2022-01-18 Public Art Subcommittee
To develop, advance, and nurture all facets of the arts
to enhance the quality of life for Meridian residents and its visitors
PUBLIC ART SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Parks & Recreation Conference Room, Meridian City Hall 33 East Broadway Avenue Ste 206
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 4:30 PM
All materials presented at public meetings become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for
disabilities should contact the City Clerk's Office at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Agenda
VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
To join the meeting online: Click here to join the
meethttps://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-
join/19%3ameeting_ZTYzY2FkY2MtZTA0Zi00ZDg2LTg5MTAtYWNlMzA4NWU4YjFh%40t
hread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22b844df29-8272-41a9-9862-
5a8e63e5f93a%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22f56ac0af-a7c9-431e-a6e9-
9f13727464b7%22%7ding
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
_____ Lizzie Taylor _____ Raeya Wardle
_____ Jessica Peters, Chair _____ Thomas Vannucci
_____ Bobby Gaytan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES [ACTION ITEM]
1. Minutes From December 21st, 2021 Subcommittee Meeting
REPORTS
2. Update: Public Art Plan
3. Update: Meridian Mural Series Location Search
ACTION ITEMS
4. Next Steps: Public Art Project Ten Mile Trailhead
NEW BUSINESS [ACTION ITEMS]
5. 2022 Public Art Subcommittee Chair Nominations and Elections
NEXT MEETING - February 15, 2022
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC ART SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Parks & Recreation Conference Room, Meridian City Hall 33 East Broadway Avenue Ste
206 Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 4:30 PM
MINUTES
VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
To join the meeting online: Click here to join the
meethttps://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-
join/19%3ameeting_ZTYzY2FkY2MtZTA0Zi00ZDg2LTg5MTAtYWNlMzA4NWU4YjFh%40t
hread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22b844df29-8272-41a9-9862-
5a8e63e5f93a%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22f56ac0af-a7c9-431e-a6e9-
9f13727464b7%22%7ding
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
__X___ Lizzie Taylor __X___ Raeya Wardle
__X___ Jessica Peters, Chair __X___ Thomas Vannucci
__X___ Bobby Gaytan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES [ACTION ITEM]
1. Minutes From December 21st, 2021 Subcommittee Meeting
T. Vannucci made motion to approve minutes; seconded by B. Gaytan.
All ayes
REPORTS
2. Update: Public Art Plan
J. Peters noted that past Arts and Culture Coordinator had a good start on the
Public Art Plan draft, but that it is currently unfinished, and that J. Peters would be
meeting with C. Schiffler, the new Arts and Culture Coordinator, to update C.
Schiffler on the past scope of the plan. C. Schiffler is looking forward to working on
the plan and coming up with something that will be good and workable for years to
come.
T. Vannucci inquired as to when the deliverable date would be. J. Peters noted that
there is not a set time, and C. Schiffler confirmed that while City Council, Park and
Rec, and others are looking for the plan, there is not currently a set deliverable
time.
J. Peters added that the hope is that, after putting the current pieces of the plan
together, that there would be the potential opportunity to go back to the original
plan and get additional professional help, which will be additional funding and
staff time. There will be more discussions about finding the resources to do this.
C. Schiffler noted that there had been discussions about a Saturday workshop, and
confirmed that is still the plan, and asked the committee to allow a bit of time to
catch up to with all the past work done on this public art plan.
3. Update: Meridian Mural Series Location Search
J. Peters noted that most of the updates to the mural series had been covered in the
meeting last week. D&B is not interested in putting murals on their buildings. Fred
Meyers has not been contacted yet, but C. Schiffler will continue to work on
contacting the potential locations which include Fred Meyer, Albertsons, and the
business complex. C. Schiffler noted that it is sometimes difficult to work with
larger corporations because their visions of their buildings do not usually include
public art or large murals.
J. Peters inquired about the timeline, asking if the location needed to be selected
this fiscal year. C. Schiffler noted that the funds for the mural series need to be
spent by September of this year, or the funding will not be available, but will
double check to ensure if this is correct.
