Portland Public Art Committee votes to deaccession Jewel Box bus shelter

[2:25] Speaker A (unidentified): hey kevin hey hello hey cut hello counselor hi [2:39] Speaker B (unidentified): We're gonna allow a couple more minutes. I just spoke to my colleague who could check if anyone is down in room 209, but this is all, this is an all virtual meeting, so if there is anyone down there, just make sure they can join me up here if needed. But just as a precaution, as we wait for other committee members, we [3:14] Speaker C (unidentified): need to get to five, right Sean? It's six. I [3:23] Speaker B (unidentified): I did hear from Kelly, as did you, Kat. She won't be able to attend, and Ronnie will not be able to attend as well. Did you hear from anyone else? I did not. [3:38] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, having [4:12] Speaker A (unidentified): flashbacks of last meeting. We're eagerly waiting for that sixth person. Exactly. Do we make our own definition that five is a majority? I'm with you. Do you want me to make [4:26] Speaker E (unidentified): a motion and [4:31] Speaker D (unidentified): I have to apologize. I fully intended to come to that meeting, and then I realized there was a grand opening for the Equality Commons, and I went to that. [4:43] Speaker A (unidentified): That is okay. That is not a criticism of you, Counselor. [4:46] Speaker D (unidentified): No, I know, but I do feel bad because I know there was a vote that needed to be taken. And had I known there were other people wouldn't have showed up, I definitely would have stopped by. And I'm sorry. That's a bummer we have to move it around. [4:58] Speaker E (unidentified): But we do, Sarah, and we've all talked about it. Appreciate how involved you are and your comments and your insight and you taking the time to come be a part of the committee. We just really appreciate you. Well, thank you. I like being there. I like attending happening. [5:22] Speaker A (unidentified): I'm happy to share. It looks like we have six. Yeah. [5:27] Speaker B (unidentified): And I'm just joined. I've been promoting people as attendees as panelists. So I'm watching the, I'm watching that tab. We can get started. Chair, if you feel this is a good moment to begin. [5:45] Speaker C (unidentified): In. Yeah, I can call the meeting to order now. It's 4 35 p.m. Sean, would you like to do a [5:54] Speaker B (unidentified): roll? Yes, this is a roll call vote for a special Portland Public Art Committee meeting held on September 3rd. Just state that you're here. Cats are Gary Buckley. Here. Sharon Dennehy. Here. Morgan Becker. Here. Anna Burke. Phoebe Cole. Here. Counselor Sarah McNevins. Here. And we have Jess Rodriguez, Ronnie Wilson, Justin Levesque, and Kelly Ranko absent. So just a brief intro for the purpose of tonight's meeting. This is being held as an abbreviated meeting in order to give more focus towards the Collection Management Subcommittee. I do see that Jess Rodriguez joined. Hi, we were just doing the roll call, just state you're here. And my apologies, I did not share that with the rest of the committee, but you did say you were going to be five minutes late. Thank you. That was my bad for not sharing. Chair, would you like to move forward with the next agenda item? [7:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, definitely. So I'd like to move into the Collection Management Subcommittee conservation priority projects. I hope that everyone had a chance, if you weren't able to attend the last meeting, to view our video because Sharon did an excellent report on the collection priority projects, which is reproduced in the agenda packet for today. If it's all right with everyone, I think that the way that I would like to do it is that we take public comment first so it can inform our discussion for each of the items. Does that sound okay? [8:07] Speaker E (unidentified): That sounds fine with [8:08] Speaker C (unidentified): me. Okay, so I would like to invite public comment about the conservation priorities and then we can [8:16] Speaker B (unidentified): discuss. Yes, at this time we can open public comment. There are no attendees online so we can we can actually close that public comment. I would add if any members of the public do happen to join we may have to allow an opportunity, you know, for the next item. [8:41] Speaker C (unidentified): Sharon, is there anything you'd like to say about the conservation priorities? I know you gave that presentation in [8:47] Speaker E (unidentified): our last meeting. Well, just to recap, as the conservator has laid out in the beginning, he laid out the priority issues and noted one safety issue, which is at the airport. And so I'd like for us to pay close attention to getting those done in the beginning, and especially the safety issue one. And then under additional ones, he has noted the Union Station mural. And I'd like to recommend that we start working with Parks, the department, because that is going to take Parks Department also figuring out where the leak is coming from, so we may have to take down some of the tiles in order for Parks to assess the damage and how to repair it. So I would also like to bring that to the forefront so we can get on their schedule and work together with them to find a solution. I [10:08] Speaker B (unidentified): just want to interject here before we the committee starts with any deliberation, I'm going to start recording this meeting. [10:16] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, so how do you want to handle this, Cat? Should we vote on, oh, one note, all of these, this monetary amount, Cat has already figured out and put that in our budget, so our budget does reflect that already. So we're not voting on additional expenditures, we're just voting to start with these projects which are inside our budget and have already been pointed