Portland Public Art Committee selects sculpture for First Light Commons, reviews Jewel Box shelter

[4:14] Speaker A (unidentified): Good evening. I see that we have some committee members on remote. Aye, tonight's public our committee meeting of June 17th. I'll do the roll call vote. Let's try the room first. [4:32] Speaker B (unidentified): Can we call at form? Yes, I'd like to call them meeting to order at forum three. Would you [4:54] Speaker C (unidentified): like to read through roll call? Yes, I'll just go start with chair. That's the area here, [5:09] Speaker A (unidentified): here. Kelly Ranko, here. BB Cole, it looks like you just joined. We're doing the roll call though. I mean the roll call, yes. [Speaker C (unidentified): I'm present.] Justin LeVette? Here. Sarah McPivitt? Here. Stephanie Motter? Here. Ronnie Wilson? Here. We have Anna Burke, John Whipple, Epson. Okay. Shannon, will you be leading the meeting? I will be. [5:54] Speaker B (unidentified): So first of all, we have the minutes for the meeting, which were attached in the email that I was going to send. Do we have any questions or additions or comments to minutes? Can I get a motion to pass [Speaker D (unidentified): minutes? Thank] you. Can I get a second please? Yes, thank you. So moving along from that, now we have the staff communications. Oh yes, let's go. Yeah, [6:33] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, go to it for the minute by raising hands on the room and online. Thank [6:43] Speaker B (unidentified): you. Okay. And now, Sean, with staff communications. [6:51] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, so in the packet, we prepared a report of the public art fund. So we have processed the artist stipends. So three artists were provided one thousand dollars each for their work into round two for the new acquisition at the new waterfront cart park. In addition to the artist stipends, Maine Stonescapes were paid for their work to repair the Lauren Memorial granite. Moving on, if anyone, if there are no questions about the public art fund, collections update. So it's an opportunity to share with the committee that Tucker Brook Conservation LLC has recently provided a draft of the observation assessment. It includes priorities over the next five years within the collection and it inventories just the treatment that Ron Hardy recommends for the collection. It also includes preliminary cost estimates based on a range of amounts that a typical conservator would charge for each of these maintenance recommendations. So that draft has been shared with staff. Staff wanted to finalize the assessment prior to the July meeting so that the committee could review,, deliberate, and then discuss any potential incorporation into the act of the plan. So that's for a collection update. Does anyone have anything to share or add? There are no updates for encumbrances on new acquisitions. Okay, [9:23] Speaker B (unidentified): Now the selection panel for the artwork at the new First Light Commons Park Selection Committee has included a letter in the packet where we have recommended Gabriel, right? I don't know why I felt that came from a phrase, work, and it has in the letter, it has the scoring and the reasons behind that. And so we would like for everyone to, if they have any questions on the selection or have [10:07] Speaker C (unidentified): any questions on the process open the floor with questions. Sure, I may recommend it if you want to provide like a concise summary of what the committee thought about Gabriel's piece and why you ultimately he scored top out of the three. There's a little bit of a summary in the letter [10:30] Speaker B (unidentified): and we said it so well in the letter that I'd like to commit others other committee members [10:37] Speaker C (unidentified): may also hear the thoughts of the piece but we just wanted to get some context from the other board or committee members. Wait, is it right [10:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, well we took into consideration where it would sit and how it would be viewed, how it would be viewed by the public walking by, how it would be viewed from the sea, actually, as well. And we went through all of our guidelines, and we did like the way it was a sculpture of a Wabanaki spear fisherman and how he is poised quietly and contemplating. We also liked the title of the piece, which speaks to sustainability, and environment if you don't take the first fish worry about the last and we liked his we liked all of his previous work. Gabriel's a cultural leader and a teacher and his work extends into the community so we liked the community involvement, the fact that he was casting the bronze, he's also using a local main company and they'll be brought into the whole process we [12:22] Speaker C (unidentified): also touched on the budget and the budget the career cost estimate for the other members was well it was a touch on that. Continue, we did we did like the fact [12:35] Speaker B (unidentified): that it was in budget within budget and the guidelines and we looked over his budget and it was it all clicked it all made sense for those amounts for those particular things. And did you have anything to add Justin? Please talk [12:54] Speaker C (unidentified): if he's honest well I don't want to call PV out but [13:02] Speaker B (unidentified): do you want to ask anything to our impressions with Gabriel's piece? Yeah, I think I the only thing [13:11] Speaker E (unidentified): I would add is just, I really, in the presentations, loved all of the information he provided, the dialogue, the way he answered some of our questions about his experience and previous work. And just, yeah, I was really, impressed by him throughout the process and especially in the last presentations he gave. Yeah. [13:37] Speaker F (unidentified): Can I just say, although I was not there for this meeting for the finalists meeting, I was at least part of the selection process. And I want to thank everyone who was able to be at that meeting, because when I watched the recording, I don't think there's anything I would have asked that wasn't asked or mentioned by the selection committee. So yeah, I just wanted to express my gratitude both for the finalists, but also to the selection committee for meeting and coming to this conclusion. It does seem really perfect for this site and also it seems to align with a lot of the directions that the city is thinking of for this particular site and how we want to continue honoring it. So I just wanted to mention that and also think is it Nathan from the Parks Department for his contributions as [14:25] Speaker B (unidentified): well yes Nathan had some really insightful questions I thought and was looking at it from a different perspective, and that was very helpful. I also want to thank everyone through the entire process, just whittling down everything, all of the work we all put into it. I particularly want to thank Sean, who I don't know if everybody knows, but out of the 97 applications, he emailed each one to say that we got it. He emailed each one as the process went along and thanked them for contributing and the time and effort they put into and if you've ever entered something like this you don't usually hear from anyone usually hear from it when it's announced and that was a huge amount of work it was well over 200 emails that Sean said and I must say I've never been proud to be part of something. Does anyone else have comments on that? Do we need to vote on the acceptance? Well this is an item [15:49] Speaker A (unidentified): an action item for the committee so we will be we will take public comment so all written all written public