B. Gaytan mentioned an alleyway by Old Chicago that had been mentioned for the
mural series as one of the original locations. J. Peters noted that we could go back
to the original list of locations from an RFP process if needed.
J. Peters noted that the subcommittee is still working with the Unbound library. C.
Schiffler noted that they have been contacted, and will continue to follow up.
ACTION ITEMS
3. Next Steps: Public Art Project Ten Mile Trailhead
J. Peters introduced the agenda item for further discussion on the Ten Mile
Trailhead project and the introduction of additional flexibility that may honor the
artist in their process and allow the commissioners to come to a design or path
forward that they can feel comfortable with.
J. Peters welcomed Kim Warren, Pathways Project Manager, as a representative for
Meridian Parks and Recreation.
E. Kane introduced the process for next steps, and gave the following outline of the
three options for next steps. E. Kane also noted that in this process, this committee
will make a recommendation to the commission, which will make a
recommendation to Steve Siddoway, the Meridian Parks and Rec Director, as
Meridian Parks and Recreation is ultimately the decision maker to install this
project.
Option one is to ask the artist to redesign the piece. There was past
correspondence between the previous Arts and Culture Coordinator and the artist
that estimated that there would be a 12,000-15,000 additional cost to fulfill all
requests from the committee. One thing to note about this option is that changing
the scope of work after issuing the RFP would mean that we must notify the other
artists of this change of scope. If either of the artists object to the change, the city
would have to terminate the offer and reissue an RFP. The pros of this option
would be that it addresses the concerns of the commission and committee. It
would allow concerns about the redesign to be addressed. It would restore control
over the MAPS funds to the commission. It would also allow the opportunity to
allow for public input component. On the cons list, it does require more money, it’s
unlikely to be completed by September 30th, possibly not this calendar year.
There’s a risk of protest from the other artists, and risk of alienating artist. It’s
possible that the artist and committee may not be able to agree on design changes.
There will not be another public art project in 2022.
Option two would be to revoke the offer to the artist and start over with a new
RFP. This would require a change in scope to the RFP. Pros to this option would
include an opportunity to start over and implement lessons learned: the
commission could draft and approve the RFP selection criteria, the RFP could be
sent to more artists (not just the Parks and Rec roster), there could be a public
input component, and could reestablish the more typical process where the
selection panel recommends to the commission, the commission recommends to
the department or city council. This option also addresses the concerns about the
role and weight of the commission’s expertise. It also addresses the design
concerns from the beginning, and restores agency over the MAPS funds to the
commission. The cons of this option is that it won’t be completed this year. There
is an additional investment of MAPS funds, and there’s the risk of frustrating the
artist as it takes away the current offer and starts the process again.
Option three is to move forward. There’s no additional cost. It would be done this
year. There would be no change in agreement with the artist. A new public art
project could be started this year. Parks and Rec is pleased with the design. The
cons are that the concerns about the commission’s role and expertise and the
design concerns would remain outstanding with this project. If the dissenting view
is shared with city council, the reaction to the dissent is unknown.
E. Kane gave credit to C. Schiffler, K. Watts, and S. Siddoway for helping work
through these options.
B. Gaytan inquired what the artist has received up to this point. E. Kane noted that
the artist has been paid $500 for the design, but that further design fees would
likely be additional for further redesign.
T. Vannucci asked for clarification about what constituted the scope change in
option one. C. Schiffler clarified that the additional $15,000 of funds was the scope
change.
J. Peters asked about the public input component and what that would entail. E.
Kane noted the difference in format with a completed design between public
voting and public input and comment. The best way to gather that input is may be
online comment.
L. Taylor suggested to build in a public component on future projects, but not at
this time.
T. Vannucci noted that Parks and Rec was pleased with the design, and requested
more input from Parks and Rec, the internal client as it relates to product, design,
schedule.
