Aug 07, 2020 Public Art Committee on 2020-08-07 3:00 PM

Okay, so here we are. It is August 7th, Friday August 7th. This is the City of Denton's public art meeting. And we're going to start now by starting with item one, or item 2A, which is going to be to consider the meeting, the minutes from last month's meeting. Does anyone have any comments or changes to make from last month's meeting? Michelle, just before you go into that, on item one, the presentation to the members of the public, we do not have any. Okay, then let's start again then. All right. So item one, we're not going to skip it. It's just that we don't have anybody confirmed to be in this meeting to give us comments today. All right. So then we'll move on to 2A. Would anybody like to approve the meeting minutes from last month? I would like to approve the meeting minutes from last month. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Could anybody second it? I'll second. All right. Well, then are we going to go like we did last month and do it by name for everyone who's in favor? That would be preferred. Thank you. Okay, Gary. Thanks. All right. So let me make a note then. This first time it might be a little bit slow. Mr. Steele. Aye. Ms. Ismert. Aye. Is it Ms. Eggert? Yes. Aye. Aye. Okay. Who else do we have in here? Meredith, do we? Aye. And is that everybody? Yourself. And myself. Okay. Other than that, and I will approve it. So there's just five of us. Okay. Do we have a quorum? There's nine. So yes, we are a quorum. Right? Isn't it a simple majority? Gary, help me out. That's correct. We're good. Okay. All right. Then let's move on to number two. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give direction to staff regarding a temporary art program and associated program guidelines. Okay. Let me pull that up. I have two things to share with you. In your packet, there was some guidelines that, let's see, make sure you can see this. There we go. So this was a draft for discussion purposes that was in your packet that Jessica had put together regarding temporary public art program. Not sure if everyone had an opportunity to review that. We could, you know, discuss this item and come back next month with some updates if you'd like. I do have a short PowerPoint of some additional sculptures that somebody reached out to us over the past two weeks that's interested in possibly leasing them to the city. That could be a part of that program if you wanted to consider that just as a future idea. But if we could maybe just discuss this at this point in regards to any comments or thoughts in regards to the temporary art program guidelines that were provided to you. I read through it as we were sitting here waiting for the meeting to start and it all looks good to me. The one comment that I would make is about the funding and stipends. This calls out a really specific number of $1,500. And so the one comment I wanted to make was that is definitely a good stipend for someone to do a temporary public art project. But I wonder if there's a way that we could leave it open so that depending on what the opportunity actually is that funding or stipend amount could change. Does that make sense? So how would you determine that variability? Well, the one thing I can think of for example is the difference between bringing a large scale sculpture to a site and being responsible for transportation installation and then removal versus participating in one of those opportunities that's more of like a wrap around some sort of electrical box. Like the stipend for an electrical box application I would imagine would be much smaller than something that required a lot more work on the artist's behalf. So something on the electrical box, I mean, you could leave that there. You may not need a stipend for that if it was something that we did and we select artists for designs. And we said, hey, we're going to do five electrical boxes and we're calling for designs on that art. And you could go through basically an RFP process for that. We're going to have to pay for that sticker in that installation on the box itself. And it could be up there for 10 years until it's to a point where it's either vandalized or it's starting to come off or it fades. So maybe the electrical box example wasn't the best example because that's not as temporary as like a sculpture being on the site for a year. But I guess I just thought that if we could build in a way that that stipend is adjustable based on what the opportunity actually involves, I don't know if that makes sense. I guess one way is if we have a temporary sculpture program and let's say you have pads, you have 10 different pads in various locations and maybe it's by size. In that way, you could be specific and say these pads that are four by four are going to be $1,000 for three years. And this pad that is 20 by 15 is a larger piece, obviously a higher scale and maybe that's $1,500 or $2,000 for three years because the expectation is it's going to be a larger piece, maybe even more expensive. So that's something that we could try to articulate in a future draft if that's the way the group wants to go. Right, and I guess we don't really know what these opportunities are actually going to be yet. So I just thought if right now we're just drafting a document that can be applied to a bunch of different kinds of opportunities in the future, can we draft that part of it in a way that builds in that kind of flexibility? Maybe the beginning level is $1,500 and then for larger projects, additional funds may be considered by the committee. I like that, Ed, keeping it as flexible as possible because also you have to take into term not just scope but like inflation and our city's budget. We know that we are going into what's probably going to be a very difficult budget process. So yeah, I like that idea of making it as vague and open as possible, not only to accommodate different types of sculpture and artwork but also to -- well, and even beyond that, like if we did something that was theater arts based or written art based, I like being able to have as much flexibility and the people who take our places down the road to have as much flexibility as possible. Is there any thought by any of the board members in regards to if a piece is sold while it's on city property that a percentage of the sale would go back to the public art kind of kitty for future lease opportunities? Is that normal? Yeah, that's normal. It is. Okay. Alicia, what have you seen that's the standard percentage? I think typically like municipalities take less than a commercial