember Mark Hintermeyer and others of being “neo-cons” with no interest in preserving culture. Other comments included, “All you big mouths that want to keep it [the Rourke] should pay for it. The City has more important things to spend its money on.” and “Get your act together Moorhead . . . this city needs more than sports complexes and vacant buildings.” Another post read, “The museum provides a prime example of our great city’s heritage. We must keep the Rourke intact.”

In a recent interview with councilmember Hintermeyer, HPR learned that his questions and comments at a November Moorhead City Council “discussion” meeting were not meant to rile the public, but to present options to the city and to the Rourke. Hintermeyer appears to prefer a measured, methodical approach to issues, including gathering as much information as possible, as opposed to the more emotional, passionate approach that some Rourke supporters have exhibited, especially in letters to the Forum and on the Forum blog. One letter writer, for example, jumped to the conclusion that the City was going to “tear down” the Rourke instead of repairing it.

Hintermeyer is disappointed that so much “misinformation” has been disseminated in the local media. The “lack of fact finding by the media” clouds the issue according to Hintermeyer. Publically, Hintermeyer suggested that the Rourke might want to buy the building it now leases, which raised additional indignation on the part of those who feel that the city of Moorhead should retain and attend to one of its most precious historic assets. Hintermeyer was surprised by the intense “pushback” at what he believed was simply a possible rational option.

Another of Hintermeyer’s council interests is in exploring the lease agreement between the City of Moorhead and the Rourke Museum. He believes there should be an attempt to follow the provisions of that agreement. According to Hintermeyer, per that agreement, the Rourke is responsible for at least part, if not all, of major repairs to the building. But he also agrees that the City Council could simply vote to repair the roof instead of holding the Rourke responsible for the costs of repairs, another solution he sees as viable, though he remains of the mindset that the Rourke should pay at least part of the repair cost. Six of eight “yes” votes would be required for the Moorhead City Council to allocate funds for the Rourke repair project.

According to councilmember John Rowell, Hintermeyer is correct in his analysis of the lease agreement, though Rowell believes that the Rourke Art Museum should be “treated as other Moorhead city non-profit organizations are treated,” no matter the lease agreement.

Rowell told HPR that just a few years ago, the City of Moorhead replaced the roof at the Hjemkomst Center at a cost of $2.5 million—an enormous amount compared to the $150,000 initial estimate for Rourke roof repairs—and not a penny was paid for by the non-profits that reside at the Hjemkomst. In addition, the City will pay for approximately $250,000 for additional roof repairs to the Hjemkomst in 2010.

“When the Hjemkomst roof was replaced,” Rowell said, “no thought was given to asking the non-profits to help pay for the project. We need to treat this organization [the Rourke] like any other.” Rowell notes that “unforseen circumstances can come up” with city-owned buildings. These circumstances can put the survival of non-profit entities that add value to the community in jeopardy.

Rowell also pointed to the fact that the Rourke operates on a very small budget. The roof repairs would eat up about 75 percent of the Rourke’s annual budget, and that would be disastrous for museum programming, exhibitions and educational programs.

Rowell noted the difference between the City of Moorhead’s operating budget and the capital expenditure budget. Contrary to what many citizens believe, the monies to fix the Rourke would not come from the operating budget and hence would not be taking money away from city employees’ wages or other city projects. The capital improvement funds are essentially electric utility monies. “There are sufficient unallocated funds in the capital improvement budget to pay for the Rourke project,” according to Rowell.

Moorhead citizens might have a legitimate complaint if additional taxes were levied to pay for the project as some believe will happen, but this is not the case. And paying for the roof at the Rourke will not mean fewer city services, or fewer police on the streets, or parks in disrepair, according to Rowell.

Councilmember Nancy Otto is as dismayed as Hintermeyer about the lack of fact finding on this issue by local media. She told HPR that the Forum has never reported that the City of Moorhead has spent nearly $400,000 for Rourke building repairs since the City purchased the old Moorhead post-office building. In addition, Otto reports, “The Rourke has received $39,000 in operating funds from the City since 2006.” Otto also points out that the Rourke should “live up to the legal obligations in its lease contract with the City.” As a councilmember, she expects the Rourke “to step up to the plate and pay for at least part of the repairs.”