K. Warren stated that Parks would be happy with this project as designed. K.
Warren stated that they empathized with process of the project and noted that it
did feel stilted, and some things didn’t feel collaborative. As the Ten Mile Trailhead
project person, K. Warren stated that in the art project selection, they were
looking for height and some kind of a landmark, and stated that the current project
by the artist fulfilled that the most. Another aspect of the project that K. Warren
noted is that the name of the trailhead is still undecided and not finalized; it’s the
Ten Mile Road, it’s the Five Mile Creek, and the Five Mile Pathway. K. Warren
stated that numbers can be confusing with this site, which led to a factor of
confusion that was not identified at the outset. K. Warren stated that they would
be happy to defer to the commission’s expertise. K. Warren said that Parks and
Rec would be fine with the project as selected, and fine if the commission feels it
warrants more process.
T. Vannucci inquired if the subcommittee ever had the opportunity to do a client
discovery meeting with Meridian Parks and Recreation to identify what resonates
with them. T. Vannucci was unaware of the desire for height, the landmark, or the
confusion with the numbers. T. Vannucci did not believe the subcommittee ever
knew those things, and asked if option number two would enable the opportunity
to do this the way it should be done. J. Peters confirmed that the commission never
sat down with the City to discuss what they were looking for. J. Peters stated that
their perspective changed knowing that the numbers were confusing. J. Peters
stated that it makes a good argument for starting over. L. Taylor also expressed
the importance of the opportunity to discuss the project with Parks and Rec, and
was in favor of starting over. B. Gaytan also stated that he felt he missed parts of
the process and was unaware of certain things, and stated he was in favor of
option number two. R. Wardle noted discomfort with the effect on the working
relationship with the artist. J. Peters agreed with R. Wardle’s point. K. Warren
noted having worked with the artist in the past on another Pathways project,
which was designed by this artist and then another artist, and that neither artist’s
projects ended up being quite right, and that project also may have suffered a lack
of definition, and the artist was understanding, with no hard feelings on that
project.
T. Vannucci inquired whether option two would preclude the artist from applying
again, and inquired whether the artist could be compensated for their additional
design efforts to date. E. Kane confirmed that the artist could submit a new
proposal. E. Kane did not advise that further compensation should be offered, that
further compensation should have been agreed to in advance, and that it is not
typically offered retroactively.
T. Vannucci inquired about the schedule impact on Meridian Parks and Recreation
in terms of planning. K. Warren stated that the public art project could happen at
any time, though signage is currently waiting thematically on the public art piece.
J. Peters welcomed the opportunity to invite the artist to reapply with option two.
J. Peters stated that while the discussion has been centered around the details of
the piece, the main issue has been the breakdown in process: not having an initial
conversation with Meridian Parks and Recreation, and the use of Bonfire, and
missteps after that. The commission is not happy with the project as a result of the
process. J. Peters welcomed the opportunity to open the project to more artists
and the additional funding.
T. Vannucci inquired about whether artists were informed of design criteria
regarding landmark, height, numbers. K. Warren did not remember all the
specifics in the RFP, and believed the confusion over the numbers emerged after
the RFP had gone out. K. Warren believed that another RFP could address this
more specifically.
B. Gaytan asked for clarification as to whether the artist has been awarded the
project. C. Schiffler clarified that the artist has signed it, but that the final decision
is City Council, and City Council has not signed this. E. Kane further clarified that
the project has been pulled off the agenda for City Council, and that the next step is
that the subcommittee will make a recommendation to the full arts commission,
then the commission will make a recommendation to the Parks and Rec Director.
E. Kane stated that for similar Parks Pathways projects to brand and theme the
parks and park facilities, dependent on the dollar amount, City Council is not
typically involved. These are typically projects that Parks and Rec is
commissioning, and Parks and Rec signs off on these. Parks and Rec is currently
not moving forward on this until the commission is settled.
B. Gaytan expressed that this project would be a large project and portion of
income for any artist, and was concerned that the artist would feel invested in this
project and this opportunity at this point. B. Gaytan expressed relief that legally,
there were options for next steps. E. Kane stated that if the contract were in place,
the subcommittee would not be having this conversation, and that the City would
not revoke an executed agreement. E. Kane stated that the artist was made aware
that there are continued discussions about the design, but that the artist was not
currently aware yet that this is not going to City Council. E. Kane stated that
revoking the offer is not ideal at this point in the process, and that the artist will
likely be disappointed, but that if the commission wants a different deliverable,
then there are legal opportunities to do that.
