Attendance
Commissioners: Garrington, Bussell, Friend, Clark, Newman, Hanks (staff),
 
Absent:
 
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. 
 
Minutes: Minutes of the February 2015 meeting were approved with corrections (removal of first sentence of last paragraph on page 1)
 
North Mountain Park Utility Boxes
Garrington provided a recap of the issue, noting that the Commission had decided not to make a recommendation of any of the artist submittals for the North Mountain Park utility box painting project.  Garrington stated that she felt that the Commission needs to respond and respect the desires of the Parks Department and suggested that the Commission could do one of two things.  It could work with one of the applicants on a direct commission project or it could review and update the description of the project and re-issue an RFP and see what responses come in.  Clark noted a potential concern about the direct commission route resulting in a final product that may not be satisfactory to the Commission and being “painted into a corner”.
 
The Commission reviewed the previous submittals, discussed the site conditions and general goals of the art at this location.  Garrington moved to pursue a direct commission option with Ann DeSalvo with a second from Friend.  Newman questioned whether this was equitable to those that applied and what precedent this may be setting.  The Commission felt this was consistent with other direct commissions.  The motion passed 3-2 (Newman/Clark dissenting votes)
 
Garrington acknowledged the challenges with this issue and suggested that the next step would be to update the desired description of the intent for the space.  Friend offered to coordinate that effort including a site visit and Garrington offered to attend as well.  The Commission then discussed the utility box program in general and offered ideas for improvement to be discussed later in the agenda.
 
Welcome Sign
The Commission reviewed the final draft RFP that included small edits from Councilor Rosenthal and Garrington noted that in addition to approving the RFP, Council approved the budget request of $24,000.  Garrington suggested that the Commission discuss scheduling a joint meeting with the Historic Commission  and members of the Downtown Beautification Committee to gather input on the development of the vision statement for the project.  Newman clarified that he felt that the responsibility for the final vision is the Public Arts Commission, not a joint effort with the other committees and wanted to be sure that it was conveyed to the other groups in that manner.
 
The Commission also discussed distribution of the RFP and individual members will be compiling a list for distribution that will be finalized at the next meeting.  Hanks suggested that sign contractors might be a good group to include.  Garrington asked for that to be submitted as well.  The Commission agreed to schedule the release of the RFP for April 24, with a June 30, 2015 submittal deadline.
 
The Commission also tentatively scheduled the joint meeting with Historic for May 4^th from 3:00 to 4:30 in the Siskiyou Room and asked staff to assist in coordination and notification.
 
Theater Corridor Wall
The Commission began by noting their preferred naming of the project as the Theater Corridor wall rather than Earthly Goods, recognizing that the project isn’t sponsored by or connected with Earthly Goods.
 
The Commission discussed the RFP document and suggested several changes to address the relationship of the project to the existing stem wall.  The Commission also addressed the specific approval given for the project by the Council and included wording in the RFP to remain consistent with that approval by including that the artwork will be affixed to the stem wall.  Staff noted that this still provided flexibility as to how and where it is affixed.
 
Friend provided a document with edits to the project intent and criteria sections of the RFP with Commission discussion and acceptance of the edits.  Garrington then asked the Commission to discuss and recommend a project cost proposal to submit to Council for approval since it was previously agreed that the original project estimate of $18,000 would not achieve the desired results.  The Commission arrived at a cost of $75,000 and Clark suggested that the total could be discussed with the inclusion of an honorarium provision, which could provide more flexibility on final project costs given the variables involved such as lighting, total area to be addressed, attachment issues, etc.  The Commission agreed that such an arrangement would be worth exploring further and including in the talking points for the Council presentation.  Garrington asked Commissioners to submit any potential talking points to her to coordinate and prepare for the Council presentation.
 
 
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.