out. [10:52] Speaker C (unidentified): I guess I just want to invite any other committee members who might have comments or questions about the conservation priority. [11:04] Speaker F (unidentified): I'll just say that I wasn't at the last meeting, but it looks like a really, you know, the whole report's really thorough. It's great to read through it. And it felt also very readable. Like, I, and especially for someone who, you know, I have some experience but not a huge amount in this really distinct conservation, but it felt very clear exactly what the plans were for, especially, you know, not only our priorities but some of the additional things that were called out further in the report. So I felt really comfortable with it and feel pretty aligned with the priorities as they're put forth. Thank [11:40] Speaker C (unidentified): you, Phoebe. Anyone else, any questions? Oh, Sharon, you're muted. I [11:48] Speaker E (unidentified): also was very impressed with his report and the amount of detail that he took the time to put in there and breaking things down. I do have one question, Sean, about like the ones that are under, we don't need to put those up for any kind of additional bids. So can we go ahead and group those together and get started on those, or how do you and Kat want to break this down? [12:26] Speaker B (unidentified): So there are purchasing policies. Anything under $5,000, we can go for a direct, do with a direct service. There is a request for any other substantial amounts to request competitive bids, which we've done in the past. We've asked for those figures ahead of time and that I would organize those and have them available for a future committee meeting. So that would be a way to compare larger quotes. But we could organize this in a way to solicit a preferred vendor, if that's what you're implying, or we can go out and request bids from any number of our local conservation companies. I think [13:34] Speaker E (unidentified): I was thinking more along the lines of like, okay, the acrobatic dogs, that's part of Langley's collection, Langley collection, excuse me. We've already used Tucker Brook as that was recommended by the Langley family. So if we approve the amount, then we could just go directly to Tucker Brook on some of these items if it's not over 5,000. [14:10] Speaker A (unidentified): You can do that, Sharon. And tonight the committee is just making a recommendation that they're comfortable moving these projects forward, but for the ones that fall under that certain threshold in that instance you could go directly to tucker brook and contract with them to do that work counselor mcnevitt i saw that [14:33] Speaker C (unidentified): your hand was up. [14:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I was. I had a question about one of the things that are in year two, but that's obviously year two. So there's gonna be the mini roundabout is gonna be coming up for the Gorms Corner where the John Ford statue is located. But I, as I recall, Kevin, that's not [14:56] Speaker A (unidentified): being moved, it's actually staying in place. Do you know the statue itself is remaining in place? And Sean, can you remind me the associated granite sculptures, those would be shifting slightly to [15:09] Speaker B (unidentified): accommodate the sidewalk? Yeah, so there's a number of granite, carved granite I guess, emblems, posts that kind of lie on the sidewalk. As part of that Gorham's Corner project, the committee did review the public works location and provided some feedback in terms of how those granite posts were spaced in relationship to the existing artwork. So those posts actually contribute to the artwork because they do have information about John Ford's achievements in film. So the committee has reviewed kind of the layout, provided a recommendation, and that was incorporated into the annual report. [16:00] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, great, thank you. [16:04] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, does anyone else have any questions about the conservation priorities? Again, we're just voting to move forward the priorities for the first year. They're already incorporated in our budget. It then I would seek a motion if anyone is so moved to, what's the action item, to begin to call for a vote on the conservation priorities? [16:32] Speaker F (unidentified): I can call for a vote. So I'd like to make a motion to vote to support moving forward with the conservation priorities as laid out. [16:46] Speaker G (unidentified): Second. Oh, two seconds. [16:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, we have a motion and a second. I'll do a roll call vote to move forward with the conservation priorities. I'll start with Kat Zagaria-Buckley. In favor. [17:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Sharon Dennehy. Yes, in favor. [17:08] Speaker B (unidentified): Morgan Becker. In favor. [17:12] Speaker G (unidentified): Anna Burke. In favor. Yes, in favor. Phoebe Cole? [17:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, in favor. Councilor Sarah McNevitt? Yes. And Jessica Rodriguez? In favor. Okay. Motion passes. All in favor. [17:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, everyone. I'm excited to get started on this. I know it's been a really long time between figuring out how to commission a report, who to commission a report from, receiving the report. Now we can finally move forward with some of our more urgent items. Great work, everybody. I'd like to move on to the section of the meeting where we'll discuss the potential of jewel box deaccessioning. Just as a reminder to everybody, this item has I suppose we've talked about the jewel box in most meetings for about the past five years. And we did speak about it at our last meeting and we did include a report from the collection subcommittee within the