Public Art Committee reviews airport sculpture relocation, welcomes new GIS map

[1:57] Speaker A (unidentified): Let me see something about it. Yes. [2:49] Speaker B (unidentified): It is, hi everyone. I think I'm going to call it to order, standing on the public art committee for a little while. Yeah, thank you everyone for being here. We do a roll call. Yeah, we'll do the roll call vote. We'll wait for [3:10] Speaker C (unidentified): for committee members online to join, but we're in the room. Kathy Gary-Buckley. Here. Sharon Dennehy. [3:20] Speaker B (unidentified): Here. Ryan Wilson. Here. I thought you said Ryan. No, I was gonna say Ryan. [3:27] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, Wilson. Is that me? [3:29] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. Okay, I'm here. [3:31] Speaker C (unidentified): Councilor Sarah McCann. Here. Morgan Becker. Here. Phoebe Cole. Here. Justin Levesque. Here. Anna Burke. Here. All right, thank you. Are we recording? No. I will start recording. Yeah, we just did the wrong call vote. [4:09] Speaker B (unidentified): Did everyone have a chance to review the minutes in the September 3rd meeting? Are there any questions? I would seek a motion for approval then. [4:32] Speaker C (unidentified): There's a motion to approve the except for the third minutes. Wow, thank you. If I show a hand, thank [4:49] Speaker B (unidentified): you. Oh, sorry, I was reading. Can [5:01] Speaker A (unidentified): the screen be where you can see? I think [5:09] Speaker B (unidentified): Phoebe may have dropped off. [5:11] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, Phoebe, let me just check the participants. [5:26] Speaker A (unidentified): You should come back. Let's just move it. OK. Bums. Move on. Move on? We can move on. We have enough posts. [5:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Communications. So in the agenda, I prepared a couple items. Items. So the deadline from the city clerk's office for vacant committee seats was at the end of August. Clerk's office received two applications. Council's nomination committee will proceed with interviews tomorrow. So following that, you should share news with the government's subcommittee when new committee members will be joining us next month's meeting. There was, I had updated the public art form to reflect Tucker Brook Conservation LLC's invoice for $10,800. That was shown as an encumbered in last year's budget, so I just reflected that in the spreadsheet. I would note that Tuckerbrook did charge $1080 and not the $12,000, So it was a bit of a reduction from what was approved by the committee to proceed with that work. For encumbrances, the Bramhall Square redesign project being led by Public Works. They're preparing to package that for a construction bid, post for public bid. I have made Chris Miller aware that project would most likely be awarded in the spring for construction, and he is excited to move forward with the fabrication and work with the contractor for the install. Though. Congress Square Park, phase two, no updates. And I did have an item that wasn't on the agenda that I wanted to share, but I could add it to new business. Okay. So city staff in planning helped to create a map of the public art collection. We have a software called ArcGIS, which helps us really develop our graphic components of how we map things throughout the city, from housing, historic landmarks, to now public art. So I wanted to share kind of what the public art map looks like. Yeah, it's live. So I'm trying to share my screen. So two things regarding the map. It was set up as what's called a story map, and it provides, there's links that are available on the public art program website, and it would just direct users to this story map. Gives a brief introduction about the program and some graphics to help illustrate what the committee's collection is. And then as you scroll down, it includes this collections map. That. We had originally been hosting this using Google, but this is a little, this is a program that was a little bit more cleaner and we don't have to pay for out of any other budget. So when you click on a link or an area within the city, it creates this sidebar and that sidebar can get, can get selected and it directs you to the committee's website, which gives you more information on each individual piece. And then with within this and within the public art Portland, there's now an icon with this map as well. So it does this, it provides the same function. So yeah, just one thing that we wanted to give an update on. This program can be added to fairly easily when new collection items get online. So just some, just a little brief update on website updates. [11:03] Speaker A (unidentified): Could that, of all what you just showed us, be shared with Creative Portland? Because they have their website and a lot of it's about art and where to go and what to do. Would that be possible to share that with them? Yeah, certainly. [11:19] Speaker C (unidentified): I think it's great. It could be a link that could be easily put on the website as well. But it's all available now. [11:28] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, but I mean, to do that link, do I direct Dinah over web person to you or? Sure. To you? Yeah. Okay. All right. [11:44] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah. I'm sorry, Sharon. It's hard to know. I was just thinking also, it's a good, and I'm the last person to talk about social media, but it seems to me this would be a great social media post that we have this new interactive active map kind of thing. Yeah, okay, it's really cool. Yeah. [12:09] Speaker B (unidentified): It's a good idea. [12:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Thanks. Yeah, we're just trying to turn up the volume in the room. Can you guys hear us? [12:24] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I can hear. I can't see who's who though, what with the screen share on. I mean, it's, that's fine. I know who's