comments were provided in the packet on the city's agenda meeting portal to advance the meeting. We will take public comment first in the room, seeing that there's no individuals from the public present. We can open public comment on this item to anyone that is on Zoom. So if you wish to provide a public comment, please utilize the raise hand tool and I will promote you to talk. It looks like we have Steven. Please say your name and where you're located and limit your public comment to three minutes, please. [16:52] Steven Sharp: The unmute was very slow. Hello. Steven Sharp, Brackett Street in Portland. I literally just signed on late and I see this is the public comment for the artwork for the park. And I am going to say that piece of artwork is not representative of a Wabanaki person. It's, I think they'd freeze to death most of the year if they were dressed as they are in that statue. And I hardly think any Wabanaki fishermen would be doing that in Maine, it's more suitable to Florida, what's there. So I really don't think it's appropriate piece, it is a beautiful piece. But it's not a Wampanoag progress and we discourage this committee from taking liberties with what they think looks beautiful but is not but I also would discourage the committee from doing what it's done in the past and is to micromanage a project and turn something that was once one thing into something else I.E., the next item on the agenda which I'll be speaking to. It [18:36] Speaker A (unidentified): does not appear that there's any other members of the public on Zoom. At this time we can close public comment. Any comment? [18:48] Speaker C (unidentified): You can now deliver it and then ultimately be asked to vote to accept Subcunity's recommendation to conclude the proposal. [19:01] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay. Motion seconded. Yep, motion seconded. [19:05] Speaker B (unidentified): So I'd like to have anyone who would like to make a motion to accept the subcommittees recommendation. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Is there any discussion? I'd like to call for anyone. [19:26] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, I was going to say, I'm in favor of it. Gabriel Frey is a well-known artist. He does a lot of basket making, and I saw his exhibition at the PMA. It's an incredible amount of work. It's really interesting to see a piece and cast piece from him. And this ties into the work that the naming committee did, and naming the Portland Harbor Commons placeholder park to First Light, which was derived from the name suggested by the public, which referred to Albinite culture and specifically the dawn land. And so it's a concept that encapsulates both the dawn, the first light that hits Maine, and the light at the end of the tunnel of the Underground Railroad. So this piece really, it really suits the space, and it suits the theme of the interpretive signage, not just for the art piece, but for the other aspects of the park. So I look forward to voting for this, and it does need to be installed. Does [20:40] Speaker H (unidentified): anyone else have a comment, discussion? [20:48] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, I'm excited to see it in person too, and I don't know for those that weren't here year when Gabriel made his presentation, he is Penobscot, and the sword, the spear ending is unique to Penobscot, that decoration and the shape of the spear. [21:18] Speaker A (unidentified): There's no other discussion. We can do a roll call vote to approve the self-committing recommendation to select Gabriel Cray. I'll start with the chair, Kat Segarra-Buckley. [21:36] Speaker F (unidentified): Yes, I vote in favor. [21:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Sharon Nagy. Yes, I vote in favor. [21:44] Speaker E (unidentified): Phoebe Cole. Yes, I also vote in favor. Kelly Ranko. [21:52] Speaker A (unidentified): Yes. Justin Levesque. Yes. yes motion approves just [22:09] Speaker C (unidentified): quickly say congratulations to the committee it's one of our first new public art pieces in four years that we've actually advanced and very excited that park's under construction if you've been down there so i expect that we'll actually see this piece of artwork installed relatively quickly. But great job to the committee, to the whole committee, the subcommittee, to Sean and staff. Again, 97 applications. I believe it was the most applications ever received. So just, yeah, all of you for that. And great job coming with the work. [22:41] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure. And now we need to talk about our policy for de-accessing. How do you say that word? Thank you. Justin is my interpreter. I'd like for everybody to acknowledge that public art and what our procedures are. I'm going to take that one. I [23:08] Speaker C (unidentified): also struggle with that word, Sharon. I might use the word removal while I look at Justin. I want to note that we have Glenn Fenton here with us. He's the executive director of Metro Online. I want to thank Glenn for joining us, and he'll be here to answer any questions that you may have related to the shelter. So what's in your packet tonight in the agenda item? The purpose of this item is really to review the process for the accession of a cardboard piece within our collection or relocating it. The public archive guidelines specify that process and say that to pursue either of those options, it needs to be included in the annual plan, which is going to be your next agenda item. So tonight, this item is to discuss some of the background work that we talked about it at the previous public art committee meeting, I believe, back in April. Some of the work that's gone on since and our recommendation that the committee vote to include the consideration of removal or relocation in the annual plan. I do want to note that by including it, does not bind or botch this committee or the council into taking any of those approaches. But staff would strongly recommend supporting this effort so that we can at least follow the proper channels if this committee and council decides to go a different direction. So the guidelines specify that it does need to be outlined in that annual plan and that's why we want to include that right. I think as all of you know the shelter we talked about this again back in April it's seen a lot of issues with maintenance this committee's also raised some concerns the amount of money that's gone into replacing the glass over the last several years the conservation assessments also looking at this piece more holistically and we've also seen a lot of challenges from a maintenance standpoint and some social issues and concerns from the neighbors and residents in the surrounding area. So I think this is something we want to look at holistically it's one of the busiest if not the busiest Glenn correctly if I'm wrong I'll stop in the city it's also along a corridor that's currently being evaluated sort of outside of transit route by metro so this is a critical area of the city in terms of our public transit and we want to make sure that we can do some new diligence to really explore what the future of this piece. So the action item tonight would be to make the recommendation to include those options in the annual plan, but again, it does not apply to any decision. And I'm happy to take any questions. And again, our staff and client is here for any questions that the committee may have. [25:37] Speaker B (unidentified): Kat, did you want to speak on that? [25:40] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I did prepare a little presentation if I can share my screen, but it's really just reiterating what's in our packets. It's, I'm happy to share it though. Let me see here. Sorry, it's going to take me a moment. Does everyone see my slide? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, great. So really, I just wanted to give the committee a quick overview, in case you didn't have time to go through everything in the packet of what our deaccessioning and relocation policies are. We can deaccession works for numerous reasons, which I've outlined here. I'm not going to read them all to you, but the pertinent ones for us are these three in terms of the jewel box. So if the artwork has been damaged to the point where restoration is impractical or infeasible, or the cost of restoration is excessive in relation to the appraised value of the artwork. I would say that over the years we've had, we've had so many costs related to the restoration of this artwork that it's just become cumbersome for our committee, to continuously bear. I believe, I'm, I'm quoting off the top of my head, but I believe it was 35,000 since the jewel boxes installation that we've spent. Yep. And then 5,000 over the past year. So it's really coming to the detriment of our budget at this moment. Furthermore, the note that the artwork endangers public safety. There's just been so many reports of drug use, violence and vandalism within the artwork. In particular, when the glass panels are broken, it definitely endangers public safety, which is something that this committee has been contending with. with. And then finally, this is kind of a reiterative point, but the artwork requiring excessive maintenance might be a reason that we might deaccession it. On the flip side, thinking about relocation, our guidelines do also lay out several reasons that we might relocate a work. One of which is that the security or condition of the artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed in its present location, which given all of the issues that the Jewel Box has had over the years since its installation I would definitely agree with. Sean sent me some extra information on a previously deaccessioned artwork just so we could think about how the process has worked for us in the past, which was Tracing the Four by Shauna Giles Smith. The neighbors of this artwork requested its removal and apparently at that time our committee considered relocation. The city council was not interested in relocating it and we ended up eventually deaccessioning that work. So we have deaccessioned works in the past when they no longer fit the character or the needs of a particular location. And I did want to just quickly review the jewel boxes documentation that the city included in our packet of just some of the vandalism that has happened there most recently. Yeah, so I think that at this point, we've discussed the jewel box, I want to say in almost every meeting since I started on this committee, and probably long before my presence here as well. So what that's at least five years, but perhaps even longer. From my perspective, I would definitely recommend that we at least consider relocation. And if we cannot find a feasible site for relocation considering deaccession. I know that our committee has discussed that we would love cost assessments for both of these options before we come to any sort of a conclusion, and we're not trying to come to a conclusion tonight. We're just trying to determine if we can include in our annual plan a recommendation for deaccessioning or relocation, which brings me to my only question for our city folks here. Can we include can this committee vote to include both as options in the plan so saying that we are interested in either the relocation or de-accessioning of jewel box once further information on the budgetary impact of those options is available is that yeah yes that is [30:15] Speaker C (unidentified): an option that's how the staff recommendations written today is to include both options to give [30:19] Speaker F (unidentified): that flexibility okay so those are those are my thoughts but I'd love to hear from everyone but especially from Glenn who's here from GP Metro on anything I might have left out on the impact of this bus shelter and on I don't know potential relocation sites and also just thinking about this as the central transit hub of the city I do think there's value to having an artwork there but it's obvious that we need to be extremely careful in our consideration of what goes there, given it's just high visibility and that the fact that it has become a target for tagging and for vandalism and for potential injurious and dangerous elements to our other fellow citizens. [31:09] Speaker B (unidentified): Glenn, would you like to speak on some of your insight and observations? [31:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Sure, yeah, I would. And thank you for that. I think that Kat's assessment is very fair. And, you know, as Kevin pointed out, this is a very busy bus stop, and so it impacts not just residents but riders, the current status of it. And so we are interested in a solution that involves replacing this current structure with something that's a little less conducive to the type of congregating and the type of vandalism that's been happening there. There. We really don't want to lose both the shelter aspect of it, which I think it's really good at, and we also don't want to lose the art element. As many of you know, we've been committed to getting art involved in our bus stops. I mean, we have a lot of good examples along Congress Street, and we want to see that continue with this stuff. So we don't really want to just replace this with one of our standard shelters. We'd like to work with this group to come up with a creative solution here that is both fitting for the location and also serves the utility of our riders. So I think we can strike that balance. So we're hopeful about a partnership here that moves forward. And we've talked to city staff about this, where Metro provides some level of funding, probably not 100% of funding, but some level of funding and maintenance and assistance on this. And we really are looking forward to that. But as far as in its current status, I don't have a number here, but I can tell you we get frequent complaints from riders. And really, in many ways, I think folks are shying away from using this location, which is unfortunate because it's a major hub for us and a major transfer point. So we want to see it reinstated and be a place where people feel safe and where riders can make use of it. And it can also be an asset to the community. [33:08] Speaker F (unidentified): Glenn, can I ask you two questions? I just wanted to, I was wondering if you had any information about the pre-2003 shelter, the one that is kind of stained glass-ish before this shelter came in, and if there were any issues with that? [33:24] Speaker I (unidentified): I don't know. I really don't know. I would have to dig pretty deep in the archives to find out, but we can look at that. I can say that our glass, our other shelters we have on Congress Street that have artwork work on them, we've done pretty well with vandalism. We've had some vandalism and we handle that and cover the cost of replacing glass and such, but we don't have an issue with the congregating, but they're also a lot smaller and this location does need a larger type, you know, larger footprint of shelter just because again of the busyness of the bus stop and how many people are coming and going there. We just want something that works in the sense that it provides that, but it also doesn't become kind of a meet-up spot, which it seems to be now. [34:20] Speaker F (unidentified): And I was also wondering if, from