gallery. A commercial gallery would normally take 50%. But I would think that the city would take something more along the lines of like, you know, I don't really know. I know that Gary has participated in programs like this before, right, Gary? What did the other city that you did this with take? I think in Arlington, it was either 15% or 20%. We never did sell one before I left. But it was, you know, 15% or 20% that would go back. Yeah. We can also throw out 15% or 20%. Okay. Those pieces don't leave the site before like the agreement is over, correct? Or is that up to the artist or do you have it in agreement? Like it's huge. I mean, in my experience, it's been an agreement. Like if you sell a piece, it does not leave until the agreement is complete or, you know. The only issue that could come up with that in the context specific to temporary art is you assume that it's outdoors or in a location where it could potentially get damaged in one way or another. So the purchaser might want it sooner than later. That's exactly what I was thinking. Yeah. Or could we just replace it? But whatever contract or agreement that you draw up for it would specify the amount of time that it would be there. And if someone wanted to purchase it, you'd have to negotiate the timeframe in which they would be able to secure it. So you're really talking about two agreements. Yeah. What we had in our agreement, it was there for three years. If for some reason, if it was sold and it needed to leave before the end of that agreement, we'd either work out a ratio of refund on the percentage of the time or the artist had to provide another piece of art approved by the group to replace it during that timeframe. And then the piece that was sold, obviously a percentage of that sale would come back. So that's how that framework was set up. Okay. I was just curious. And making sure that they would be responsible for the replacement, like the cost of it, I would imagine too, because I would hate to think that we pay to have something installed and then someone buys it and then we have to pay to have something installed again. Yeah. I'm curious as to why we want to even consider that as an option, rather than taking the position that this is a piece that belongs to the city that we want to remain in place. And it is temporary, you're right, Georgina, if it's a temporary piece, it's going to come down that could go to someone's house or business after that. Okay. So I see your point. I mean, obviously the easier solution is to just say that while it's under contract with us for this exhibition, it won't be removed. So, you know, if it is sold, that new owner doesn't get to have it until the exhibition ends. But I think that also what the kind of exhibition that Gary was talking about was three years long. So that's very long. And so I guess that's why they were open to this idea of, you know, if something sold, it could potentially be taken down before that contract ended and replaced with something else. But I think if the exhibition period is more like a year, it's totally reasonable to just say, like, if it sells during that year, you know, the new owner just doesn't get to have it until the year is over. You guys, I might not be on the same page because I came in a little late. I was thinking we were talking about the sculpture for the monument. What GDAC does, if people want to purchase, because we do sell the art, if they want to purchase, they cannot remove the artwork until after the exhibit has closed. And our percentage breakdown is 30-70, 30 to GDAC-70 to the artists. And that's a part of our contract. In that specific instance, though, GDAC is a protected environment. What we're talking about is temporary art, which would not be in a protected environment. And I think, Gary, you'd mentioned exactly how many were sold during... We didn't have any sold during that timeframe, but it was just about three years. The downside of having it on a shorter timeframe is you're constantly looking to replace it, and it becomes cumbersome. So we wanted to put a couple of years timeframe there so it wasn't a constant shuffle of art too quickly. I think... I don't know how many would get purchased if we start having them get sold left and right. Maybe we'd want to reconsider it. But based on your experience, perhaps we just make it so that if it's purchased, it's gone. We replace it with something else quickly. The artist benefits, we benefit, and we move forward. So we can look at those additions and amendments. Anything about it? I just understood that the entire concept of the temporary art was going to be things, not just like telephone rat boxes, but things that were going to be... Like Ed had talked about, painting the streets and murals, stuff that couldn't be sold anyways. You can't sell a light exhibit over a downtown building. You can't sell 3D paints to be a traffic calming device. I guess I'm just still kind of... That's not meeting the expectations that we had talked about in the past as temporary art is what I'm saying. And I'm not trying to limit it. I'm just saying that this isn't something that we had mentioned. Yeah, I think we're on the same page. I think rather than spend a lot of time in thinking about it, we set some parameters. We move on. And if the parameters don't match what we were expecting, then we adjust for that. Okay. I think the only thing that would sell would be a sculpture, agreed. So I guess we have to have it in the contract just in case, or in our draft of what the program is just in case. But yeah, I'm actually more excited about those kinds of projects that are not even saleable, but they're really just kind of like in a place for a short time and then they go away. Okay. Yeah, we can add that. I guess one thing for discussion with the group and feedback is a priority. With all the other projects we have going on, where does this fit into a priority between the... I guess it'd be item D with the other sculptures we're trying to get under works? Is this something that you want us to start tackling sooner, or is this something that we can just kind of slowly work on until we get these other ones under production and in place and then kind of launch this afterwards? Remind me, did we not set money aside for this for our budget next year? I thought we had set like $3,000 aside or something. I don't have that in front of me, but I can double check and follow up. Right. I mean, it certainly can wait until next month until we look at a final document and are going to vote on accepting it or not. Okay. Don't you all think? Is that