there, you are. [12:38] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you. It looks great for a free program too. It's nice to see that it's really clean. Do we have any questions about the staff communications? I will just note that I pulled up the GIS map page directly. So the first item is from the meeting, the council on August 24th, and please to say I don't think we discussed it, we discussed it yet. Yeah, okay, sorry, you were, no, we kept last. [13:56] Speaker C (unidentified): Meeting very brief. Yeah, to the voting item, this is our opportunity to share news, so the council. [14:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Did approve our annual plan and budget, and I'm happy to say they were really interested in what the committee is doing. There was a lot of questions which I was not expecting and enthusiasm, which is excellent. Some points that I did take away was one, Counselor Sykes is very excited about our interest in the Riverton Trolley Park, and she says that she is available for communication around placing an artwork there and for the listening sessions that we hope to hold. So I was thinking that maybe we can get together and talk about the best way for the acquisitions committee and for the chairs to work together to start those listening sessions. And we'll want to definitely involve Councilor Sites on that. There were a lot of questions about the Jewel Box, which I know we have a recommendation that is later on our agenda this meeting that we can talk about, and then there was also excitement around the temporary art guidelines lines being amended from Councillor Bullett, and Councillor McNabb was there and she expressed her support, and we're so grateful. Yeah, I think that it was just nice to see that level of interest in our committee and what we're doing and enthusiasm for the projects that we're embarking on. So I think I get all the points, but if anyone has questions, you can also watch the meeting if you haven't yet on the city's data center. As far as the public art guidelines, I was wondering if anyone might have interest in doing a little task force subcommittee with me. It just occurred to me, after speaking with a few other cities and what they're dealing with in public art, the realm of public art, that we don't have clear guidelines around memorials. If we have anyone approaching us to do a memorial such as that, an individual, if it's a memorial to an individual, perhaps a representative from that individual's family or state should be involved, and this is an opportunity for us to look at the parks guidelines, what memorial guidelines are already laid out perhaps in the city, and just adopt them. But I'd like for our committee to put our heads together on this. It's something I'm interested in, to just get ourselves clear on guidelines on that. Specifically the term memorial is not really called out beyond the glossary definition within our guidelines right now. Would anyone have any interest [16:54] Speaker A (unidentified): in working with me on that, especially somebody that's not involved in another active project? [17:06] Speaker E (unidentified): I would cat, I think that sounds really interesting, especially just given, you know, well, you know, the passing of my dad, I'm in sort of a memorial mindset, or I would be curious to learn more. [17:21] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, I would love to work with you on that, Anna. And I'll get in touch with you. I think it just would benefit us for, yeah, inevitably we will always be approached about memorials at some point. It would benefit us to have more language on this, specifically guiding concepts. [17:38] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, something we can turn to. [17:39] Speaker B (unidentified): What's that irresistible to, or maybe go up very much? [17:43] Speaker C (unidentified): And could we get, or do we already have, parks definition? So we've, we actually had this discussion, you may remember, the community artwork that was potentially a memorial on the Houston waterfront. I asked, so parks is under the guidance to present any memorials to council as a, each memorial specific to potentially someone's remembrance goes to council and gets prepared as an agenda item. Aside from that, there was a campaign to do memorial benches, which you have to apply for, but that would be separate from, I think, this task force. But in terms of having code written, I would need to look into that to see if there is specific language. In my brief research I haven't found any. [18:51] Speaker B (unidentified): I'd love to see the campaign though, just because whatever language the city has put out in the past around it would help us in figuring out where our guidelines could be a little bit tighter. [19:01] Speaker A (unidentified): I thought there's the cemeteries fall under parks. That's right. [19:09] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, within the cemeteries, there's code for use within the cemeteries. There isn't language about when a memorial would be a process-dedicated memorial. So it's a little bit, it's not defined in the cemeteries code, so there's nothing in there. Not from a laurel, it was from a memorandum. And there's, you know, the guidelines about use of cemeteries, for instance, and how to request the plot for anything beyond cemeteries. The values of a cemetery isn't quite in my initial research capture. [20:05] Speaker B (unidentified): I'll get together with you and we'll find out a time for me before our next meeting and think about where we could do more speaking. Those are my announcements. I have one more announcement. Sadly, Justin, this is his last meeting on our committee. Justin, I don't want to speak too much for you. I know you have a lot going on and I just want to say that we're really thankful for your service on this committee and you really brought a keen eye to the art that to both relocations to acquisitions I think that your writing has also been extraordinarily