GP Metro's standpoint, if there were other locations that you were at all interested, if we were considering its relocation. The committee will, of course, recommend some, but I was wondering if, from your standpoint, there were any that you were interested in seeing it at. [34:36] Speaker I (unidentified): We're always interested in more bus shelters, so you know, I think that this is pretty custom and would be maybe hard to move, and if it needed to stay in Portland, I'd have to think about that, about where it might, there might be enough right-of-way. That's probably the heart, most challenging part with this bus shelters, the footprint is so large that it would be tough to land in the right-of-way. There's a possibility that, you know, we might be able to do something with an easement, but we could look at some spots, just being very thoughtful that we don't want to move the problem, but there might be, might be some locations that could work. Off the top of my head, no, I don't think we have a specific spot that we [35:18] Speaker F (unidentified): we would think this would work. Okay, well, if you have any that would be helpful for us to know, and then finally, I just had one final question, and I promise I will give the mic back. I have a question for the city. I know you said you reached out to the artists regarding some of the issues we've been experiencing. Did you hear back from the artists at all? [35:38] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, we have. So the artists responded in terms of being aware that this shelter has been on the committee's discussion in previous agendas. They were shared some information about the current condition of the shelter. They were very responsive in terms of a couple points that came from the artists were that, one, it was their, one of their first piece of public art pieces. It's also one of the first pieces that are thinking about kind of a process of relocating or deaccessioning. And then lastly, they also were amenable to thinking about how to potentially utilize some of the actual artistic components of the piece, either in another, in another location, or something that they could actually utilize in another work. They're based in Seattle, but they were really amenable to any future of the jewel box. [37:01] Speaker F (unidentified): I think seeing that email would be helpful for the site committee. I know we're getting together and finalizing what date to have a little bit of a discussion [37:09] Speaker D (unidentified): on that. But yeah, thank you. [37:14] Speaker B (unidentified): And then I have a question. I'm a little confused. Okay, if we de-assess it, then are we finished with it? And then the city relocates it or dismantles it? [37:29] Speaker C (unidentified): If it's being relocated, it would still be a public art piece, so the funding would still come out of the public art committee. We would still need to determine, we'll have this information by the time the committee comes to a vote on whether or not the deconstruction of it would come out of public art funds or other allocations. But once the piece is taken out of the election and removed, it's no longer the responsibility of this committee or the city any longer. So I do think we want to look into a little bit of what the cost would be to remove it and how much of that cost should come from, say, the public art committee's funds or related to more of a transportation-related aspect. I think that's something, as we get more clarity on what the overall cost will be, we'll be able to have a little bit of a better sense of the breakdown. [38:18] Speaker J (unidentified): Really interesting to see if removal or relocation, what those sort of come in as comparatively [38:25] Speaker C (unidentified): too. I mean, could even be comparable with the jewelry. It's going to be very interesting because looking back at that, and we've tried to do some research into this, but looking back at that former process in the early 2000s, it appeared, and it's one of the things we want to get some follow-up clarity on from the artists, it appears that are still built on the existing steel structures that was embedded into the ground and the artworks have been all around that. So it's very unclear at this point how movable it is to another location. So that's one of the things that we're hoping to get some more follow-up. We were hoping to have that information in that first, you know, with the artist, but [39:03] Speaker B (unidentified): didn't get into that. So if it is removed, can we, in theory, build back on top of that steel foundation structure if we wanted the same footprint? [39:16] Speaker C (unidentified): I think we would probably look at a new structure, but still on that same footprint and we likely work with Metro I think it's concluded this is one of the most substantial bus stops in the city so something that's going to support the public using that station would be really beneficial so I think there's still a desire for having a larger shelter there it would likely be a completely different form I think one of the issues staff has seen with the current form is actually the architecture of It, while it is transparent, it's really hard to see in there actually, and it goes all the way to grade with that firm's build structure and concrete, so it's not as porous as some other bus shelters that you may see across the country or even within the city. So I think, you know, we work really closely and value the relationship we have with Metro. I think there's a desire, as Klan mentioned, to replace it with something else. It would likely look substantially different from what you've seen here. Today, and I think there may other there, if we get to that point, I think there's other alternatives maybe you should discuss and talk about in terms of if there is a new shelter, what does that art work with like, is it crashed or fixed to the shelter itself, is it something that's maybe more in the right of way, the sidewalk, you might see races like in New York City on the subways, there's bronze sculptures, little statues in the subway platforms that are kind of fun and character based, but they're Not fix to station, that might give more flexibility should venture into pressure for the station in the future, or I think if people are open to discussions about is it something that's, you know, particularly into the shelter much like the other common street ones that you see, that's good, and [40:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Then I'd also like for the site committee and if we could get some input from Glenn as to things that he's seen work. Like when you do, if we do something new to say, okay, we've seen this work well at this shelter. We need visibility here. This is how the people use it. How do we get wheelchairs in it? All that kind of useful information if we get to that point. If Glen would be so kind as to help provide some thoughts on that. [41:34] Speaker I (unidentified): We'd be happy to do that. Thank you. [41:39] Speaker F (unidentified): I just, I guess I would recommend that so we're taking a vote on including the relocation or the deaccessioning in the annual plan. I would also perhaps recommend if we are making this edit to put into the five-year plan a longer-term consideration of what goes at this site, because it seems like we're all in agreement that art is important at this particular site, but we will need obviously more time to discuss what the character is of something that might go there, etc. So I would just recommend perhaps a dual amendment. I don't know if that needs to go on our next month's agenda for a vote. What I would recommend [42:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Chair, is the next item is actually to talk about the annual plan itself, and that's not a decision making tonight. But what I would recommend is to keep the committee's action as written for this item, but when the committee goes to adopt for draft and recommend an annual plan, I would recommend that the committee include something about revisiting future installation of artwork related to this plus as part of your annual plan, so it doesn't, it doesn't have to change this motion because this is purely looking at the current shelter itself. [42:53] Speaker B (unidentified): So we don't need to make a motion for at this particular time. [43:00] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, one thing that's making me think of though is just that, sorry Kat, is if we do make a decision at some point in the road to the accession to work, doesn't that sort of create other costs for other departments or something that we can get to work on? [43:21] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, we're working on that with our partners. We're working very closely with DPW, Department of Public Works, the Department of Architectural office to determine what financial contributions the city will have to invest in removing this, and that's one of the things we're looking at very closely with any potential relocation suggestions, and Glenn touched on this completely well. We don't want to just move the problem, so we're also looking really intently at there might only be a couple of sites where this could feasibly work, and we want to do the due diligence to talk with those relevant departments and say, Does this work on your end? Does this work for you, Metro, so you all can have an informed recommendation? We don't want to pass the cost or the burden on somebody else. Right,, yeah. [44:06] Speaker J (unidentified): So that's why it's kind of like, it's just as tricky to make a decision about what we're going to do with this space without maybe sort of having an idea of maybe what will happen with it. [44:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I'm getting it, and your annual plan, which will be a moment to discuss some of this, that can talk about, you know, in last year's annual plan for instance, this committee recommended community for the Portland Harbor Commons process as well as looking at two new art installations on peninsula. You could add in there as part of, yeah, or new artwork, the suggestion that the chair just made, which is to explore if this piece were removed. Yeah, that's what I'm seeing [44:49] Speaker J (unidentified): is there's like some contingencies based on those two. Yeah, I think in terms of, you know, [44:53] Speaker B (unidentified): and then moving it, or it will be a collaboration plan between all of us. Exactly, okay, anything [45:09] Speaker F (unidentified): Else if we have no more committee discussion, this is a public comment item. I just want to be sure, are we done with committee discussion? Anyone online? [45:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Is there anybody in the room, just for the record? [45:30] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah. There's no more committee discussion for this item. We can take public comment. So anyone that is on Zoom, if you wish to provide a public comment, please utilize the raise hand tool. Looks like we have Steven. I'm going to promote you to talk. Please provide your name and location and let me hear your comment in three minutes, Steven. [46:04] Steven Sharp: Sheriff of Bracket Street. I agree with the decision to deaccession this. I'm not sure moving anywhere else would it work in the city, and it just makes more sense to be done with it. But I want to point out that this was an abomination of this committee several years ago. The original piece of artwork was a, quote, lobster. That's what they designed, was a lobster, painted bright red, and it was a beautiful piece of artwork, and this committee tinkered with it and turned it into the abomination it is now. They made it look not like a lobster and renamed it as, quote, the Jewel Box. It is probably one of the worst decisions made by this committee in the past. It is time, and I think it should be done as quickly as possible so that we can move on to something that works better at this location. I'm not sure anything will ever work better necessarily because it's the location. It's not the actual structure that's the problem. It's the location that's the problem. But the structure, I think, looks terrible at this point. And, you know, I think it should be something that the Metro can manage directly and not be a, quote, piece of artwork that has to go through this committee every time we want to change it. So that's my suggestions for that. And thank you. [48:03] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay. Seeing that there's no other individuals on Zoom, we can close public comment. Well, [48:13] Speaker B (unidentified): thank you, everybody. Shall we talk about the annual report? [48:18] Speaker C (unidentified): Do we need to make a motion for the recommendation? [48:22] Speaker B (unidentified): I thought we weren't doing it. Somebody like to make a motion? I don't [48:32] Speaker F (unidentified): think I can make a motion as chair. Is that correct? That's right. [48:36] Speaker B (unidentified): Anyone else want to make a motion? [48:40] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm sorry. You can say I've written my stuff. Has written by staff. Sir again we'll call do the roll call start with the chair. [48:56] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm in favor of adopting the recommendation as written by staff. I'm in favor. [49:06] Speaker B (unidentified): In favor. Yes. In favor. [Speaker J (unidentified): Yes. In favor.] I'm eagerly wanting to talk about this annual report, obviously. So everyone's had a chance to, thank you, Glenn. Yep, thank you. Thanks, Glenn. Everyone's had a chance to read over the annual report recommendations, and does anyone have any discussion, anything to add? And then Sarah was going to talk about the increased budget. [50:07] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, the memo here kind of, kind of says that all counselor sites brought forward, well, she identified just one of the questions of this club in the past year and a half, but the amount of funding that the Public Guard and the Land Advocate from the Capital Improvement Program that has not been the required and not been that half a percent in this moment has gone down to 50,000 for unclear reasons. I don't think we were really determined where or when that happened, and although the council does have the power to change that, there's, you couldn't seem to figure out where there had been an official change to that reduced amount of funding. So I also recommend restoring coming to a full $230,000 for each community that's supposed to be getting that, and that to pass the council. So the budget will be an extra, the full $230,000 that is intended to your wood. So that is sort of that. And part of the, part of that conversation, I actually did refer to the jewel box and the main collection and the cost that incurs and how that does kind of hamstring us or with other pieces of work or other artwork, so it's very excited to have this and yeah do [51:42] Speaker B (unidentified): good things with it. Beyond fantastic news, send our thanks to everyone that was involved with making that change happen and our staff here, so we'll have lots of things to talk about for our budget. Kat, did you have some input on the budget? [52:09] Speaker F (unidentified): Not