okay? Yeah, my impression was that there would probably be no budget for this until the next year. Right. Yeah. Okay. Were there any other things that we needed to talk about our temporary art program and its guidelines? Anyone else have anything they want to get off their chest? Okay, so we don't need to vote on that, so shall we move on to item C then? Sure. Gary, are you good for that? Yes. So we have agreed that we're going to come back and visit this next month and have some sort of wording about items which may be purchased and what circumstances would entail if we had a piece of art that could potentially be bought and it is bought while it's on display. So let's move on to C, receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the use of budgeted project funds for artist proposals. Okay, let me pull that up. Okay, this is a public art stipend research. I hope everybody can see this. That was done by staff in regards to some other cities in regards to stipends that were provided for artwork for projects. So as of right now, you can see in the second and third column of stipends, majority of the top few, I guess there's five or six of the cities provided no stipend and then there were five or six that provided a stipend. So it's a little bit varied in regards to what that is in regards to the location. So I guess that's, you know, something for the group to discuss in regards to the direction they went ahead. If we do want to provide a stipend, what that is going to be for those proposals and, you know, where the money will come from. Okay, so comments from anybody about this? Yes, if I could learn to push the unmute button. I like Lewisville and Richardson. I think Lewisville, we would lower that amount just a little bit. Oops, it went away. We have to, we're not allowed to show, we have to show everybody when there's discussion. Sorry. That's all right. So Lewisville had the requirement that a stipend was applied if it was over 100k, I think we could lower that. Richardson had that the stipend would be 2.5% of the project amount. I gravitated towards those two variables for our specific applications, but obviously it's open to discussion. I think we might lower ours to 50k, where Lewisville is 100k and 2.5%, which is what Richardson has, I think is kind of works. But what does everyone else think? I'm curious about the rationale for this stipend. If we're talking about a stipend being given to people we are soliciting proposals from, I don't, it may be something new that's happening that I'm not aware of, but that's not typically how it's done. Especially at a time when there are limited resources. One would think that we would want to have that money available to the artists that we select to do the work. So I don't understand the rationale for it. I think artists negotiating for artists come at this from a different perspective. From a business perspective, it doesn't make sense to me that we would pay people to submit proposals to us. The Richardson requirement, it was the top three, if I remember correctly from the slides. Even if I look at it, Ed, I'm not going to agree with it. And that's okay. That's okay. Sure. And from my perspective, as a photographer, if someone reached out to me and said, look, I'm considering two other people and I need you to do some mockup photos of a very specific scene that's going to require models, that's going to require props, that's going to require a lot of my time and work and research on lighting the scene properly, I would be less inclined to apply unless there was some form of a stipend applied. So I actually see the rationale from it. That's just my individual perspective. And I do think that from an artist's perspective, it makes sense. But I also think there's another side of that, where the artist knows that they are indeed competing with other potential candidates. And that artist then would be on that artist to decide if that's something they want to go forward with. I can tell you, I accept whatever it is the full body agrees with. I will continue to say it does not make sense to me. It's not something that I have ever done. So, and that's okay. I personally think it's more professional to offer the stipend. Like for example, I mean, because this isn't for people who are throwing a proposals, like a whole slew of people, this is for people that we've reached out to and you said you're in the top three or however many you've qualified, we want you to do something. And so in a sense, like I think even from a business perspective, like, I would expect if I was interviewing for a position and I needed to travel, that they were going to pay for my flight and my hotel room. That's completely within the realm of what we do in business. And so Alisha, what's your experience with this? I like the idea. So, in my head, the best way to explain this is like there are different kinds of selection processes for different, all of a sudden my dog is there. Different kinds of selection processes for different kinds of projects. So it makes sense to me that for a project with a larger budget, like $100,000 or more, instead of just looking at, so when we do an RFQ, a request for qualifications, we're asking for their CV and for images of past projects. We're not asking them for a proposal for what they would do with this site that we have, right? And then from that RFQ, we have all of these pre-qualified artists that again, still haven't done any proposals for us. For smaller, like budget projects, like $30,000 or so, it makes sense to just look at their past work and say that person seems like the most qualified, let's go with them. And then basically just put them into a contract right away and the proposal becomes part of that contract. But for a project that's larger scale, bigger budget, to basically put all of our bets on one artist coming up with the best proposal without even actually seeing their proposal and putting them under contract for that much money before we even see what their idea would be is basically like taking a huge risk on someone based on just seeing a couple images of their past work, right? So for me, a big budget project, it does make sense to actually have like three artists that we ask for proposals and then when we see those proposals, we decide which artists to go with. So if we're asking them to do that work, to make a proposal, I think we should pay them like without putting them under contract yet because we're basically saying like we might not choose you, but we want you to do this work because we want to see what your idea would be. And