helpful especially impacting our recent RFP you're just you'll be very missed and your guidance along communications but also your critical eye has been invaluable. So thank you so much for being a part of our community. [21:07] Speaker A (unidentified): Thank you, Justin. I second everything Kat just said. We will miss you dearly. [21:14] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm not sure if you can see my video. Is it working or? [21:17] Speaker A (unidentified): No, we can't see your pretty face. [21:19] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, for some reason it's black on my antenna. I can't get it to work. So voice will suffice. It's been a great year. Thanks so much for having me. I really kind of don't want to resign, but I'm just going to be in Florida for way too long out of the year for really to me and make a big impact so I'm not going for lack of the great work we're doing here or what or wanting to be involved but I look forward to seeing you all when I come back next summer and if there's any get-togethers I'd love to attend so thanks everyone it's been really fun thank you [21:53] Speaker A (unidentified): And maybe we can bother you with questions and some side projects. Every time. On the committee, right? I'll reach out. [22:07] Speaker B (unidentified): Thanks so much, Chelsea. Thank you for coming. Do we have any questions about, oh, I did have a thought about your departure, Justin, which was that we have another open seat on the committee. I know you said we have just two applications for current open seats, so I don't know if both those will be approved or not, obviously. But I'm thinking we might need a graphic from the planning department, if possible, for social media to say there is an open seat so you can apply, at least when Justin's seat is open, when that happens. Sure, that would be really helpful because I think that seeing as we only received two applications this past round, I would like to try and promote our committee a little bit folks, and hopefully we can get more applications. [22:58] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I think that it's something that we could, you know, start. Yeah, thank you, and I know that the [23:06] Speaker B (unidentified): the cycle is an immediate, so whenever that open seat is available to be applied for. [23:16] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I, an acquaintance of mine also had reached out about, I think, when the previous, about the previous open seat, but might have missed the application deadline by a day because she was traveling, so there's another person I know who's definitely interested. So, you know, we'll miss Justin, I agree, I also am keen to get the seat filled with a great person, so I think I think that's a great idea to really generate some more interest and get more applications in. [23:45] Speaker A (unidentified): Now, how long would we have to wait, Sean? Because I know they don't do it, you know, as seats become open, they don't jump in. Isn't it twice a year? [23:56] Speaker C (unidentified): I think it might be more frequent than that. It's either quarterly or free. It's more than twice a year. Did you know that? [24:07] Speaker G (unidentified): Not a time we had no integration on what's up here, but it's accurate. Thanks, Emily. [24:17] Speaker B (unidentified): Welcome. I think we can, are there any other questions about the government subcommittee? Let's move on to acquisitions then. Phoebe, do you have any announcements before the status table break? [24:38] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't have anything else to add. Yeah. we don't have any big announcements acquisitions wise, I don't have enough [24:45] Speaker B (unidentified): day something by an American community leader, but I will continue to ask on a monthly basis, okay. [24:53] Speaker A (unidentified): If you had some updates from Gabriel, he is working along, everything's going smoothly, working with the city on installing the granite basis, that's going well, everything's going to plan. He's also working with boundary on a new type of wax casting that they'll be able to do in sections, and hopefully that might save some time and budget. I had spoken to him asking if we could get some photos from for PR, we don't want to pre-publish any sketches or any details until it gets farther along, so to make sure we're all on the same track but he is one step ahead of us or five steps ahead of us he already has a photographer that's working along that's taking process photos they are also doing a film and part of the film is in conjunction with a group of Wabanaki photographers and filmmakers could have just gone to this retreat and so he will be in that but the film that the little film that they're putting together for us is separate and just for the city and all the photographs and we talked about having, we do have a line item to help pay for photography for this project, and it's already in place, and it's already been approved. Yeah, I think that [26:37] Speaker B (unidentified): was, I know that it's been approved in our budget, but we'll need to specifically [26:45] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, we'll need to specifically go down it. Yeah, I think at a later meeting it'd be good to understand what the costs are. There was that, I think, 11,000 live items just for communications and promotion, promotional items, so. [27:05] Speaker A (unidentified): Should I get them to send an invoice then, so we can discuss the individual specific quality of the quote? [27:13] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah,, a quote would be good. Just to preemptively know what, you know what it might, what it might be that [27:26] Speaker A (unidentified): sounds good. So everything was looking really positive on that front. Gabriel's very excited about the way the project's going, and very enthusiastic. He just attended some workshops and classes in Italy, and he said he also learned a lot