beyond what's been outlined. I'm sorry. I think we had discussed prioritizing the maintenance of the collection based on what the estimates come back from Tucker Brook as. And I would be in favor of that. That. And I know we have some other long-term goals, but I think that maintaining our collection is something we're not always able to do or that kind of usurps other priorities that we might have. So being able to kind of get on top of that and feel like everything is squared up would actually enable us to be a bit more effective in terms of acquisitions or commissions in the future. [52:50] Speaker B (unidentified): I also would like to prioritize the maintenance once we have that report from Tucker Brook, rather than drawing it out and drawing it out, because maintenance does not get less expensive. It gets more expensive every year. So I'd really like to see us get on top of that and get those items completed and off our table. [53:18] Speaker A (unidentified): So that assessment will be finalized by the next meeting, so the committee will have all of Dr. Brooke conservation's priorities through the next five years, and we can work on what those potential costs, those estimated costs would be, so that the committee is well aware of maintenance of the collection. [53:48] Speaker F (unidentified): And obviously just, we already spoke about the jewel box, I think that the jewel box is top of mind for a lot of reasons, but also mostly because it is just such a central hub. So whatever we eventually decide with the jewel box, I'm, I'm hoping that we can allocate budgetary resources accordingly towards that. Anyone [54:10] Speaker B (unidentified): else no thoughts would be like to open that up with public discussion [54:20] Speaker C (unidentified): That was not a discussion note, they're votes, but it was outlined in the process, again it's in your packet and memo, but we thought this would be an opportunity for you all to discuss this great news, not every day that you find that much additional funds. So we thought it'd be good to bring it back for an opportunity. I think, as Sean mentioned, we'd like to share the assessment with you all prior to that next meeting in July. Usually the committee doesn't meet in August, so we would recommend that you consider adopting the annual plan or recommending it to the council in July, so we can move that along, but we would like to get that information to you as soon as it's done, so you have that, and then we allocate some of that funding as you're discussing here today. It sounds like maintenance is a priority, and then I do just want to note, just for transparency, it's in your packet, we also included some red line changes to the temporary art guidelines, so any changes to the public art guidelines or the temporary art guidelines also needs to be incorporated in the annual plan for your consideration, council's adoption, and I'll just take a brief moment to explain those, but ultimately the red lines of the temporary art guidelines are intended to clarify an application process that goes on for the city. So some of you may know that the city is starting to see a lot more traffic coming, demonstration projects, so we're getting A lot of neighborhood organizations who are putting in flux posts and painting some of the street right-of-ways to extend curve extensions to help make visibility pedestrian and cyclist more apparent. There is a permit process that goes to the Department of Public Works related to that. However, the current guidelines say that any painting in the street also is a temporary art permit, and it requires them then to come to us. We have to bring together a temporary art panel, hold a virtual public meeting, and then also prove them on that end. And it doesn't make sense because it's really a traffic comment demonstration project. So we put some red line edits in to clarify that and eliminate that duplication. The other suggestion is similarly related. We historically have reviewed crosswalk painting as part of the temporary art program. So that's as simple as people just gaining the keys at a crosswalk or different color. You'll see the Italian Heritage Festival does the Italian flag. You'll see a lot of rainbow crosswalks Portland downtown does that. There's some on Carver Street. Very burdensome for staff and the applicants. We have to then pull together a panel that also includes one of you all, which we appreciate you taking your time to do, as well as an artist and staff, and we also have to hold a public meeting just to verify that it's good with them painting the keys. So what we'd like to do is just make that administrative so that we are not burning the applicants or neighborhood organizations for you all with your time on crosswalk painting. It's really more of a staff administrative thing, and then we just clarified what really is temporary art with street painting perspective, which is larger murals that you've seen perhaps on Gray Street. There was the blackest beautiful couple year old a few years ago on Bayside that's really kind of a very public card. The red line changes that you see in your packet are reflected to address all of those kind of administrative burdens right. Otherwise that's the only changes we're proposing. [57:42] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, so shall we vote now on the approval or wait until July? [57:47] Speaker C (unidentified): I would recommend July just so that we could work with the chair and vice chair to incorporate some of what we've heard today. We had, that did a really great job the first time you all considered it back in the spring. I think we imagined doing that same process so that you have a finalized document in front of you. Well, the ambition though. I think we feel better working with the chair, being able to incorporate the addition of the jewel box shelter and giving you all kind of clean versions to look at. [58:25] Speaker F (unidentified): I just want to follow up and thank the city council for noting the discrepancy and taking action over it. Thank you, everybody. [58:41] Speaker A (unidentified): Kat, I just wanted to ask, considering your timing and involvement on the annual plan previously, was working on some of these amendments, would you have the availability to work with me on those changes, particularly related to the budget, and then any inclusion of information in preparation for next meetings, potentially committee deliberation in both? both? [59:15] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I think I should. I would love to also work with Sharon on that again, just so we have both of our eyes on everything. I'm a little sleep deprived these days, but I do feel confident that I can do them. The amendments were all really exciting, I think are ultimately rather minor compared to the overall scope of the report. So I feel like I should be able to get it done, [59:37] Speaker B (unidentified): especially if Sharon's also working by my side. Of course I will. Of course I will. And I don't even have an excuse so I don't know about me so now to the subcommittee reports and first we have governance we do have a couple new members coming on too which would be a couple Sean [1:00:05] Speaker A (unidentified): do you want to talk about that sure if you would like me to provide some updates The Council's nomination committee yesterday, I'm sorry, on Monday, approved two new committee members to take the seats of exiting committee members. Those exiting committee members, Stephanie, thank you for all of your time, effort, and really driving the communications subcommittee to new levels. but your term is ending this will be your last meeting and then also