Appendix 3 16 287 Title: Section: Prepared by: Fitzherbert Street Mudge Mural Preservation Chief Executive's Office Paul Naske (Programme Manager) Meeting Date: 30 June 2016 Legal Financial Significance = Medium Report to COUNCIL for decision SUMMARY The purpose of this report is for Council to decide how to manage the Graeme Mudge Town Crier Mural (the mural) with the pending demolition of the Fitzherbert Street Administration Building and the revelation of asbestos in the fibreboard substrate of the mural. At the May 19 2016 meeting Council sought further information about the preservation cost for the mural after asbestos was detected. Subsequently, asbestos handlers and art conservators provided cost estimates for the relocation and preservation of the mural. The estimated preservation cost is up to $45,840. The estimated cost for a digital re-print of the mural is approximately $4,000. Both costs are unbudgeted expenses. The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of Medium significance in accordance with the Council s Significance and Engagement Policy. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council: 1. Notes the contents of this report and in particular the presence of asbestos in the mural. 2. Approves the unbudgeted expenditure of $4000 for the digital preservation of the mural and the associated demolition of the original mural. Authorised by: Paul Naske Programme Manager Judy Campbell Chief Executive Keywords: mural, rebuild programme, asbestos, Mudge mural Page 1 of 7
BACKGROUND 1. As part of the Fitzherbert Street Administration Centre Rebuild Project, the existing administration building is being demolished during August. The demolition will affect the mural. It will either need to be destroyed or be moved. 2. The mural is painted on the side of the Council s administration building on Fitzherbert Street and is generally in good condition. The mural is one of 17 located around the city by the late Graeme Mudge. It depicts a fictitious theatre scene with former council officers John Dwight, John Kibble and others. 3. In recent months, Council staff and Councillors have been approached to preserve the mural and to maintain and preserve the other remaining murals by Graeme Mudge around the city. Lisette Mudge has personally approached the Mayor and staff. Representatives from the Art in Public Places Trust have also approached Councillors and Staff to preserve all the murals for the enjoyment of the community and tourists. At the May 19 Council meeting Martin Kibble and supporters presented to the Council to seek preservation of the mural. 4. Staff are preparing a detailed report to Council that specifies the costs and options for Council regarding the preservation and maintenance of all the other Graeme Mudge murals in the city. 5. A decision on this mural is required now as the removal work will need to start in July 2016 for the scheduled demolition in August 2016. 6. Results from an asbestos report commissioned prior to the demolition has confirmed the presence of asbestos in the fibreboard substrate of the mural. 7. Cost estimates for removal, reinstatement and preservation of the mural are presented below. DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS 8. There are three options for consideration: Option 1: Digitally preserve and reprint, install at suitable site at a cost of $4k. This cost excludes any site preparation. Option 2: Preserve and relocate the original mural either to Lawson Field Theatre or the Tairawhiti Museum, cost $46k. Option 3: Demolish, no cost. Option 1 Digitally preserve and reprint 9. A high-resolution digital photo of the mural could be taken. The mural could be printed in large format on vinyl and installed in a suitable city location. Advantages Economical when compared to full preservation. Cost would be approximately $4k. Easily reproduced - can be reprinted in the future. Versatile - the reprint can be installed in many city locations. Flexibility - allows time to consider a suitable city location. Disadvantages The original artwork would be destroyed. A sector of the community would not see this as appropriate. Uncertain lifespan in an outdoor location. Page 2 of 7
Option 2 Preserve and relocate the original mural either to Lawson Field Theatre or Tairawhiti Museum In order to preserve and relocate the mural, the following is required: Specialist handlers: The mural is painted on a canvas/material surface adhered to underlying fibreboard. This fibreboard contains asbestos. Prior to rear bracing the exposed surface of the fibreboard will be coated with resin to contain the asbestos. The edges of the mural need to be sealed via some sort of framing. These edges will have exposed asbestos. Art conservator: The front, painted surface needs to be prepared before removal. The mural will need to be touched up by an artist or art conservator. This is because the pipes and boxes on the exterior of the mural will be removed and show underlying nonpainted surface. Bracing: Removal will require bracing of the rear of the painting. This will require internal building access. Once braced at the rear, the mural will be braced on the front face. Large machinery: To be preserved the mural needs to be removed in one piece. The mural will need to be moved off site using a small crane or hiab. 10. Worksafe NZ were consulted for specialist advice because of the hazardous nature of asbestos and the unique situation of preserving asbestos. The representative of Worksafe NZ has declined to put their recommendation in writing. 11. Reinstatement of the mural has been considered in two locations - on the side of the Lawson Field Theatre or the Museum. Lawson Field Theatre 12. Costs to preserve and relocate the mural to the Lawson Field Theatre are below. The costs are based on estimates that have been calculated on daily rates from contractors. Subsequently, the final amount could vary. Due to the unique and complex nature of the work and the time constraints with the pending demolition. Art conservator (for paint preparation and paint finish and touch up) $9,000 Bracing and removal by approved asbestos handler (labour and materials) $14,200 Reinstatement at Lawson Field Theatre (labour and materials) $10,800 Contingency 20% $6,840 Replant a tree; paving and commemorative plaque $5,000 TOTAL $45,840 13. The above costs are considered the top end and include a 20% contingency for the unknown. The community has offered to assist with materials/machinery. Savings are possible but are factored in. 14. The Kibble family have expressed a preference for the mural to be relocated to the Lawson Field Theatre. Considering the potential extra costs associated with relocation to Tairawhiti Museum, if the Council were to move the mural, the preferred option, would be to the Lawson Field Theatre. Page 3 of 7