there that he could also bring to this project, and he's just happy to be working on it, and happy to be working with the city. Does anybody have any questions, or want me to pass anything along to Gabriel? I [28:06] Speaker B (unidentified): think so, thank you, Sharon. I believe you're also up next. [28:15] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, the city's come up with a RFP for us to send out to find vendors to do the maintenance work. And we have plans in the work to go ahead and ask Tucker Brook to repair the acrobatic dog that's at the airport. report. Tucker Brook is the Langlist Foundation and Families Preferred Conservatory, and we have used them before on the dogs. And if you remember, Tucker Brook is who did our conservation assessment. And then we'll also go ahead and ask Tucker Brook to give us a quote on Hadlock Field to see if perhaps they would be interested in doing the maintenance on that. They have identified in the assessment for Our Lady of Victories, and also Michael, the repairs on that would be over five thousand dollars. So the conservation committee is going to get together and put together a little RFP and identify at least three vendors that we can get quotes and bids from those three vendors and bring that back to the committee. [29:50] Speaker B (unidentified): That's it. Okay. So, do anyone have any questions about the maintenance? I can move on to the toolbox, the accession for those who weren't able to attend our September 3rd meeting. I believe it was reported, right, Sean? It was. So you can watch it if need be. But there was a vote that the committee recommends the accessioning the jewel box. So that recommendation is going to be put on the City Council's calendar at a future meeting, but I don't believe it's on the calendar yet. [30:28] Speaker C (unidentified): No, not quite yet. The sustainability and transportation committee is hearing this item at their upcoming meeting. I believe it's tomorrow. Check the calendar. There, but it first goes to this subcommittee and then it's following that agenda request go to the larger city, but typically many members present a brief intro to the larger council. It's just would want to know what the outcome of that is, city council. [31:22] Speaker B (unidentified): Is there anything that would be from [31:25] Speaker C (unidentified): us? No, it was kind of a craft repair. Just a summary of the September 3, you know, a staff memo and that materials available from the city's Janus Center. [31:42] Speaker A (unidentified): There. But no, there's one. [31:46] Speaker B (unidentified): Does anyone have any questions or thoughts on toolbox? So we might have more info on that soon. And then we do have on our agenda the relocation of blimps. We've discussed this once before but some changes have happened. I was thinking, Sean, if you wanted to review those, then we could do public comment and then we could discuss as a committee. Yeah, certainly. [32:31] Speaker C (unidentified): So I prepared a brief intro for this item. Anna, you were highly involved in this two years ago it seems now. But I wanted to bring up the materials. Goals. [32:52] Speaker G (unidentified): Stay clear. Agenda is not listed. [33:07] Speaker B (unidentified): And have relocation of public art clips, public comment will be clear. Yeah. Yeah. [33:21] Speaker C (unidentified): We can take public comment. If after, yeah, there may have been a mistake. Let me try to bring up the materials. For those in the room, I had printed out the agenda, along with some plan sheets to help illustrate where the relocation is. A little bit of difficulty bringing the PDFs up on my screen prior to that. I [34:35] Speaker B (unidentified): guess while you're figuring that out, Sean, I just want to mention that I believe I believe we discussed relocating themselves for a and now the project of expanding parking in the check for it has changed so there's a new potential recommendation for its relocation in the agenda. [Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, that's correct.] I have this up at the moment, but if anyone else has the agenda available on their computer, care, I recommend taking a look. Yeah, I guess my primary concern would be preserving the character of the current landscape as much as possible, since the Deersburg was basically situated there. But I'm wondering, does anyone else have any thoughts on what they've seen while Sean's pulling it off? [35:35] Speaker A (unidentified): I can't see it, but how does that differ from what they had originally fed. Is it over there? [35:49] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, there's a site plan. Okay. If you want to push that over. [35:55] Speaker A (unidentified): Thank you, I'm sure. All of this country is just one. So we can pass it around. Yeah, this is all one packet. Sorry. OK. [36:16] Speaker D (unidentified): Here, retake it. Well, I don't need it so much. [36:19] Speaker A (unidentified): Anybody else want it? [36:21] Speaker B (unidentified): I have it right here. [36:22] Speaker A (unidentified): My question, Kat, was just, we're [36:25] Speaker B (unidentified): talking about having them stored, [36:27] Speaker A (unidentified): or at least that's what I'm going to have to store them. But is there a new site for them? There's a proposed new site. Proposed new site. Proposed new site. OK. [36:38] Speaker B (unidentified): But I believe we were going to potentially go [36:44] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, so if I could, if I could give a brief introduction. So Wendy Kleppler's glimpse piece at the jet port is a series of these weathered steel sculptures that are placed throughout the loop road. If you can, I put a photo from Google Maps in the memo. This is the site that would be impacted by the Jet Force Parking Expansion Project. And the purpose of this agenda item is just to inform the committee of what the relocation policy is. And just to give you a little bit more details on this amended site