then like I think that document that Gary was showing us, one of the other cities mentioned that once you get those proposals, you could potentially use that proposal for a different site or a different project later on down the road. So it's not always necessarily wasted money, right? So yeah, that's my kind of thought around it is that yeah, maybe smaller budgets don't, we don't need to do this. We can just go into contract, but bigger projects, bigger budgets, it makes sense. And that's where the Lewisville cap comes into play and the way I'm hearing you describe it, it's almost a mechanism designed to protect the city's investment because you could just as easily go with an artist and throw everything at them and not receive what they advertise they could actually provide. It's kind of an interview basically, you know? Yes, Lewisville was $100,000, anything if projects are more than $100,000. And I think for our application, we could reduce that by 50% or more. So 50K or whatever input anyone else provides, I think 100K would be a bit exorbitant for the type of stuff that I've seen the committee do in the past years that I've been serving. Well, then I think it raises the question. So let's just say as a number, we have an $80,000 budget because right now Georgina and I and Michelle are serving on the interracial fellowship projects subcommittee. And so that budget looks like it's going to fall somewhere around $80,000. So if that $80,000 has to cover the cost of site preparation, in addition to the fabrication and installation of whatever monument goes onto the site, we're already eating away a lot at that $80,000 with all of those other costs, right? So for a project of $80,000, if you think about all of the other money that's already getting taken out, you're really only left over with maybe $50,000, $60,000 to actually make a sculpture and to make a monument that's going to last potentially forever costs a lot of money and materials and resources. So that doesn't actually leave a lot of money left over for the artist to actually receive the fee, right? So to me, it actually does make more sense to reserve this process of paying people to do proposals for bigger budget. Actually, I think $100,000 does make sense to me in terms of a cap, but just because of all those other expenses that end up getting rolled in. All right. Again, I'm going to ask, would it be possible to make this as flexible as possible and to say that the committee has the right to choose to do this for projects which are in excess of let's say 50% of our annual budget, because that way you're taking away the hard dollar limit giving for inflation or deflation and changes in our budget. I'm going to take a step back and say that in the film and theater business, it is normal procedure as well to ask artistic directors and artistic people to say, "Hey, what is your concept for this commercial and we're going to do a test shoot?" And all the people who are involved in the test shoot get paid for the test. And if that's the test that says, "No, this is not the team we want," I would rather have the artist spend, I would rather spend $1,000, $2,000 on an artist who brings back something that's clearly not what's best for our city and take the rest of that money and put the egg in another basket personally. So would it be possible, Gary, if you guys, I'd like for you to toss it around, if we could say that we have the option to do it, we're going to make a grayscale of where it could kick in and what it could look like, but let's not have it be more than X percent of our budget if we feel strongly about it. How does that sound? Would you want it to be kind of like mandatory of anything over $100,000 of X number of budget not to exceed and then maybe anything between $50,000 and $100,000? It could be at the discretion of the committee based on the budget? Well, again, I'm thinking why can't it just be a percentage of the budget and therefore be flexible as we go into the future? I mean, I know how hard it is to change these documents once we've written them, but that's just my opinion. If everyone else loves $50,000 or $100,000, I'll definitely agree to it. Just for clarification, you said percent of the budget, percent of that project budget? The public art budget. Yeah, like if it's something that's a percentage of our public art budget over a certain percentage, we have the right and option to do that. Okay, so just some clarification. So we have ongoing budget. We don't have a specific allocation every year. It's not like we have a $100,000 budget that comes in, but we have bond funds that are dedicated to sculptures that may be five years old that's in a revolving account. Are you counting that same amount every year? That's a great question. I mean, maybe this is an impractical solution. What do the rest of you all think? I liked what Gary proposed. It's mandatory for projects over $100,000 and then optional for projects over $50,000. The committee has to at least have a discussion and make a decision about whether or not we want to pay people for proposals. I think you might want to add to that that it would be limited to no more than three people per project. Yes, let's limit it to a small, maximum three. Yes. I would be fine with just one person. And if we don't like them, go to person number two and pay them personally. Jodi, Meredith, do you all haven't piped in much here? Do you have anything to add? I'm fine with that kind of joint conclusion that you all just made. I think that's a great idea. Okay. I like the two actually. There we go. We're going to be with them. Terry's here as well. I don't know if you could see him, but he's... No, I didn't. Hi, Terry. Welcome. I'm going to add you to the list. All right. Just to make sure we got... Is that the consensus from everybody? I have a question. Okay. The question is, how much money were you talking per proposal? Is it going to be a percentage of the commission? Yeah, it looks like the cities had different percentages and different caps. Did you see that document in the agenda and that he put up on the screen? Were you here for that? No, I was not. Okay. Sorry. He showed us different cities from around the Metroplex and there's some of them who say that only a certain small percentage of the total budget can be spent in this endeavor. We're saying that maybe two and a half percent might be the percentage that we would pay an artist to inquire about what they're going to give us, what kind of project, what kind of result we would get from them. Just for instance, Frisco was for projects that