J. Peters suggested a personal note from the group to thank the artist for their time
and efforts, to offer an apology, and to encourage the artist to apply for the RFP as
a way to acknowledge the difficulty of the outcome and impact on the
relationships. E. Kane requested that the commission run such a note through C.
Schiffer and E. Kane. J. Peters said that the commission would go through official
channels. L. Taylor stated that this is a committee, a commission, and not a
supplicant, and that it is not the commission’s role to apologize; the commission’s
role is to make decisions that are best for the client, which is Meridian Parks and
Recreation on this project.
B. Gaytan recalled the fabricator involved and suggested that if such a letter were
drafted, the letter might address the fabricator too. J. Peters stated the importance
of communication and trying to maintain relationships where possible. J. Peters
asked for any addition comments.
C. Schiffler pointed out the current level of activities in public art: the pending
public art plan, the two murals which have a long way to go before completion,
and the upcoming traffic boxes. C. Schiffler stated that if the commission chooses
option two, that this project will be the public art project for the year, as the
commission does not have the capacity to work on another big public art project
this year. C. Schiffler confirmed the importance of fixing the process and having
better communication. C. Schiffler sees a crossroads of either working to get the
process and communication better on this project or possibly starting a new
public art project. C. Schiffler stated there is money in the MAPS fund which has
not yet been allocated, and discussed the importance of having a plan for the
MAPS budget, as the commission does not want to leave funds in MAPS that aren’t
planned, particularly if the commission would like to make a case for lifting the
cap on the MAPS budget. J. Peters agreed on the importance of making a plan for
that budget.
J. Peters asked for thoughts about the scope and recommendations to the
commission. L. Taylor recommended setting a not to exceed amount for the RFP.
J. Peters a motion a motion to approve an option. T. Vannucci made the motion to
move recommend option two to the commission, revoking the offer to the artist
and issuing a new RFP; L. Taylor seconded the motion.
All ayes.
J. Peters stated that the commission will want to be deliberate about the process,
and stated that it not expected to be a quick process, and that the timeline could
take through the next fiscal year. J. Peters clarified that this option number two,
revoking the offer to the artist and issuing a new RFP is what the committee will
recommend to the commission, and that the next step would be for the
commission to recommend this option to the Meridian Parks and Recreation
Director. J. Peters asked for clarification if this would then go to City Council. E.
Kane stated that the final contract might go to City Council, but that the RFP and
the rest of the process will be handled within the department.
J. Peters opened for discussions on the RFP scope change regarding the dollar
amount. J. Peters inquired whether the traffic box funds needed to be separated
from the yearly MAPS budget, and C. Schiffler stated that they would clarify that
with finance before the next commission meeting. C. Schiffler recommended
$50,000 for the project as that amount represents one year of MAPS budgeting,
and this will be a full year project. J. Peters clarified that there is more funding
than the $50,000 currently available, that there is potential for an even bigger
project. T. Vannucci substantiated the $50,000 by stating that would have been the
dollar amount for option one, and also believed that that amount would be more
inspirational to a broader range of artists. B. Gaytan agreed that the $50,000
would open up the market of artists. T. Vannucci requested that C. Schiffler meet
with finance and then comment at the next commission meeting to educate and
inform the commission of the current budget and how funds may be spent.
Pending any outstanding information from Finance regarding how funds may be
spent, T. Vannucci recommended that the subcommittee propose $50,000 for the
project change in scope. B. Gaytan clarified that the $50,000 would specifically be
for the Ten Mile Project. C. Schiffler confirmed this was for the same project. C.
Schiffler also commented that it would be an important consideration to consider
where a major public art project should go, and inquired if Ten Mile would be the
type of location where a larger project should go and asked the committee to
consider how important, how visible is a space like the Ten Mile Trailhead. J.
Peters mentioned previous discussion of locations for bigger projects like
Discovery Park. J. Peter confirmed that $50,000 appeared to be what the
committee was considering, and that would be the recommendation for the
commission.
C. Schiffler recommended a revamp of the whole RFP process to include everything
that has been discussed, and recommended that with the increase in dollar
amount, a public input component.