plan application. So this was a gift back in 2011, and it expanded the collection at the Jetport with these gifts of public art. I'm going to go to the plan sheets now. And my PDF viewer program was not working, so I just brought it up in the agenda center now. So this is the let me let me show you the sheet that is that was originally approved. And Anna you may be you may recall but this was the original proposal for a series of surface lots at the jet port. The jet port needs additional parking, and this was their original solution. The huge X here shows where the resubmission accounts for removal of this large surface lot area. And originally, two years ago, the committee review the proposed location within this within a landscape area between the access drive. So a recent amendment has indicated that this is the existing condition site I've outlined and read number 13 where the current artwork lives. So it would be to remove the existing trees within this area and then potentially move the sculpture 135 feet to the left. I'll bring up the proposed site plan. So this is that box that I had shown in the demolition plan. This is the sighting or the proposed sighting of the these two glim sculptures. There's also a landscape plan that's this is an enlargement plan. There is along with this proposed parking lot there is a battery storage area that I think helps the jet port with its sustainability goals, but that will be enclosed by a chain-link fence and also a service drive. So along with the parking lot, there's a little bit more of a utilitarian function. And then here you can observe that the location of what's being proposed to be cited within a landscape area. So I wanted to present the committee with what we see what we've received from the city side from for an amendment it and then open it up to these. I'll go back to the site I [Speaker B (unidentified): think] the creation is great and I know there's any member of the public online paper [41:40] Speaker B (unidentified): well my [41:42] Speaker A (unidentified): question would be either nice trees in that area or is it gonna bump right up against this chain of events it seems like the site has to at least you know kind of try to live up to what the prior site did which was very nice i every time i drive down that road which isn't that often i see them and i really love it 's going to be sad if we can't see them anymore or if they're in a ugly spot but i don't i can't tell from this if it's an ugly spot or not [42:17] Speaker B (unidentified): So there would be landscaping, right, Sean, if we want to roll back down? So it wouldn't, it's not that they would bump up against the chain of events, but they would be sort of situated in this sort of shrubbery and tree areas, that's right? [42:32] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, so as being proposed is ornamental planting, some smaller trees, but these two structures would more or less be located within this vicinity, this location, close to the proposed sidewalk repair, but a little bit atypical from what the other pieces currently exist as. So all the existing trees that are getting cut down so these will be new trees so there's a boundary of existing trees to remain I'll go up to the demolition and let me just ask are we being asked or we're [43:37] Speaker A (unidentified): just being like kept abreast of the situation this is where we're moving it because this works [43:45] Speaker C (unidentified): with everybody else's plan yeah this the goal was to inform the committee ultimately the committee has jurisdiction or the responsibility to find a relocation site with this proposal, these two pieces will need to be relocated, and I'm presenting what the design consultant has prepared. The city hasn't given any guidance on where to put these sculptures. The committee should assess this proposed location and if you ultimately a relocation site would be directed by this community I [44:44] Speaker B (unidentified): just [44:48] Speaker E (unidentified): wanted to express that I agree with you Ronnie I also So find always a little bit of amusement when you come kind of crest the hill, coming either into or out of the airport and you see those deer. And so it makes its name, the word glimpse, it's very fitting for the way it kind of catches you. And when we first went through this two years ago and we met with sort of the artist's agent or her someone that sort of places her work for her if I'm recalling correctly Sean it was going to go in much more of like a median strip which felt even more sad and not and not as good of a fit for these to me at that time being moved 135 feet feels to me in this proposal like a better deal for these two little deer but the trees and the landscaping I also you know I can't quite visualize it but it feels like a better fit than the than the first proposal but I do have a question Sean when we spent all that time on the phone and went through this a couple years ago will we have to do that again Does the artist come into the discussion at all or was that just a was that just kind of getting them ready for this as a future project that was coming up? [46:26] Speaker C (unidentified): And now the tap. So part of that discussion was to engage the June Lacombe, who was pretty monumental in originally citing those pieces as a gift to the Jetport. So we had introduced the jetport director, we kind of introduced the discussion about where to relocate these pieces, and it was just for the committee's awareness at the time. And then we were talking about where to store these items, so a lot came out of those discussions. The jet port has a facility where the sculptures can be stored during construction, and what's important is that we would want to provide any details related to from the artist in terms of requirements for removing and storing and then reinstalling the sculptures. So I think from the two years ago it was it was to understand what parameters the artist would need in terms of when the sculptures