North Carolina Textile Museum Feasibility Study 1 Committee Members Dr. Kevin Cherry (Chair) Deputy Secretary and Director, North Carolina Office of Archives and History Jeff Adolphsen Senior Restoration Specialist, North Carolina Historic Preservation Office Dr. Joseph Beatty Research Supervisor, North Carolina Office of Archives and History Dr. Benjamin Filene Chief Curator, North Carolina Museum of History Ken Howard Director, North Carolina Museum of History John Mintz State Archaeologist, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology Brett Sturm Restoration Specialist, North Carolina Historic Preservation Office 2 Contents Executive Summary Importance of the Textile Industry to North Carolina Background and Methodology Charge Committee Selection Methodology General Philosophy for a Textile Production and Industrial History Museum Desired Components of a State Textile Museum Textile Heritage Network Site Selection Consideration of Randolph Heritage Conservancy, Inc. Holdings Consideration of Town of Erwin Holdings Summary Comparison of Sites Further Recommendations Phased Development Staffing Estimated Recurring Non-Staff-Related Costs Textile Museum in Departmental Structure Steps Toward Interpreting Mill Village Life Collecting Now Before It Is Gone Advisory Council Development of Museum within a Natural Setting Conclusion Appendixes A. ASME Landmark Collection Textile Machinery Collection Brochure B. Brief History of ATHM C. Cedar Falls Timeline D. FCAP Report E. Erwin Commercial District National Register 3 Executive Summary It is desirable for the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources to create a museum to interpret the history of textile production using the real property and collections of the Randolph Heritage Conservancy, given the appropriate level of one-time and continuing resources. The North Carolina Office of Archives and History was directed, pursuant to Senate Bill 525 (2019), to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a textile museum to interpret the state’s textile production and industrial history. Specifically, the Office of Archives and History (OAH) was directed to “evaluate the real property and textile collection held by the Randolph Heritage Conservancy, Inc., located in the Town of Franklinville, to determine the feasibility of its use in establishing a State historic site or State museum” and to “evaluate and determine the feasibility of establishing the Erwin Textile Museum, located in the Town of Erwin in Harnett County, as a State historic site or State museum to interpret the State's textile production and industrial history.” The Office of Archives and History has long acknowledged the need for a state museum, historic site, or combination to preserve and interpret the history of textile manufacturing and labor in North Carolina. Since the 1980s, several attempts have been made to establish a state textile museum, although none of these came to fruition, primarily due to lack of ongoing state appropriation. During the same time period, several local organizations proposed or developed their own exhibits and programs, including, for example, the Town of Erwin, the village of Glencoe, the Randolph Heritage Conservancy, Cooleemee Textile Heritage Center, Kannapolis History Associates, and the Kessel History Center at Loray Mill. Many of these have sought to become a 4 part of the Department of Cultural (later Natural and Cultural) Resources or, at least, partner with the department to operate such a facility. The study committee developed criteria to evaluate the two candidate organizations—taking into account their unique collections, facilities, and locations—against the goals of a textile museum for the state. In considering the factors discussed in the attached report, the committee finds that the collection of the Randolph Heritage Conservancy, Inc. (RHC) and its real property located in Cedar Falls, a non-incorporated community just outside Franklinville, in Randolph County, provides a more feasible basis for a state textile museum than the property and collection of the Erwin Textile Museum in Harnett County. RHC holds a large collection of machinery and artifacts as well as a historic mill facility in a location central to the state. The Erwin Textile Museum has an established collection of textile-related artifacts; but its collection includes no machinery and has no facility sufficient to house a state textile museum. The feasibility of establishing this new museum, however, depends upon meeting several criteria. Because none currently exists, the Office of Archives and History would need to create an administrative structure of management, staff, and procedures to operate the textile museum. The museum would not need to assemble a new collection of textile machinery, as RHC holds a unique, national-caliber collection of textile equipment and documents, which formerly belonged to the American Textile History Museum (ATHM) in Lowell, Massachusetts. When ATHM closed in 2016, it transferred much of its museum collections to RHC. This fact could help reduce the cost, labor, and time of creating a new textile museum. Still, the committee recommends that the museum seek out and acquire more signature North Carolina elements for its collection, as well as a broader range of artifacts that would help interpret the life of textile worker families and other aspects of the textile industry separate from manufacturing (advertisements, etc.). RHC owns a 150,000-square- foot mill facility on the Deep River in Cedar Falls in Randolph County. The structure encompasses much of North Carolina’s textile history: its oldest section dates to the 1840s, and its most recent addition was in the 1980s. This mill is located in one of the state’s early textile centers. The very fact 5 that a collection of artifacts of national significance is located in a former mill that itself reflects more than 180 years of textile history and which just happens to be located in one of the state’s early industrial centers is difficult to ignore. The mill building’s physical plant is in need of repair and improvement. It will require a new roof, HVAC repair or replacement, and a range of modifications that would be expected to convert an industrial facility into a public space. Altogether, these improvements would require significant investment in time and capital before the building could become operational within the state system. RHC has stated its intent to transfer this facility and most of its artifact holdings to the state before transforming itself into a support group with some of its own retained operations in a separate, nearby facility, which it owns. The committee recommends a phased approach to creating the museum. The first phase would aim to rehabilitate the building and envelope to significantly prepare the building for use. This phase would include structural repairs and stabilization as well as repair and/or replacement of building systems (such as HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and ADA) to be spread over two biennia. The next phase would prepare portions of the facility into active exhibit spaces and outfit a visible storage area to prepare the building for transfer from the nonprofit to the state. The final phase would involve hiring staff and fully opening to the public. It is currently estimated that it would require at least $30 million in capital improvements to complete Phase 1 and $600,000 to complete Phase 2. Without a more specific programming and exhibit plan, it is impossible to estimate the cost of fully opening the entire facility. As an initial investment, the committee recommends a legislatively-directed grant to RHC, the private nonprofit organization that owns the building and holds the ATHM collection, over two biennia to rehabilitate the building and renovate its systems as well as allowing for the development of the initial exhibit for Phase 2 before transfer of the facility to the state, which would happen upon continuing appropriation for staffing and other recurring costs. It is the intent of Archives and History to work with RHC to make sure that all repairs and renovations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 follow State Construction Office guidelines. Archives and 6 History also plans to help develop the initial exhibit(s) required for Phase 2. Artifacts and facilities would not be transferred to the state until Phase 3 is initiated with the hiring of state staff. Given the appropriate level of funding, Phase 1 and Phase 2 could be accomplished in approximately four years (two biennia). The committee recognizes that full development of Phase 3 will require gradual development implemented by full-time staff over a number of years. To initiate Phase 3, staff will need to be in place. The committee estimates the annual staffing cost for such a facility, based upon similar institutions within the state, to be approximately $820,000. Once Phase 3 begins, there would also be other recurring annual expenses for the museum, such as utilities, supplies, equipment, maintenance and security contracts, and basic repairs of approximately $500,000. At this time, annual recurring costs (including staffing) are estimated to be between $1,320,000 and $1,600,000. More specifics with regard to costs would need to be estimated at the time of Phase 3 implementation. Most costs associated with programming, exhibits, and artifacts would, as is the case with other museums in the state’s system, be supported by receipts and donations. The committee does not envision admission fees for this institution.