Also according to Otto, the Moorhead City Attorney sent a letter to the museum stating that as per the lease agreement, the Rourke is obligated to pay $52,000 toward major repairs. Otto stated that if the Rourke would do its part, the city would probably vote to pay the difference. That amount is approximately $100,000. “No one is arguing that the Rourke Art Museum isn’t a good asset for the community, of course it is,” she said, “but they need to show good faith and raise the money to pay their fair share.” Otto is hoping that FM community members and art patrons will be willing to donate $52,000 to the Rourke for this capital improvement. “An appeal to the public is in order here,” she said.

Diane Wray Williams is confident the City will pay for the Rourke repairs. “It is a city-owned building that we have to take care of,” she told HPR. “It’s part of the infrastructure of our city. I think we will vote to fix the roof. But we do need to have an expert tell us what is needed.”  Hintermeyer’s request for more firm figures matches councilmember Wray William’s desire to present accurate information to the Council before a vote takes place sometime in February.

Councilmember Wray Williams expressed the need to develop a comprehensive view of economic development in the city of Moorhead, which she says, must include what non-profit arts organizations like the Rourke bring to the table. Bringing businesses into the city is not the sum total of economic development in Wray Williams’ assessment. “That approach,” she cautions, “can be very narrow.”

Large companies such as Microsoft, as just one example, want happy employees, she explains. And these employees “are often interested in culture and the arts.” Without the cultural aspects of community life, Moorhead/Fargo would be a much less desirable place to establish new businesses and a less attractive place for employees to live, in Wray Williams’ estimation.

In addition, Wray Williams reminds skeptics who see the arts as “frills” activities in the community, that on the contrary, the arts create significant revenue and have a substantial economic impact in our region. Just like hockey, golf, bike paths, and other city-supported activities, she sees the arts as an essential part of a vibrant, thriving community.

Wray Williams’ broad view of the economic impact of the arts is progressive and accurate. In Clay and Cass counties alone, the economic impact of the non-profit arts industry is substantial. Local data from a recent Lake Agassiz Arts Council study reveals that in the two counties the arts industry generates $41, 315, 605 in economic activity annually—yes, that is forty-one million three-hundred thousand dollars. These nonprofit entities create 675 full-time equivalent jobs in the communities. $13, 310, 000 is generated in resident household income; $481,000 in local government tax revenues; $836, 000 in state government tax revenues. The approximate cost of $150,000 in roof repairs to the venerable Rourke Museum pales in comparison with these encouraging financial numbers.

The sum also looks small in comparison to the approximate $300,000 in annual City of Moorhead taxpayer funds allocated to subsidize the Hjemkomst Center. In addition, the City of Moorhead allocates between $400,000 to $600,000 dollars annually to subsidize golf courses in the city, according to councilmember Rowell and City Manager Michael Redlinger. And only about 10% of the adult population uses these courses. And the City pays for capital improvements and repairs. “And no one complains,” councilmember Rowell asserts.

HPR also spoke with James O’Rourke, director of the Rourke Art Museum. He is confident the City of Moorhead will “do the right thing.” “They have a tradition of taking care of the building,” he said. “The bottom line is that they own the building, and they are not going to turn the building into a parking lot” as some have feared. Rourke points out that “most communities are very proud of their historic buildings.”  “Moorhead,” he says, “is no different.”

Non-profit organizations such as the Rourke Art Museum depend, in part, on the kindness, not of strangers, as the famous line from Tennessee Williams states, but on the kindness and generosity of those who understand their august mission. When a non-profit entity adds significant value to the community, as the Rourke does through its first-class permanent collection, its venue for emerging and established artists, its student-based and community-sensitive educational programs, then these worthy goals ought to be affirmed by the collective.

Individuals and individual entities do not own the culture. We the people own the culture. That is why it is so important for the community to collectively preserve its culture. Turning the preservation of the arts over to only private entities is not necessarily wise.

The mission of non-profit arts organizations is to provide cultural happenings and events, while the communal mission is to ensure that there are places in which the public can gather to experience those events. Most citizens understand this.

While Moorhead City Council members disagree on the minutiae of the current roof repair problem, they all agree on two things. The first is that the Rourke Art Museum adds inestimable value to the city of Moorhead and to the region.

The second is that the three new council members who will be seated in January will decide who pays for the new roof. These newly elected officials will walk into a hotly debated issue, and we are confident they’re up to the task.

Exceptional problems require exceptional solutions. A leaky roof that threatens one of the most beautiful and admirably utilized buildings in all of Moorhead is an exceptional problem. It will require an exceptional solution—the coming together of city officials, of Rourke executives, of Rourke Board members, and the community to solve the problem—so that this repository of one of the region’s finest art collections remains a viable entity.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)