would be relocated. It's just the project has been it's gone through some other committees and they've come back with a revised plan. So ultimately we would want to communicate with the artist about citing with the relocation for the artwork, and then work with the artist on detailing the preferred relocation site. [48:38] Speaker E (unidentified): I remember there was lots of discussion about how to actually remove them from the ground and then re-secure them to the ground, because there was a whole underground securing process that with the feet. And so that was a whole thing that I don't know [48:59] Speaker C (unidentified): artist becomes involved with that too. Yeah, we have some detailed drawings from the original public art gift, each one of those, there's concrete foundations for each one of those points where the I would say that the hooves of the deer interact with the ground, and there's a welding plate that gets attached to those footings. Those that all need to be board at the new relocation site. But we can have those details in place prior to construction. Thanks, Shawn. So I wanted to show this image. It indicates in red the tree line. That is being removed to facilitate this parking and battery storage. So the clouded symbol basically would be tree removal. And then where the dark clouded symbol is, where trees would remain. So this whole site has been surveyed. There's some wetland areas, some natural features, but all of this area in the upper left being preserved, so it will remain forested as part of this parking lot expansion. And if it helps, I can bring up some street view images. I did present one at a media memo. And then if [51:10] Speaker B (unidentified): The other areas remaining forested, I'm thinking about them as fear. I don't know why they could choose to go near the utility. Perhaps they could, it's possible for them instead to move to the left, the area that is not being changed. [51:31] Speaker A (unidentified): But then how would the public see them? [51:34] Speaker B (unidentified): Isn't that the road? [51:35] Speaker A (unidentified): Is this the road? [51:37] Speaker C (unidentified): This is, this is the loop road that's kind of, that's remaining. That's, parking lot project would spur off of that. But this loop road is, currently where you see the, glimpse artwork. And this is the, proposed relocation. [52:00] Speaker A (unidentified): If the you're talking about just to the left [52:04] Speaker B (unidentified): So moving it further [52:07] Speaker C (unidentified): Would be a possibility it's all city [52:10] Speaker B (unidentified): Property is that red line like a hard stop and there's suddenly no trees there [52:16] Speaker C (unidentified): No I mean there's what's being shown here is where they're doing tree removal so the mature trees in this area would remain and I believe they have a they maintain this as known grass so if this committee recommends moving in closer I mean further down so it actually is more anchored into the forested lab we can communicate that [52:58] Speaker A (unidentified): What is this curvy line indicating I can't find it on the ledger that is a tree [53:05] Speaker C (unidentified): So basically that's a symbol for existing tree line okay that's fine [53:19] Speaker H (unidentified): Sean I have a question about budget I'm curious does this what budget this comes from [53:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah so it's being incorporated into the budget for the parking lot expansion so they've noted that in their plans that the artwork would be I don't know the exact language but it would be removed during construction stored and then on the site plans reinstalled. Planning would develop a condition of approval to say that the final siting location would be under the responsibility of the committee and just working with the contractor to provide them all the details. But payment for all of those relocations would be under the city's parking lot expansion. So the public art committee that you're being asked to review the relocation, the siting, relocating the artwork itself, but not paying for the work itself. [54:44] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm also curious if there's sort of the liability or coverage if some of the questions that Anna asked about reinstalling the work if there are issues with reinstalling where there's then maintenance or conservation that has to happen within a short period of time I'm curious if that then falls under our domain our conservation and maintenance budget or if that's something that would be covered if it turns out that there is you know something problematic with installation would that cover I'm Just curious if that would be covered under the parking lot budget, or if any issues arise if that would then fall under our conservation and maintenance. [55:25] Speaker C (unidentified): It would all be, that's a good question. Yeah, I mean, there's, that's a good question to clarify. My initial reaction is that would be covered under the parking lot project as a contingency in the event that there's complications with the artwork itself. [55:43] Speaker A (unidentified): And what about an overall insurance? Are they covering that? Say a piece was damaged and it can't be repaired. Kind of piggybacks on Kelly's question of, you know, damages, who's going to pay? If the entire sculpture is damaged, do we need to give them paperwork as to how much it's worth so they can get some kind of rider insurance policy on that? [56:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, we may need to provide a value of the pieces and then present that, but there is a requirement for city construction projects to hold their own, like, general liability to pay for items that would be damaged. So, in the event that, you know, the pieces are worth this amount of money, we may need to set the nine of those ahead of a awarding move. [56:59] Speaker A (unidentified): Because it would be our policy that would need to, they