agenda packet that lays out why we do not feel relocation is appropriate at this time for this piece. Yeah, and then I think that's my best way of intro. Sharon, I saw you had your hand raised. Did you want to say anything? It's I [18:40] Speaker E (unidentified): I think it would come under other business so I apologize. I'd like to invite public comment [18:46] Speaker C (unidentified): before we begin our discussion just so it can inform our discussion. Yes. [18:52] Speaker B (unidentified): This meeting is being held virtually so we take public comment. If there's any members of the public in attendance we ask that you use the raise hand tool and then you can be called on. Seeing the attendees list I do not see any members of the public online. So we can close that. [19:16] Speaker C (unidentified): I'd like to move into our discussion. I know it's a difficult issue for a lot of reasons, but I'd love to hear from everyone. If you need me to recap the collection subcommittee meeting, I can do that again. But basically we were concerned about relocating the piece, potentially recreating some of the issues that it's experiencing. Thing. And yeah, the public and the transit authority are both asking of our committee for a solution to some of the issues that are happening. So the collection subcommittee at this time was recommending potentially deaccessioning it. Kevin? [19:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Thanks, Chair. I just wanted to also provide just some context as well for those that may not be as familiar. As many of you know, too, we've had many issues with maintaining and fixing some of the challenges down there with graffiti and a lot of broken glass. As this committee has had to approve a number of repairs, and even this year we had to replace a glass, and as it was getting installed we had another pane of glass broken at the same moment. So it's been an ongoing challenge for a number of years. But some of the other background for this particular shelter is that Congress Street is actually part of a larger study for the Metro bus service. It's part of their bus rapid transit study. So that is, if you're not familiar with bus rapid transit, it is kind of like a subway on wheels. It is intended to be high frequency bus service, and it would be connecting from downtown Portland to our neighbors in Westbrook and downtown Gorham, and Congress Streets are critical, a link as part of that connection. And usually what comes with bus rapid transit lines is more enhanced stations. So Metro is in the midst of a study right now that the alignment has been looked at. Now they're looking at kind of more detailed designs around that. So the timing and implementation is unknown at this time, but it's advancing. It's been advancing over several years. So this is the highest frequency, I believe, stop in the city. It serves many lines. So in addition to just the maintenance concerns that we've had as a city, this is being looked at as a more comprehensive stop on this corridor. So this is something, and this committee may recall, we had the executive director of Metro at a meeting previously to speak about this. The committee is just looking at de-assessing the piece from the art collection. It does not mean there will be a removal of a shelter at this location. So we are coordinating with Metro that if this was removed as part of the public art collection, and it was ultimately removed from this location, that Metro would come in and replace it with a new shelter, whether that be something more temporary as the bus rapid transit study evolves or something more permanent. But there still would be a shelter in that location to provide safety and cover for passengers. So I just want to make sure that was clear for committee members, just to understand some of the broader planning efforts that are ongoing here in downtown. [22:19] Speaker E (unidentified): town. Thank you, Kevin. [22:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, thank you so much, Kevin. And just to reiterate, I believe we had calculated that the toolbox has cost about $38,000 since its introduction into our collection in terms of maintenance. It roughly costs about $5,000 each year for maintenance, and it would cost about $32,000 to really get it up to par according to the conservation report to be in a more stable condition. So from a budgetary standpoint, it is by far our most expensive piece to maintain at the current moment. [23:01] Speaker G (unidentified): When did it first come into our collection? [23:05] Speaker C (unidentified): I think Sean might have that information. [23:08] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't have it. It was commissioned and awarded the art contract in 2003, and it was installed in 2004. [23:21] Speaker G (unidentified): So we're at over 20 years of having, yes, so okay, I think that's for me important to know. [23:35] Speaker D (unidentified): Counselor McNabb, thank you, and if my connection is funny, just please let me know. Well, one of my questions all along has been, what is, what makes a bus shelter successful in terms of, you know, not having a lot of unwanted activity or challenges? And, you know, a lot of the others along Congress, there's a degree of permeability. I don't know that we have many that are completely enclosed. They're either, you know, raised up at the bottom or they have metal panels where there's some wind passing through. So they're, they're not, you know, they're not enclosed. And that's the only question I would have about the jewel box. And like, I mean, if it were to be changed in any way, would it potentially then be usable or even structurally if it could be changed, which I think it's probably, you know, from what we know about the construction and its installation location, that's probably unlikely. I don't know if that question, if that makes