are larger than 150,000, it was 2,500 to 5,000 per artist. Allen was 500 honorarium for most projects. On larger projects could go up to 1,000. Let's see. I think Lewisville was 2.5%. I have it up, 100,000 projects more than $100,000. In Richardson, Mr. Steele was 2.5% of the project for the final three selecting. Something that we do, we've done in parks, we've done quite a few RFQs and we have quite a few more in our taboo list right now. We narrow that down to, for instance, we're in the middle of master planning, we narrowed it down to three and interviewed all of them. Granted, those consultants didn't get a stipend, but we understand kind of where we're going with this decision at the moment. It makes total sense, we just need your help making a decision on is it the final three, what's the cap, all that good stuff. Would you prefer a percentage or a flat rate? 2.5% of $100,000 is $2,500. That's really generous in my opinion. I would say that would be, yeah, if you ask three different artists for proposals, that's $7,500 that you're taking away from that 100K budget. I would say that that's definitely the most we should do, but we could potentially, as a smaller, being that we are a smaller city, we could potentially make it more like $1,500 or fall in line or in between one of those other cities that are nearby. The other idea that just came to me would be to narrow it down to two artists, and if out of the two, both of them fail, then obviously we don't know how to pick candidates, right? So then make it three, make it two, so instead of thinking I'm competing against two other people, I'm competing against one other person, I'm going to really make it happen sort of thing. What if we did a percentage, so I know you, Mr. Still, you like the percentage and maybe want to cut the 100K, what if we do a percentage and not to exceed amount? So if the not to exceed amount we say is, I'm just using the example, 2,000, and then it's 2.5% not to exceed $2,000, so if in the future we pick a $200,000 art piece, or we get that amount of money, then we're only paying up to the $2,000, and then for the smaller art pieces that are in the $30,000 to $50,000 range, the artist is still getting some kind of stipend, and it leaves that flexibility. If we choose to, yeah. If we choose to. I think that's a great condition to add. What does everyone else think? I like it too. One thing that could be added to that, and I'll ask the group what their experience is, so if we went out and asked for two proposals, and we select proposal A, could we count that $2,000 towards the cost of the sculpture? That should definitely go towards the cost of the project, I think. That makes a lot of sense, Gary. So the winner receives that as part of the sculpture, the second place person receives that as having put in the effort. Yes. I think that makes sense. As the runner-up. Yep. Okay. So what we'll do is we'll put some wording together based on those protocols, and have it for the next meeting for you guys to consider and vote on. Excellent. Sounds great. All right. Are we ready for item D now? Yes. Staff is yes. Okay. I want to apologize. I'm having technical problems in getting power to my device and in hearing and seeing you guys, so that's why I'm trying different options, but I think I'm okay now. So I apologize for me floating in and off screen lately. All right. So item D, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the status of our ongoing public art committee projects. Okay. Let me pull that up. Okay, I've added a couple pictures to this to kind of provide some additional information and some updates to this of things we've worked on this past week. North Lakes Dog Park, we have a budget of $35,000. We did spend a little of that to put in the foundation. The committee narrowed it down to two specific artists. John Whitmore, who's with Parks and Recreation, is also on the call. We both reached out to artists, and unfortunately, both have declined. One was recently declined, and the other one, I believe, is not accepting any projects at this point in time. John, do you have anything you'd like to add to that? That pretty much wraps it up for that particular project. What we're finding on a lot of people that when they decline, they're talking about most of their projects are up in the six-figure or higher range because of their current market, and then also their current media that they work with is much more expensive. So that's been told to me by a couple of the artists so far. Does that include the artists that Jessica reached out to? I know that she said she heard from somebody who was enthusiastic about the project initially. We talked to Crawford and Gold, which were the top two candidates from the subcommittee. So we could circle back around with Jessica and see if that was an option. Okay, so that committee needs to find more artists. We need to make our expanse a little bigger, eh? Or we could go to number three on the list for the subcommittee. Okay, well, we'll talk about that when we have that subcommittee meeting, but okay, I just wanted to clarify. Thank you so much. Okay. So we'll definitely get a subcommittee meeting scheduled for that. G. Rowland Vela Athletic Complex did talk to Mr. King, and Mr. Whitmore talked to him as well, and he also declined based on budget. And then John had reached out to the next person in line, and John, do you want to provide that information? I reached out to Osmond Aikon, and he actually lives in Brooklyn, and he had quite a bit of damage from the storm that just came through there. So he really just contacted me this afternoon prior to our meeting here, and saying pretty much the same thing, is that he intends to deal with larger projects that are more expensive media. So he said probably about $130,000 is about where he typically falls for the projects that he's involved with. So we'll have to get that committee together as well to revisit that. The tennis center, we are just finalizing the bids for that. We had additional meeting this week about some permitting design issues, and I think we've worked through that. So the Pro Shop itself is scheduled to be done pretty quickly. They're well ahead of schedule, and the courts itself will be going out to bid. So we still have a lot of time in regards to moving on this one. So I'd say this one's not a huge priority. We definitely need to focus on the other ones to try to get those rolling. So maybe we can put this one on the back burner until we get the dog park and the vela complex underway. Fire station number three, one of our fire chiefs