John Whipple his last name would have been today but he's not here so two new members will be joining the committee I will work with them to provide some onboarding I've sent emails to them about their first meeting being in July I also invited them to them to tonight's gathering we may be able to meet them. [1:01:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Well, I want to extend a personal and as the whole committee thank you to Stephanie. You've just been invaluable in bringing our Facebook and Instagram and communications, the whole process alive. Even finding the daunting task of finding all the passwords. You've proved to be a real Miss Marvel. And thank you so much, it's just been a pleasure and I don't know if I'll let you go. I'll just tie you down because I don't know how we will replace your contributions. [1:01:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you so much, Stephanie. [1:01:57] Speaker H (unidentified): Thank you, Stephanie. [1:01:59] Speaker F (unidentified): You will be so missed. [1:02:02] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, don't be surprised if I [1:02:03] Steven Sharp: pop off on the public [1:02:04] Speaker B (unidentified): And with the new members and members leaving and whatever, hopefully we can integrate some of these new members into these subcommittees because now of course with the communications, There's just Anna left, and I know the Collections Management Subcommittee, which is also called the Site Committee, just to confuse everyone, but we do need some new members and input into that. And I think Acquisitions is pretty filled, but Kat and I'll get together and see. So, if you have any interest, reach out to us and communicate that. Then I wanted to talk about the August meeting. We typically miss the August meeting and take a little vacation. We want to still do that because we did miss the May meeting and also we didn't have a December meeting. So, just taking all that into consideration. Does anyone have any thoughts on missing the August meeting for how we should handle that? Kat, you know I'm going to put you on spotlight. [1:03:43] Speaker F (unidentified): I would be in favor of keeping the August meeting just based on what you said, and I think that seems like most of our committee members should be here, but feel free to let me know if I'm wrong or if you're going on vacation. As long as we have a quorum, I think it's worth having. [1:04:02] Speaker B (unidentified): And I don't know how August got started as being the missed meeting, because it seems like in the summer, there's a lot going on. You know, the city's working, everybody's working in the streets and there's decisions that need to be made, whereas December everybody's busy with their families or whatever, traveling and we're at a standstill, so do we want to maybe consider switching that or what's the history? [1:04:32] Speaker C (unidentified): It's not an official requirement for anything, so I would say I don't think there's anything the committee needs to take action on. And I would recommend, even August or other, is that you should look at your agendas and what actions need to happen, consider. Then typically those committees, you take a break, that's could be August, can be December, usually for two up two, because people either take positions in August or holiday in December. But it's not anything that's formal. The committee doesn't need to vote on that. It's not anything written in the city code, just in general practice across boards and committees throughout the city. Do you guys have a preference? I think it's best to probably look at what's on your agendas and usually a thing like that. Yeah, well, I think it would be my recommendation [1:05:23] Speaker B (unidentified): now I bring a cat to go ahead and add the office meeting because we do seem to have a lot going on everybody [1:05:33] Speaker C (unidentified): It's only, it's, it's there now. Should we vote on that? You don't need to. It's not really an action. You have your monthly meetings. It's usually just kind of known that August is usually when it breaks. It's not a formality, so it would still be the third Wednesday of the month and perfectly acceptable. [1:05:58] Speaker B (unidentified): Well, since everyone seems to be amenable to doing August, I'd say let's do August. [1:06:16] Speaker E (unidentified): I don't have any major updates from the committee as a whole. I'll look to independent committee members to see if there's anything they would need to add. Kat or Kelly? [1:06:35] Speaker F (unidentified): I don't have anything. [1:06:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Think I would just ask, have you received any applications or inquiry forms for Gibson public art? I [1:06:52] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't believe we have at this point. Yeah, I, just share any emails that might [1:07:00] Speaker A (unidentified): be received to the acquisition subcommittee. Occasionally you get emails of interest, someone has a concept, and I direct them to the inquiry forum. So, yeah, if there hasn't been any receipt of information, that's fine. [1:07:20] Speaker J (unidentified): I have a question for the committee. With the new budget, are we considering acquisitions? [1:07:29] Speaker E (unidentified): I think we definitely should. I think it's probably, we sort of do quarterly subcommittee meetings, so I think we should probably have a meeting in the next month, ideally, and start to consider that. Yes, with the new, with the new budget, I think it's, we definitely will have more resources done previously, so yeah, I think that's a great idea because we still have to [1:07:55] Speaker A (unidentified): Make that budget right based off of the it's recommended to basically allocate how much goes into a basically a fund so there's a contingency fund. Historically there's a contingency fund, maintenance fund, new acquisitions fund, a fund for potentially community art grants. So any one of those can be adjusted. As of the April meeting, the bulk of the annual plan and the proposed budget went towards a new acquisition, just generally, so yeah, it's basically starting with the $230,000 and then working as a committee understand what bucket that will go to. But you will need to be informed about the conservation assessment, the hiring sites, for instance. [1:08:59] Speaker F (unidentified): And I would say, Justin, and all committee members, if you have thoughts on allocations or percentages, like we are a team, I very much welcome them. them. Otherwise, I'm going to take a guess and we're going to review it at our next meeting. But if you have thoughts, very much, please feel free to let me know. I'd love to work on the budget together, especially with such a substantial increase. I think it's worth it for all of us to [1:09:23] Speaker K (unidentified): come together. Is that the plan for next meeting? [1:09:31] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm going to be drafting the amendments to the annual plan, which include the budgetary amendments, right, Sean? And then we're going to come back for the next meeting with those [1:09:41] Speaker H (unidentified): proposed amendments. Am I correct? Yes. And then previously, the committee would [1:09:48] Speaker A (unidentified): vote to recommend the annual plan, wherein staff would create an agenda request to the city council based on the committee's recommendation to move the annual plan and proposed budget as written so we were anticipating doing that with the April annual plan and proposed budget but with the amendment from the council with the increased budget it'll follow the same process [1:10:18] Speaker