would need to include, it would be their policy, and they need to have a rider that included this artwork. [57:10] Speaker B (unidentified): Whoever is moving the art [57:12] Speaker A (unidentified): would be a licensed [57:13] Speaker B (unidentified): someone who specializes in art installation so they would [Speaker A (unidentified): likely carry insurance] for a specific [Speaker A (unidentified): case.] The time that artwork is most in nature is when it's moving and the second most dangerous time is when it's on exhibition. Really public artwork but yeah I'm just saying we are [57:34] Speaker H (unidentified): So it might be worth clarifying the warranty of damage or issues that would happen post move, like is it a six month or one year length of time that would anything that sort of comes from the move that needs repair or maintenance would be covered by parking lot, anything beyond six or twelve months would be covered by our committee on just normal maintenance and conservation expectations. [58:09] Speaker G (unidentified): We could also explore having as a condition of approval on the site plan, having a condition to say the way it's done. If it's a specific contractor, would you be responsible for actually verifying that? Yeah. [58:28] Speaker C (unidentified): Good point. I brought up Street View. view. My cursor is kind of circling a piece. And then it's all similar pieces up on a kind of a little bit of a crest. Then this is just beyond this side is where basically the forest the trees are to remain. [59:06] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, and then so do you look cursor dance over where they're going to move it to? [59:20] Speaker C (unidentified): So it's they're moving this side but in this location if you can you can see my cursor this is where the proposed relocation is, all of this vegetation would remain in this back corner, then most all of the area in here would be basically replaced with the surface parking. So if the natural setting was something of a priority, thinking about potentially where along this roadway, two pieces might go. So just in front of the sign then is [1:00:25] Speaker A (unidentified): where they're proposing, of the existing sign, where it is now. Yeah. So right there on the right. [1:00:33] Speaker C (unidentified): Up here, yeah. That vegetation is down there. This vegetation on the right would be, yeah. [1:00:41] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, but we're going to be patient. We'll be beyond that vegetation teaching [Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, if] you have any other it's [1:01:03] Speaker A (unidentified): a really hard thing because then he Well, let's just really redesign the parking a lot, but it's not our job to read that thing And why is it in a three-story building? [1:01:18] Speaker B (unidentified): I Would be a favor of moving it towards vegetation that will be in touch That would be my recommendation, but I don't know if anyone else has a specific one. [1:01:32] Speaker A (unidentified): So different from where they step forward with this, we want to move here. And again, I'm sorry for sort of being dumb about this, but does the artist get any say in the final place where they serve? I think John said that I know but I want to clear that so [1:01:56] Speaker C (unidentified): I'll have to look at the guidelines for relocation of public art I know with a data session yes I believe with a relocation it's recommended to reach out to the artists to seek their feedback met but ultimately the committee should provide a recommendation for a new site i [1:02:25] Speaker D (unidentified): think also sean correct me if i'm wrong but because this was a this was part of a large group gift of public art to the airport so i don't think the i don't know that i know june macomb was very involved in these placements but i don't know if the artist was herself involved in each individual placement or not either and it'd be interesting to know that but because this was again it wasn't just one site specific installation made for exactly there this was a gift of existing art that was then Integrated into the landscape and integrated very well. So to me that makes me hopeful that with our support, you know, we can find a way to integrate into the environment in a similar way. Because I agree with what others have said, you know, feeling like you come upon these grazing deer is really what's beautiful about it. And so not just placing them within shrubs, but you know the way they are now in sort of a little clearing, it feels, it feels very natural. And I think if there's any way we can replicate that, you know, with existing environment, that would be my sort of strong feeling, to keep that beautiful integration as close, you know, as close as we can in a new environment. Yeah, I think that was one of the selling points of the proposed [1:03:44] Speaker B (unidentified): relocation, correction, that they would be trying to mimic the current placement with the clearing and with the shrubbery around it. Whereas if we moved, if we put them elsewhere, we wouldn't have quite the same level of control of creating that environment again. Is that fair to say? The only difference is that with the proposed relocation still, as I mentioned, beyond [1:04:08] Speaker C (unidentified): the new landscape, if there would be the utility aspect. Yeah, the, other examples of the piece, they're, they're maintained by city services and they're, they're located in kind of these clearings, which you potentially would see a deer or an elk. We don't, there's, there's this location here which has a series of, I believe, seven grazing deer and two porcupines. And then in this location here it's another clearing that has the, wolf sculpture. And then in this clearing there's the, there's the elk or the large deer. None of that is exists at the moment. So in here, like in this area specific to what's being preserved for vegetation, there's not these larger clearings. There is