is on the call as well. This is a $25,000 budget, the initial concept and discussion, there's been a lot of discussion about this. I'm not privy to all of that. So I welcome some feedback in regards to some decorative fencing that is supposed to be functional as well as decorative. The chief does have a design, and we've had some discussion with our purchasing department in regards to if we want to move forward, there is a proposal here that I can provide you that was designed by the chief, I believe, and I'll let him kind of chime in and discuss the project. First of all, thank you for allowing me to be with you today, and I am by no means any type of artist whatsoever. I can draw straight lines, but that's about it. I'm the liaison for this project for the fire station building. If you're not aware, our station three that's being rebuilt is right there on the highway if you haven't been by it lately. But phase two of the I-35 construction is going to demolish the gas station that's right in front of the fire station right now, and they're going to be adding four more lanes to that highway, which puts our fire station right on the frontage road, right in great view of I-35. It's going to be kind of a showplace for people coming into the city to see this fire station. The fence on the southeast side of the building will be facing the highway. It's a 40-foot by 20-foot L-shaped fence, and what we really envisioned was having some sort of decorative artistic fire-themed fencing around that patio area, and whether that's a core tin metal or something else, there's lots of different designs out there. But that was just something that we have seen online with pictures, what our architect has done up in Oklahoma City, what I've gathered from some other, you know, pictures that I've looked at, you know, doing Google searches. But you know, obviously artists can make art out of any type of material, and we thought, well, why not make it out of a fence? So we'd like to put that for your consideration. So the last, when the committee met last, the discussion had boiled down to I think there's some specific security requirements for the fence and design requirements for the fence. So what we did was abstract the art layer from the fence layer. So there should be a fence. The fence should have the security and design requirements that are necessary for the fire department to serve its function. Then after that, we add the artistic elements to the fence. So the art is added to the fence. So rather than make the fence the piece of art, the fence is designed and constructed, and then art is added to it. Those on the committee with me can chime in if I'm not getting that exactly right. But that was the last discussion that we had. Ed, you mean something on top the fence? I don't recall this. I recalled you wanting to have something besides the fence as the artistic expression that the bond money would get spent on. Well, we kind of discussed, you know, what we're talking about, we're talking about two different things here. We're talking about a design element and a security element that has specific requirements. And then we're trying to add, we're trying to make that into art. And those things don't really match up that well. So the fire department should create its fence per the security and design specifications that are needed for it. And then as an after the thought or after the fact, or in addition to enhance that fence, then the artistic element should be added. And did we come to that decision, Ed, based upon costs associated with both of those pieces? That if we did it as a fence with art incorporated, we would be assuming the costs for the fence that's necessary, that's functional, versus just paying for the artwork. I'm just asking as a way of being reminded of why we came to that. There's costs, I mean, for lack of a better comparison, it's oil and vinegar, right? I need to design a master lock that is secure in its function in locking the specific door, but I also want it to be a piece of art. How many things like that exist that you can think of off the top of your head that they don't? I've seen some pretty nice looking locks. I would like to add though, Ed, that this is still something that is being debated by the subcommittee, because personally, I feel like no offense to the design you just showed, sir, but I mean, like, we would get the artist to design it, but I do like the idea of having, I still like the idea that came up to us years ago of having a fence with an artistic motif in it that is functional. So I realized that this was what your idea was, but I also felt that the committee hadn't quite settled and agreed upon what you had just said, and I still strongly feel that they should be able to make a fence and not have to jump through an art circle. And if we want to go to a Dyson level of design, but we don't have the budget for that. If you're going at the Dyson level of design, yeah, you can get a vacuum that looks like a piece of art, but I don't think that's the budget that we have for this fence. So if the fence were designed in such a way that art could be applied to it, I kind of think that makes more sense. Obviously, it's open to discussion, but Ed, if I may, obviously, my drawing was just off the top of my head, you know, looking at some other things that I'd seen online. That's just an idea. Like I said, I'm not an artist, and the artist would definitely work on something like that. But my thought was that the metal would be the canvas to be able to be used to design some sort of artwork. What we have is basically three parts. We have the artistic design on the fence itself. We have the manufacturer of the metal that will actually do the cutting, and then the installer that would install the fence itself. So three parts all working together, but the artist could use the quartet metal or some other type of material on the fence as the canvas. Mr. Bates, can I ask you? Everyone sees you've already decided on the material. You've already decided on the design. We're not talking about art here. So I agree that art should definitely be a part of this as per the location and the application. But the fence is one thing, and the art that's applied to it is a different thing. They're not the same thing. Mr. Bates, do you still have the original pictures that might have been presented to the Public Art Committee, let's say, it must have been two, three, four years ago? I think they were from the architect. I do have some pictures. Are there not some that have some fence with designs on them? I sure do. I would like to still consider doing them. I feel that it's appropriate to the place, the location. I feel like it's appropriate to the need. And I mean, we can go back into our subcommittee and pull each other's hair out some more. But I'm personally very much on the side that the firemen should deserve to have the fence that, you know, that's beautiful to me. I think that's appropriate and beautiful. But that's a decision for our subcommittee, and I guess not all for us to look at right now. That's just something that can be done. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, first. That's one of the designs that I think we saw all those years ago. And I've been on this I've been on the subcommittee for a very long time, and we've gone back and forth, and we at one point had discussed having almost a fence made out of vines, you know, or something that was an artistic element. And at the point you start to incorporate security and specific, you know, requirements that are appropriate to a building, it's no longer a piece of art. So we kind of have to design. Are we designing, I'm sorry, let me finish, please. Are we designing a fence or are we designing a piece of art that functions as a barrier? Michelle and Ed, I think the other thing that would be helpful to us is to go back and look at the minutes. And I don't think it was three years ago, I think it was two. And at some point, we had reached an agreement about moving forward with this project. And if we could go back and look at those final minutes related to it would help to guide our decision making going forward. And I do think it had to do with separating the fence from the artwork. And that in part was because of the costs that we would need to absorb as the Public Arts Committee versus the costs that the fire department would need to absorb. I remember that wasn't bond money, right? But it was bond money that was already set aside for the fire department. So it's like, correct? I think so. So David, correct me if I'm incorrect, we have $25,000 for the fence and the artwork total. That's my understanding, sir. Was there a cost associated with the proposal that was done a few years ago that you're aware of? I'm not sure I was not I was not privy to that at the time. Okay. We could we could see if that down. I do believe there was a cost associated with it. And if we could find those minutes, that would help. Well let's let's say then that we'll get Jessica to put us back into a committee meeting and investigate all that stuff by the time we meet September 3, or whenever our next meeting is. Is that fair enough? We can do that. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Okay foundations of our history mural, we are staff is still working on getting final approval from Union Pacific. I think they're shorthanded they we reached out to him a couple times and they basically said please be patient, we'll get back to you as soon as possible. We have set up a online virtual community meeting for both this as well as the MLK sculpture. If you recall, we had a meeting scheduled, it was towards the middle of March, and that was right when everything shut down. So we, we obviously canceled that. So the city is working on protocols for public meetings right now. So we've we've pencil penciled this in with September 3, to get feedback from the the entire community, both on the foundations of our history mural, as well as the MLK sculpture. Once we get get that approved, then we can move forward on the design on the painting. I think Jessica had shared this with you in the past. Oh, I love it. Replicating similar to what was done over off of Bonnie Bray. There would not be anything in the middle, as you can see in this picture on the left, because of a stain, I'm sorry stains that run down from the bridge itself. The artist has made this kind of color almost look like, you know, rusted steel to try to hide that and didn't put any of the faces or specific artwork in the middle. So it's all on the wings of the underpass at Robertson. So this is his current proposal. That's breathtaking. I love it. Love it. And that that'll be used for the public meeting and then the MLK rec center we're still in the kind of the same place that we were back in March, we have a budget a little over $70,000, we're going to have that community meeting so make sure we get the input from the community before moving forward with an official contract and taking that to City Council. And then if that's all approved, hopefully we can start construction as soon as we can and get that project underway. And then the, the monument that we had talked about earlier $80,000 is the budget, I guess there needs to, I guess I'm assuming that's for everything, including the foundation and the placement any lighting that's in there. If not, maybe there needs to be some discussion and clarity on that. I haven't been involved in these specific subcommittee meetings. So Michelle, I'm not sure exactly where things are if you want to maybe just do a quick update. Well, we are meeting weekly. So for those of you who aren't on the subcommittee, we've been having weekly meetings we have I don't know what's changed since our last meeting because it's been a stressed out week, but I will tell you that we have been in contact with with different members of the Denton women's interfaith group of the fellowship. We have actually taken their input as to how they felt about the location. The top two locations we're thinking about right now are not carved in stone, but potentially either Fred Moore Park next to the expansion of the Legion building or industrial street park. We've also talked about a really exciting overarching project of how this could become the starting or terminus of a black history walk in our town, which would include the rails to trails path that has its six interpretive signs already and also include the Black History Museum that's down there by the Bayless Selby House on Carroll. And so there is a way to to consider that there is a walkable. I'm not sure if it's 100% wheelchairable like like for people with mobility issues. I think it is. I know that the entire rail trail is, but that would definitely be a priority. And we've got people on City Council who are going to help us with getting that taken care of if it's an issue. And so tying this into an even larger statement about racial diversity and unity in our community, which is super exciting. So that's where we are right now. And we will continue to update you as the months pass and we get closer to finding out if our grant got accepted