F (unidentified): And I would love it if you do have thoughts if you come to me sooner because if we go to the meeting and I have my proposal and there are amendments in the meeting then we'll have to go back amend and propose at the following meeting before I can go to city council is that correct? Yeah. [1:10:32] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah well that's yeah that's what I was wondering about so like maybe would it be a good idea to [1:10:40] Speaker H (unidentified): propose an ad hoc meeting to discuss that with you ahead of time? Yeah I'm totally open Justin. [1:10:48] Speaker F (unidentified): Right now my calendar is wide open, and if anyone else would also like to discuss, please feel free to email me. I'm just, my child usually naps between two and four, though he's taking an extra long one just for us right now. So if you, if you have time between two and four. [1:11:05] Speaker H (unidentified): Those are, that's when I'm mostly open, up to the whole committee about like setting a meeting an. [1:11:10] Speaker A (unidentified): Ad hoc discussion for that. Well, the in the past, the subcommittees have generated recommendations to be included that may include prioritizing funds. So in the past, the acquisitions subcommittee has developed goals, those may parallel with allocation of funds. So the subcommittees could potentially meet and then provide that information to the chair in advance. [1:11:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Or maybe Justin, you could sit in on an acquisition subcommittee meeting if you'd like to. [1:11:50] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, absolutely. Well, I think Justin's on acquisitions now. [1:11:58] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, sure. So maybe Kat, what you need is the committees to meet with this new budget and give you some information about how they're seeing committees functioning. [1:12:11] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I think if, we think it's going to impact your subcommittee, or if you would like it to impact your subcommittee, I would love some numbers or a percentage, just so I can put something together that, we've all at least had some input on to propose to the wider committee. [1:12:27] Speaker E (unidentified): That would be perfect. Yeah, sounds good. Beautiful. I think that closes out acquisitions as well. I have to run everyone, I'm so sorry to leave, but I'm glad to be able to at least report in for here. Thanks so much. Thank you so much Phoebe. Nice to see you Phoebe. Thanks for. [1:12:48] Speaker H (unidentified): Input and. [1:12:52] Speaker B (unidentified): Now for the communications committee, yeah, do you have anything to report just. [1:12:58] Speaker K (unidentified): As I roll off at the end of the month, who should I transition. [1:13:02] Speaker B (unidentified): If you could, I was thinking about that, if you can send everything to Pat and sure, so we can make sure that we have the your recommendations on where money should be spent. And then we have a Google Drive that had a money amount attached to it. What was planning paying for that? [1:13:31] Speaker A (unidentified): So planning pays for all the administrative aspects of running the committee. So that includes management, things such as printing, if we're able to do that. But yeah, all of this all costs, and it is really utilizing the public art fund for maintenance through acquisitions. So all of those fees will be going to come up in the firing. [1:14:04] Speaker B (unidentified): So if you can make sure we get the passwords, and I know you have planned ahead on some of your posts, and they always look so good, so if you could send us your recommendations for that. [1:14:18] Speaker A (unidentified): And you would, you need to select an administrator, like for instance for some of the [1:14:24] Speaker K (unidentified): So yeah, so for social media I need to share our public, like Meta Business Suite, and that's how you can post both Facebook and Instagram, so I need to get someone access that and they have [1:14:37] Speaker H (unidentified): That Facebook account should probably just be me. All right, okay. Yeah, do you want to be on the [1:14:45] Speaker F (unidentified): Communications Committee too? Yeah, Justin, if you would like to, it would be greatly appreciated. [1:14:51] Speaker H (unidentified): I can go straight for you. Yeah, I mean, it's my day job, so I might as well. [1:14:59] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, you might as well. Now Anna is on this committee as well, and she has always had some really good insight into her wording and how to approach things. She is kind of out [1:15:13] Speaker H (unidentified): Of pocket right now, but yeah, for sure I'll reach out to you. Yeah, if you want to designate me on Facebook, whatever. Sure, yeah, okay, I'll reach out to you. [1:15:26] Speaker K (unidentified): wonderful yeah and i'll put everything that i've made folders for that if you need that yeah [1:15:34] Speaker B (unidentified): Drive would be great. Yeah, okay, that sounds good. Collections Committee, we don't have anything to report right now, but we do have a huge list of things to work on, and at this point that Collections Committee is Cat, Anna, and myself, so if anyone would like to join us, we would appreciate it, and then that will be meeting in a big opening next week, so we'll probably be meeting the week after if Aurelio says we can. [1:16:18] Speaker F (unidentified): Hopefully he'll say yes. Sharon, I was just thinking it might be a good idea for us to share that list of site prioritizations that the Collections Committee worked on with the Acquisitions Committee, just so as the Acquisitions Committee is thinking about the budgetary impacts of this next year, that they also have that to consider if there's any sites they want to prioritize and thinking about what would be perhaps an appropriate budget for an acquisition for a particular site. [1:16:45] Speaker B (unidentified): That sounds great because the two of us should be, two committees should be in constant communication because there's a lot of overlap between those two committees. So yes, thank you. Is there any other business? Regarding the [1:17:05] Speaker A (unidentified): Conservation assessment, would it be appropriate once it's finalized to share with the Collection Management Subcommittee as a way to maybe develop a recommendation ahead of the committee's annual plan and budget vote? Yes, please, because [1:17:24] Speaker B (unidentified): It was Allison and I that came up with a list of conservators, and we were the ones that redid the current assessment needs. So yes, if that could come back to that committee. Allison's no longer with us, but she did a lot of work on that, and we really appreciate it. So that'd be great. So is there other business to bring forward? Sean, did you have any other business? [1:18:02] Speaker A (unidentified): We will be hosting the gathering following tonight's meeting. Stick together, yes. [1:18:13] Speaker B (unidentified): And now we're all starving, so do we have any other [1:18:22] Speaker A (unidentified): other business? Public comment? No, we took public comment on agenda items. [1:18:29] Speaker B (unidentified): We all take open public comment to adjourn. So our next meeting will be on July 15th, 2026. [1:18:39] Speaker A (unidentified): Six. I didn't have this prepared, I'm sorry. Do you need confirmation of that? [1:18:50] Speaker B (unidentified): It's written here. Oh great, and it's the one line that I read, so hey, okay. Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 5:18. Thank you all, my good night.