the one that are currently cited. So just consideration for where the, where these two sculptures might be within proximity to the roadway and where the existing tree line is, just thinking about, you know, potentially how to, how to cite these two pieces based on what's, what's currently exists and everything else to stay in place. And right, it's only, it's just these two really, because they would be impacted by the parking lot expansion maybe. [1:06:09] Speaker B (unidentified): I've been sprayed because, you know, we have more control if we went with the designer's plan over ensuring that they still receive the clearing and the greenery around them, even if you might see it with beyond. Whereas as looking at this industry line and the fact that there's not a clearing currently, I feel like we'd be creating a whole other project to create a clearing, placing them in a danger zone that's not really where we want them to be. [1:06:43] Speaker A (unidentified): That's a good point, because my fear is, because this is a huge project, and the deer are very close to our heart, and I'm sure they're very important to them as well, but that's not their major, and they might just go, okay, well, we don't need those two, so we do have to make some compromises, and is there any way that you're thinking of covering the chain [1:07:14] Speaker C (unidentified): Like in some sort of, oh, not sure, that's what I'm thinking at [1:07:25] Speaker A (unidentified): Some point, why is this open, why is there more trays in here, are they good, yeah, or some sort of access, where's the next set for anything, I'm trying to look at these same apps, it might be better. They did go out there and look at the IDS, but there's no road or pathway, maybe it's not meant to be. [1:08:01] Speaker B (unidentified): But where's the road or pathway to this battery? [1:08:05] Speaker G (unidentified): The battery? It's off of the UGA driveway. [1:08:09] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, and where would that be, right here? No, that's here. [1:08:29] Speaker G (unidentified): So that's the driveway. The battery's back here. So this is surrounded by chain links. That's it. Would access it [1:08:39] Speaker A (unidentified): Thank you, yeah, appreciate it, does [1:08:47] Speaker B (unidentified): Anyone else have any other thoughts or discussions? Do we feel like we have enough information, or do we need more information? I'll just reiterate, I would be in favor because utilizing the existing science is the best chance of recreating the environment that we are currently in, rather than moving into an overly forested area where they would either be lost or placed too close to the roadways. And I think everyone else has said their thoughts as well. Do we feel like we can vote on this then? Do [1:09:41] Speaker A (unidentified): We want to go ahead and vote on it now, or do we want to wait until our insurance questions are answered? [1:09:51] Speaker C (unidentified): We can provide a response to any questions at a future meeting and then hold the event if that seems appropriate. [1:10:07] Speaker B (unidentified): I think it would give us some time to sort of digest all the options. It seems like there are a lot of questions in both directions, in pros and cons, if that's okay. Because we also do want to know the insurance. [1:10:19] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, the committee's recommendation for a relocation site isn't contingent on parking lot expansion moving forward. Like I said, we'll put a condition of approval when we get to that point that the committee has final say on the relocation site, and details will be provided in terms of where and how to move those two sculptures. [1:10:53] Speaker B (unidentified): So maybe at the next meeting we could hold it, though, as long as we have an answer from the insurance department. Thank you, everybody, for your delivery today. All right. In that case, Communications Subcommittee, do you have any announcements? Justin, 's still here. He is, where is he? I did see that there was a photo still in April for AP's and specifically an article in the Press Herald on our social media. That's great. great. With Justin rotating off, we'll want to think about who might have an interest in communication subcommittee, which is mostly making our social media. So maybe everyone can think about it for our next meeting. If anyone has an interest, maybe we can talk [1:12:00] Speaker A (unidentified): about it then. Because right now it's just Anna. [1:12:08] Speaker B (unidentified): Anna's like, please. [1:12:11] Speaker E (unidentified): Please, I don't have any social media, I don't even know how to do it, don't leave me in charge. [1:12:21] Speaker B (unidentified): Questions about communications, Anna? [1:12:26] Speaker H (unidentified): Don't you have children? This feels like a perfect delegation, the community, what, which thing is delegating the community, the social media communication to your children. Oh, yeah, right. No, they don't have social media either. Kelly, [1:12:43] Speaker E (unidentified): come on. Not yet. Not yet. They're 10 and 11, so I'm holding it off as long as I can. [1:12:55] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay. Do we have any other new committee business? Business. [1:13:05] Speaker A (unidentified): Morgan, do you have any questions for us? Anything that you'd like for us to clarify or help to know more about? [1:13:17] Speaker F (unidentified): No, I think the conversation has been very enlightening. That's a word. [1:13:25] Speaker B (unidentified): I really appreciate everyone's thoughts on this and the deliberation on this. I think we'll leave it with them for the next meeting before we end our question. Great. If there are no other questions or business, I think we can adjourn. It's 5-12. Thank you so much, everybody. Any good of the order updates? [1:13:53] Speaker A (unidentified): There's an opening at Notch 8 on Saturday. It's a group show with 10 artists.