Loading...
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.