E. Kane stated that there is not a requirement of releasing the RFP to only the three
artists on the Parks roster, and inquired whether the RFP would be opened to all. J.
Peters stated that they would need to identify to whom and where the RFP would
be released. R. Wardle inquired if the commission would meet with Parks and Rec
first. J. Peters stated that the committee would identify those steps in the next
committee meeting and get a draft and timeline about meetings with Parks and
Rec, setting expectations, and defining what the commission and Parks and Rec is
looking for in this project.
J. Peters thanked E. Kane and K. Warren for joining the discussion and opened for
any final comments. There were none.
NEW BUSINESS [ACTION ITEMS]
5. 2022 Public Art Subcommittee Chair Nominations and Elections
J. Peters opened the floor for nominations for subcommittee chair.
L. Taylor nominated T. Vannucci for Chair. J. Peters nominated B. Gaytan.
J. Peters asked both nominations to make a statement. T. Vannucci stated that
while they were honored to receive the nomination, they respectfully declined as
they did not feel that they had the necessary hours and bandwidth available to
fulfill the position. B. Gaytan stated that they felt mentored by J. Peters and that
they have enjoyed the experience, and would enjoy growing and adding their part
to the subcommittee as chair.
L. Taylor made motion to approve B. Gaytan as Chair; seconded by R. Wardle.
The motion to appoint B. Gaytan as Public Art Subcommittee Chair was passed
with all ayes.
NEXT MEETING - February 15, 2022
ADJOURNMENT
NEXT STEPS – TEN MILE TRAILHEAD PUBLIC ART PROJECT
PROCESS: PAC will recommend one of the following next steps to MAC. Then MAC will make recommendation to Steve
Siddoway (as decision-maker on this MPR project).
Option Pros Cons
1. Ask Artist to redesign the
piece (for additional
(estimated $15,000)
MAPS funds) and
address the design
concerns.
NOTE: Changing the
scope after awarding the
contract means that
Purchasing must issue a
notice to the 3 roster
artists notifying them
that the scope of the
original RFP has changed
and the City intends to
award the project to
Artist. There will be a 7-
day protest period. If
anyone objects, we must
terminate the offer to
Artist and issue a new
RFP.
a. Opportunity to addresses MAC/PAC
concerns re: role and weight of
expertise.
b. Opportunity to address MAC/PAC
concerns re: design.
c. Restores agency/control over MAPS
funds to MAC.
d. Opportunity to add public input
component.
a. Additional investment of MAPS funds.
b. Unlikely to be completed in FY22.
c. Risk of protest.
d. Risk of alienating Artist due to
rescission of original offer.
e. Risk of alienating artist due to protest
and RFP reissuance.
f. Risk of alienating artist due to redesign.
g. Artist may not be interested
in/available for larger project.
h. Possibility that artist and PAC/MAC
can’t agree on design (e.g. if Artist’s
vision is incompatible with
requested/expected design changes
and/or MAC/PAC’s accepted design
principles)
i. No other public art project for FY22
2. Revoke the offer to Artist
and issue a new RFP.
NOTE: Will need to
change scope of RFP
(e.g. $ amount).
a. Opportunity to implement lessons
learned immediately, e.g.:
• MAC drafts/approves selection
criteria
• Release to all artists, not just to
MPR roster
• Public input component
• Selection panel recommends to
MAC, MAC is final recommending
body to MPR/City Council
b. Opportunity to addresses MAC/PAC
concerns re: role and weight of
expertise.
c. Opportunity to address MAC/PAC
concerns re: design.
d. Restores agency/control over MAPS
funds to MAC.
a. Will not be completed in FY22.
b. Additional investment of MAPS funds.
c. Risk of alienating Artist due to
rescission of original offer.
3. Move forward with the
agreement that is
offered to Artist.
a. No additional cost.
b. Completion in FY22.
c. No change of plan with artist.
d. Opportunity to start new public art
project with clean slate.
e. MPR is pleased with the design.
a. MAC/PAC concerns about role,
expertise remain outstanding.
b. MAC/PAC concerns about design
remain outstanding.
c. Council reaction to dissent unknown.
10
Item 1.