November 30, 2021 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: Should we give Kimra a little bit more time? I guess I could start on the announcements.

[00:00:03] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think I think it's okay to start. And as long as you're okay on your aunt, Heather? Great. Okay,

[00:00:09] Chair Lisa Matichak: so, um, we'll call it order the November 30th, 2021 meeting of the council policy and procedures committee. And um, this meeting is being conducted in accordance with the city of Mountain View City Council resolution number 18618 in accordance with Assembly Bill 361. And all of us are virtual. Um, with no physical location. But there are lots of ways that members of the public can participate. And I was just going to check and see if we have any. looks like we do. Um, so obviously, folks can send email to um, the city manager at mountain view.gov, and those are forwarded to us. And people can also participate via Zoom. By clicking on the link that was provided on the agenda. And also by phone. Um, and the phone number and directions are included also on the agenda. And um, We do have some members of the public here. So we'll start with, um, a roll call. I think members. Committee

[00:01:24] Unknown Speaker: member. Here, here. Committee member Ramirez?

[00:01:30] Member Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:01:32] Unknown Speaker: And share Matachek.

[00:01:33] Chair Lisa Matichak: Yeah.

[00:01:34] Chair Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um,

[00:01:37] Chair Lisa Matichak: next item is minutes approval, and these are the minutes from June 2nd, 2021. Are there any comments or corrections to the members from committee members? I don't see any hands coming up. Are there? Is there any input from members of the public? I do see a hand. Mr. England? This is comments or input on the minutes from June 2nd, 2021. Sorry,

[00:02:05] Mr. England: I thought this was for open, so never mind. Okay, thank you. Um,

[00:02:15] Chair Lisa Matichak: Sorry. Um, usually I just cough at City Hall. Um, so if there's no. Corrections, will need a motion? Oh, sorry, Kimberly? Committee

[00:02:29] Unknown Speaker: member Hicks, I think, has her hand. Oh.

[00:02:32] Member Alison Hicks: I was just making a motion to accept the minutes as written. Thank you. So we have

[00:02:38] Chair Lisa Matichak: a motion from Council member Hicks. By snare?

[00:02:46] Member Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, chair. all 2nd the motion. I will note that I, uh, appreciate that the minutes, uh, did not include my self identification as a humorless killjoy, um, but everything else. Thank you. We could add that. Um,

[00:03:04] Chair Lisa Matichak: okay, so we'll do a roll call vote on the minutes because we have a 1st and a 2nd. Committee member Hicks. Hi. Hopefully

[00:03:19] Unknown Speaker: you heard me say, can mini member Hicks? Hmm,

[00:03:23] Member Alison Hicks: are you not hearing me? Because I'm not, I'm not muted. I said yes. I hear you. Okay. Committee

[00:03:30] Unknown Speaker: member Ramirez.

[00:03:31] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:03:32] Unknown Speaker: And Cher Matachek.

[00:03:34] Chair Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:03:35] Unknown Speaker: So

[00:03:36] Chair Lisa Matichak: that passes unanimously. And we'll move on to, um, item four, which is Or communications from the public on items that are not on the agenda. So if there's anyone who wishes to speak on items not on the agenda, if you could raise your hand, um, that would be great and you'll have 3 minutes. And we'll start with uh, Mr. England. Thank

[00:04:02] Mr. England: you, church. This is really quick. I just want to point out that the packets for these meetings are posted on the old laser fish system instead of the new one and the um, sustainability committee, same thing in the downtown committee, same thing. There might be some others, but it would be great to move all of those over to the new system so we can see everything in one place. Thanks. Thank

[00:04:26] Chair Lisa Matichak: you. That is the plan. And I don't see any other hands raised. Um, so we'll close that portion. Um, and move on to item 5 and we'll start with 5.one. Um, which is council policy, A13, city council meetings, and K2, which is council advisory bodies, some proposed changes there. I think we'll start with. Some comments from, yep, our city clerk, Heather. Good

[00:05:04] Heather: evening, everyone. That item before you this evening incorporates language into council policy A13 that adds, um, minutes of a brief summary, adds to the minutes, a brief summary of direction provided by council and item where no vote is taken. Um, the council referred this matter to the CPBC at its May 25th meeting, and only address the summary of study sessions, however, since study sessions are not the only items during which council may be asked to provide direction without a vote, staff recommends broadening the language to accommodate any such item. Additionally, at its June 22nd meeting, the council voted to amend council policy K2, as proposed by the CPPC. And during the council's deliberation added maternity leave as a qualified excuse for absence. Staff recommends refining that language to more inclusively read family leave for the birth or adoption of a child. And also recommends copying that language over to council policy A13 for consistency. So it would apply to the council as well as boards, commissions and committees. Other cleanup language is outlined in the staff report attachments, such as removing reference to specific months during which the city clerk's office would take certain steps in the advisory body recruitment process. To accommodate bodies um, that have been created by the council that don't run with the calendar year recruitment. We've also recommended removal of language requiring draft minutes to be posted with the agenda on the city's bulletin board due to space constraints. So just a few cleanup items. In conclusions, staff recommends making the changes outlined in the redlined attachments to the report and city manager McCarthy and I are available for any questions you might have. Thank you. Are

[00:06:59] Chair Lisa Matichak: there any questions from committee members? Nice mayor. Thank