and where we are starting our fundraising efforts very shortly. So we will keep you posted when that project gets to that point. Anyone else who's on the committee want to add anything? I would just add that at yesterday's meeting, we all decided that we're going to review the pre the list of pre qualified artists. Our next step for next Thursday is to have each of us to have a short list of five that we can share and deliberate with each other. Awesome. Thanks. All right. That's us. Anyone else want to make a comment on the fellowship monument or anything? All right, Gary, is it okay if we move on to the staff reports and then close up? Let me make sure that's the last one. Yes. That's the last one there. All right. Let's do it. Let's get a staff reports update on the potentially public meeting. Okay. So we have hang on, let me back up. I had to close the file, so I had to go back to it, sorry. Okay. So as of right now, so we're looking at September 3rd for the next public art committee meeting. That is the same day as the the specific public art meetings that we're having those two items. So if you want to consider a different date, that's fine. If not, we can we can stay with that, and then that meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. So we should be okay. But as of right now, project updates would be project subcommittees and artist proposals if we can get any in check by then, and then an update on the temporary art program. And then we also could provide an update on the funding for artist proposals as discussed this afternoon. Sounds excellent. Is September 3rd okay for everybody, if I'm assuming we're still going to zoom, correct? We have not heard otherwise. So zoom until further notice, I'm going to zoom till I have a vaccine in me. So okay. Can I, who else, anyone? Yeah, can I request something? I wonder if, if this is a this situation that we're dealing with, with the fact that a lot of the artists that ended up on our pre-qualified list are not actually interested in doing projects of the size that we are doing. So it just makes me wonder, in the future, if we're going to do like an open call for pre-qualified artists every year, if we should change the language of that call, or if we should have an additional question as part of the information that we asked from those artists about that kind of addresses, like, would you be interested in projects of this size, this size, and this size? So that maybe there's another kind of additional, so we're not wasting our time as much in the future. I totally agree. Georgina, you work with CAFE regularly, don't you? Georgina? Oh, I don't actually. But let me say this, that last year, Michelle Cunningham made a push and effort to host artists at GDAC so that they could learn how to use CAFE and go through that pre-qualifying process. No one showed up for that meeting. So I don't know, I don't know how old the pre-qualified list is that we currently have. It's less than a year. They are new. Jodi and I were on this, it was just a couple months ago. I'll tell you, I mean, I hear the stereotype of the starving artist, and now I'm a little surprised that people have turned us down. Alicia, I do feel like maybe if this isn't successful for us, maybe we do just go ahead and call for entries on an individual project by project basis. I know that the reason we did this was to speed up the process of getting the art done. But if it is counterproductive, maybe we go back to having, maybe we do that. You know what, Michelle, it might be worth it to go through this process that we're going through right now because we'll learn something about how artists respond. What I wanted to say in addition is that we put out calls for material art in soft as well as other exhibitions, and we get a pretty good response at GDAC like we did with the 30 under 30 exhibition. Pre-qualified artists, like RFQs like this, the artists that are applying are assuming that we'll have these like $100,000 budget projects. So maybe we do an RFQ like this for pre-qualified artists, but we only use that RFQ process for those big budget projects, whereas smaller budget projects, we do a cafe call for proposals and RFP instead. So we have both for different projects. So Michelle, if I can inject, this is not specifically on the agenda, so I don't want to get too far off target. But we do have some options, and we can circle back around with you next month. We can't still work off the pre-qualified list. We got some recent discussions with our purchasing. We can issue an RFP for a specific project if we wanted to be, this is where this sculpture is going to go. It needs to be this size and this weight, and this theme, give us your idea. Here's the budget. We can go in that direction. We also have been given clearance that we can, if we see an artist that the group prefers, we can reach out to them and have them put a proposal together. So that's a recent opportunity that we can possibly speed things up. They do want us to get into a routine of a process that we follow. So if we do the RFQ, that might be for those higher end projects for sure. But I think issuing an RFP would provide some clarity to the artist ahead of time, knowing exactly what they're getting into. And if we go on a national scale, obviously getting the art is going to be a little bit more expensive getting it here. So there might be an opportunity, maybe we focus on Texas or the Texas Sculpture Association, you know, more locally, might provide more of a budgetary opportunity for us as well. But we can definitely add that to the agenda. That's an excellent idea. We can add that to the agenda for discussion. And then hopefully we get, you know, more local Texas people involved too. Yeah, and even local. We can put that on the agenda. If that's okay with you guys. Michelle, you broke up a little bit there, I couldn't hear you. Oh, I think that's an excellent idea worth exploring. Yes. Okay. All right, so we have, as right now, four items for the agenda. Project updates, temporary art, stipend, and then kind of the selection process. Okay. And if anyone thinks of anything else, contact Gary. Or Jessica. Or Jessica. All right, does that conclude us or do we have anything else to? So that's conclude, unless there's anything else under concluding items, that's the agenda for this evening. Okay. Okay. Well, anybody have anything else to add before we sign off and start our weekends? Okay, then I will call this meeting concluded and I don't have a clock showing what time is it Gary? 416. 416. Thank you. You all stay safe. [BLANK_AUDIO]