Figure 1 Example of mural relocated to the Lawson Field Theatre Advantages No height restraint can build up wall and reinforce if needed. Room for a tree to be planted nearby to further protect the mural. Open to park setting, high visibility for public. Theatre scene of mural suits Theatre location. Disadvantages Preserving and relocating is uneconomical when compared to digitizing. Will restrict one opening window unless stepped out from wall. (Additional cost). Exposed site with no weather protection. Likely to increase the ongoing maintenance cost. A small eave has been included in the plan. In flood fringe area. Possibility of future relocation if changes occur at the Theatre. At risk from damage or vandalism (but no more than any others around town). Page 4 of 7
The Tairawhiti Museum 15. Costs to preserve and relocate the mural to Tairawhiti Museum have not been gathered in detail. It is likely to be more expensive than relocating to the Lawson Field Theatre. Figure 2 Example of the mural relocated to Tairawhiti Museum Advantages Protected by eaves from weather and sunlight. Historic content of mural suits Museum location. The location is highly visible for the public. Disadvantages Preserving and relocating is uneconomical when compared to digitizing. Possibility of future museum expansion and need to relocate. Mural will need to be cut down approximately 15-20cm to fit under soffit. Not immediately appropriate for memorial tree although there is some possibility as landscaping changes are occurring at the museum. 16. No other locations were considered for the relocation of the mural. This is because of the time restriction with the pending demolition. The Lawson Field Theatre and the Museum were obvious choices given their location, their ownership and links with the Council. Option 3 Demolish 17. The mural could be demolished as part of the total site demolition. It would be removed and destroyed along with the other asbestos on site at no cost to Council. Page 5 of 7
Summary of options 18. The options before Council regarding the Town Crier Mural are: Option Advantages Disadvantages Option 1 - Digitally preserve and reprint Option 2 - Preserve and relocate the original mural either to Lawson Field Theatre or the Tairawhiti Museum Option 3 - Demolish Digitally preserves the artwork Artwork can be reproduced Cost = $4,000 unbudgeted Physical artwork preserved Sector of the public are happy No cost Quick and easy Loss of physical artwork Sector of public disappointed Cost = $45,840 unbudgeted Asbestos risk (small) Loss of physical artwork Sector of public disappointed 19. Staff recommend Option 1 to digitally preserve the mural and install the reprint in another location. The final location of the reprinted mural would be considered as part of the wider Graeme Mudge mural plan under consideration. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Criteria This Report The Process Overall The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne district Low Low The effects on individuals or specific communities High Low The level or history of public interest in the matter or issue High Medium Inconsistency with Council s current strategy and policy Medium Medium Impacts on Council s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long Term Plan. Low Low 20. The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of medium significance in accordance with Council s Significance and Engagement Policy. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 21. Staff have not sought formal feedback from the community. 22. Lisette Mudge, the wife of Graeme Mudge, has approached the Mayor directly for preservation of the mural. This was prior to the asbestos finding. 23. Mr Martin Kibble presented to the May 19 2016 Council meeting outlining his, and various supporters opinions that the mural should be preserved. (Appendix 1) 24. Letter received from Stuart Dwight and supporters asking Council to reserve and relocate the mural. (Appendix 2) 25. The Art in Public Places Trust support the preservation of the mural. 26. The Gisborne Herald Facebook page has received 38 comments in support of keeping the mural. This was prior to the asbestos finding. 27. Several letters to the editor of the Gisborne Herald in recent months support the preservation of the mural. CONSIDERATIONS Financial/budget considerations 28. Any expenditure agreed by the Council is unbudgeted. Page 6 of 7
RISKS 29. Timeframes: If no decision is made to preserve the mural at this meeting, in order to avoid delay of the rebuild programme, the mural would be demolished. If the rebuild programme is delayed costs would be added to the rebuild programme. 30. Health and safety: Asbestos a significant hazard. There is a health and safety risk around moving and handling asbestos. This is mitigated by: Engaging approved asbestos handlers, Worksafe NZ, to carrying out the work. 31. Health and safety risk to the public: With potential relocation, there will be an increase in public proximity to the mural. The options are to eliminate, isolate or minimise the risk. The proposed option is to minimise the risk. a. Eliminate this will require destruction and disposal of the fibreboard substrate that would destroy or severely alter the mural covering itself. b. Isolate this will require storing the mural away from the public. c. Minimise: The rear of the mural to be coated with protective resin and then covered by plywood. The edges of the mural to be put in a protective frame. The front of the mural is covered in paint and canvas protecting the asbestos. The asbestos fibres only pose a risk when the boards are opened. The asbestos in the fibreboard substrate is termed non-friable. This poses a lower risk than asbestos in dust form. NEXT STEPS Date Action/Milestone Comments Early July 2016 Late July 2016 Early August 2016 Engage art conservator and asbestos handler to remove the mural and relocate. Site fencing Demolition begins This is immediate requirement in order to ensure the mural is preserved. Demolition contractors are scheduled to require access in late July 2016. APPENDICES Appendix 1 Letter of support from Martin Kibble. Appendix 2 Letter of support from Stuart Dwight. Page 7 of 7