sense. And I'm just thinking about it in terms of, like, can you, can you alter something to make it more, could it be altered to make it more, or less, attractive for some of the activity that's been problematic. And, I don't know the answer to that, but like, [25:02] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm, I'm happy to weigh in on the maintenance, and just the integrity of the, structure. If that would be helpful, Counselor? So as Kat had mentioned, this was part of the conservation assessment that was prepared by Tucker Brook Conservation. And within that, there's a series of priorities. Notably, there's a fair amount of remediation for a lot of the structural components associated with the metal post and attachments for the bus shelter. Basically, it holds up the roof and it's mounted to a concrete foundation. So there was actually a significant conservation effort done back in 2016 of a similar vein to try to protect the corrosion that was happening with the structure. That was the significant effort for that conservation. Conservation, those amounts were provided in a previous staff memo, which I have here, and it was upwards of $20,000 back in 2016 to do that work. So those similar issues, I'll call them, are unfortunately still apparent in the jewel box and outlined in Tucker Brooks conservation as it relates to successful bus shelters we have we have received some guidance from our colleagues at Metro in terms of how to provide natural ventilation natural surveillance you know with typical bus shelters that they install throughout the city. The way the design of the jewel box currently is, it does in a way restrict ventilation because it is closed off at the bottom. That is something we've heard over the review of this piece of public artwork. And also the roof line is also, So it reduces, I guess, visibility from above, which also creates some type of visibility concerns with the shelter. So I hope that provides a little bit of context, Counselor. [27:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, that all makes sense. I mean, I think going forward, if we do choose in the future to have something that is a bus shelter that's public art, which can be really successful, that, you know, we'd consider some of those factors because it's a good location for public art. It's been one for a long time, and it's going to be a shame to lose it. So I'm thinking further down the road as well. But for the time being, yep, that answers my question. [28:24] Speaker C (unidentified): I just want to also note that from my standpoint thinking of it as a work of art I feel that the its current form to alter it in this way would really it would not do allow the artist's original concept to stay intact so I wouldn't be in favor of altering it and I know that conversations have been started with the artists I don't believe that they have thought of alterations either it wouldn't be in keeping with their original proposal would be a different work of art essentially Sharon yes [29:06] Speaker E (unidentified): When we did talk with Metro, when their representative came to talk to our committee, we did ask if they would work with us to get kind of a list of what things they thought work well in a bus shelter, what's safe, what's durable, and then how the art can fit in. Maybe it's an additional piece or whatever, maybe it's not the whole bus shelter, maybe it is, we don't know, but just offered for them to enter the conversation with us, and they're very willing to do that, so that might help in doing our research for what we would like to see go there in the future. [29:53] Speaker F (unidentified): It's Phoebe, then Jess. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense, Sharon, and what's coming up for me as well is, you know, there are some really great art integrated bus shelters that exist throughout the city, the Creative Portland collaboration ones, and you know, 20 years is not no time for a piece, especially of art and city infrastructure. Like, that's, you know, that is a long time for that to have existed as it was, and so I think it's, to me, what I take from it is that, you know, there are different things to consider, obviously, when we're just thinking about things that are purely aesthetic, and then things that have this city function and utility, and you know, especially there's going to be more wear and tear than, you know, a lot of just purely sculptures that are already removed from sort of public, at least daily public use in that way. So to me, I think it's really great to have gotten so much context, to have been given so much information, but I feel like 20 years was a great lifetime for this piece and I think it's it's you know we 've been given the information at least to me to that it's lived it's lived the life within at least the context of this collection that is appropriate yes [31:14] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm unmuted, yes. I had originally been concerned about the original context of this piece being removed based solely on the perception of what it was being used for, but with all of this context and its lifespan and the fact that there's a lot of environmental changes, societal changes within this entire 20 years, that I really am echoing a lot of what I'm hearing and thinking that it's lived its very full life course, and with all of the safety concerns, I think it's all very valid, and I really understand all of that with everyone's context, and I also think that there's an opportunity to then consider what I've been hearing, what art can be in conjunction, aligned with city utility, and working with transportation on some other kind of collaboration. So as things change and as we evolve and form into a different outlook for what art and a collaboration with the city can look like, I think it could be an exciting opportunity to take a different course. So yeah, I'm not sure if I said everything I wanted to say correctly, but those are my thoughts. [32:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you so much, Jeff. And thank you also, Phoebe. Are there any other thoughts or discussions? Anna, I just want to note that you were chair for so many of these meetings where we discussed the jewel box. Do you have any thoughts or are you echoing what you're hearing? [33:06] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, it's funny. It's like you just read my mind. I was thinking, wow this has been on our agenda for so very long and it just that in its of itself you didn't know anything else but you just heard it come up year after year and be telling that a you know that a big change like that something needs to change that it's sort of not do it's not serving its purpose anymore as a piece part of the collection that it's so I don't have I echo everything everyone has said and also to your point that yeah it's it 's it feels like it's telling us something with the fact how much time we've spent on it change is needed thank you yeah thank you Emma just anyway I just want to make [34:04] Speaker C (unidentified): sure I've got everyone. Everyone is okay? We've all said what we need to say. Thank you so much, everybody. I would seek a vote on the deaccessioning of the jewel box at this point. Anyone would like to make a motion? [34:22] Speaker E (unidentified): I'd like to make a motion to vote on deaccessing the jewel box from the Portland Public Art [34:32] Speaker F (unidentified): Collection. And I would second that motion. [34:39] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay we have a motion to de-assess the jewel box from the public art collection in a second I'll do a roll call vote cancer Gary Buckley in favor Sharon Dennehy yes in favor Morgan Becker in favor Anna Burke in favor Phoebe Cole yes in favor Counselor Sarah Mcnevitt it yes and Jessica Rodriguez in your favor okay motion passes all approved [35:19] Speaker C (unidentified): I prepared a sort of eulogy for this moment if I could quickly read it into the record for everybody as members of the public art committee we know the power of art in public spaces often stems from a conversation between art public and site art is invigorated with a dynamism through its proximity to these forces but each of these points are in constant fluctuation there comes a time when these three items public need sight and artwork no longer align as the committee it is important to recognize when art is no longer adding to our civic life. All art has a lifespan. It is incumbent upon us as responsible stewards of public funds and space to recognize when a piece has reached the end of its longevity. Nothing, not even art, can last forever. I feel acutely the difficulty of removing artwork when I sit on a committee that champions it, but public space and the needs of our community change over time. As a committee, we are stronger when we recognize and adapt to these shifts, and I look forward to re-evaluating what the site needs from us together and placing an artwork that better serves the city's many constituencies. [36:28] Speaker H (unidentified): Bravo, Cat, beautifully put. Yeah, really well done, thank you. I think that encapsulated what we were saying really well. Okay. [36:42] Speaker C (unidentified): Oh, bad moment, but I have to somehow move on from this. Do we have new committee business? I believe we might. The [36:55] Speaker E (unidentified): the one thing that I want is not really new business, but since we did not have a quorum for the last meeting, we do need to vote on the acceptance of the minutes. Yeah. [37:14] Speaker C (unidentified): It seems like you're speaking, but we can't hear you. Sorry, I missed that. Wasn't on our agenda, was it, Sean? [37:21] Speaker B (unidentified): No, I didn't include it. I was just going to have it done at the next reoccurring meeting, but if all the committee members had have had an opportunity to review the minutes from the, what is it, the July meeting, we can have a motion for a vote. I'll leave that up to the chair. [37:54] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, if we're comfortable, I would seek a motion. I know I was prepared last time. Hopefully everyone else was as well. Well [38:03] Speaker E (unidentified): I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes from the July meeting if no one has any questions or additions. Second. [38:15] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay. [38:19] Speaker B (unidentified): So motion to approve the public art committee meeting minutes from July. We can do, well, I don't see everyone's video online, but I'll just do a quick roll call, though. Just Kat Zagari-Buckley. In favor. Sharon Dennehy. Yes. Morgan Becker. Yes. [38:44] Speaker F (unidentified): Anna Burke. Yes. Okay. Phoebe Cole. Yes, in favor. [38:57] Speaker B (unidentified): Sarah McNevitt. Yes. And then Jess Rodriguez. Rodriguez in favor. Okay, thank you all. Sorry I didn't see everyone's screen. Usually we do it by a hand vote, but thank you. [39:20] Speaker C (unidentified): If, does anyone have any other new business that they'd like to bring in? If not, I think that we can adjourn this special meeting of the Portland Public Art Committee. Thank you so much everybody for attending. I know it's not our normal date, so I really appreciate everyone making the time and us reaching a quorum for these decisions. [39:43] Speaker B (unidentified): I also echo that. Thank you everyone so much for taking the time to meet virtually off schedule. That's great, thank [39:56] Speaker G (unidentified): you Kat. Thanks Sean and Kevin and Sharon. Okay. [40:02] Speaker H (unidentified): Thank you everyone. I hope you all have a great night. Likewise, thank you all for putting us together. Bye-bye.