[00:07:06] Member Lucas Ramirez: you, chair. Um, I, uh, would like to get a better sense of what staff considers direction. So, for instance, um, occasionally, uh, at the end of a meeting when there's an opportunity for members of the council to suggest, um, that an item be added to a future agenda, for instance, sometimes staff will say, maybe not appropriate for an agendized item, but we can do an off agenda, memo to the council. Um, if that were to occur, would that also be included in the minutes, or is that not deemed direction, and so if not necessarily included? Anytime

[00:07:50] Heather: the council comes to a conclusion by consensus, right? So I think the last time we, we had that, um, public works director, Cameron, um, stated that she would be providing something to you off agenda and that was captured in the minutes. Okay,

[00:08:08] Chair Lisa Matichak: great. Thank you. So I had a few questions. Um, I appreciate the um, proposed changes to these policies. Um, I noticed that um, In the one on the minutes. That, um, comments from others would not necessarily be included in the minutes. But I have noticed sometimes, um, during public input, it would say, the person's name, maybe what group they're representing their resident or, however, they disclose who they are. And then they spoke either in favor in opposition to. Would that be included or would that not be included? So

[00:09:01] Heather: the, if you read on in the red line version of A13, it says a record would be native names and cities of residents, assuming someone provides that information, right? Um, and the title of the subject matter that their remarks were about and support our opposition. So, um, capturing support or opposition, I'm usually looking for something very straightforward. They said they supported it or they said they opposed it. Um, you start getting into really subjective, uh, summary of what people have said if you try to interpret their comments as support or opposition. So, um, in the case of just being as accurate as possible. I usually only note that if the person has actually stated that. Okay, thanks for that clarification. Um. And

[00:09:59] Chair Lisa Matichak: let's see, those are all the questions I had. Um, council member Hicks, did you have another question? I,

[00:10:11] Member Alison Hicks: this is my 1st question. I didn't have questions before, but um, that's all right. But, um, but the questions that have come up have, um, now I do have a question. Um, I'm, I'm just, uh, and this is just more, uh, how staff operates. I've gotten curious now. Um, I assume that staff is taking more, sometimes, for example, during a study session, staff is taking more notes than would have than would appear in the minutes and then would have to legally appear in the minutes. Is that true or am I assuming incorrectly? Um,

[00:10:49] Heather: I can only speak for myself and what I'm taking down and what I'm usually taking down is, um, trying to capture the consensus of the council. Um, I would imagine that probably other staff members are are taking something a little bit more substantive than that, but I do see that city manager McCarthy has her hand raised. So, I'll let her take it. Yep. You,

[00:11:13] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: city clerk, laser, and council member hicks. So, yes, I certainly take notes personally of what is said, and I know that when we do have a study session, the staff member, typically the department head or whoever the staff person is presenting, will also be taking notes, but as the city clerk noted, we only move forward on those items that have counsel consensus of, you know, 4 or more votes, but there are certainly things that come up that may not necessarily be specifically policy related that maybe staff might be able to do as part of the item, um, but typically we're moving forward with just those, what we hear that has 4 votes or more. And that's what this, this policy would change where we would be noting that in the minutes. Okay.

[00:12:10] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, I think that in that case, we might need to tighten up a little more the way we see whether we have consensus or not. But I think that would not be, that would not be something we would address tonight. Um, you know, people, if, I, if I'm the 1st speaker, I often don't, don't check back about the things that, that council members subsequent to me, have said, that I agree with, and we kind of don't do that as formally as I might like. So I would agree to this change, but I think we have to maybe clean up how we do that at some later point. Thanks. Any

[00:12:51] Chair Lisa Matichak: other questions? Okay, um, I don't see any questions. I do have some comments, but I'm going to open it up for public input. Um, and you'll have 3 minutes and Mr. England. Thanks

[00:13:05] Mr. England: again. Um, this all sounds great to me and I just want to voice my support and just have a couple of additional comments. The, um, it's great to have the recordings of the meetings, and as Heather knows, I'm constantly barraging her with requests for recordings that I can't find. Um, But, Having the additional information in the minutes is also helpful, and I can tell sometimes that in subsequent staff reports, that what they've done is they've looked at the minutes for meetings to show the history of a particular action. And if the information is lacking in the minutes, then they might not capture that unless they were to go back and listen to the full recording, which I doubt that they would do. So I fully support all that's being suggested to add to the minutes and more of you can think of anything and all that's been discussed so far too. Thanks. Thank you. Um,

[00:13:58] Chair Lisa Matichak: anyone else from the public? So I don't see any more hands, so we'll close the public input portion. Um, and bring it back if you have comments um, from committee members. Nice mayor? Thank

[00:14:16] Member Lucas Ramirez: you, chair. So I, uh, appreciate uh, the modifications as well. Uh, I want to echo, um, the, the concern that uh, council member Hicks shared. It's, I think, part of the reason why, um, several years ago, uh, uh, then Mayor Madachek, and other members of the council, I think, had, uh, expressed a desire to see the direction that a majority of the council providing in study sessions, and, um, uh, similar circumstances reflected in the minutes, so that way, uh, we have a shared understanding of what actually will occur. Um, because, you know, we might hear a bunch of different perspectives, some of which are great, others maybe a little bit more outlandish, and at the end of the meeting, you know, there might be somebody who says, uh, does staff have directions, staff will say yes, and staff will have heard, you know, an 8th perspective, right, different from the other 7. Um, and it was. I think it got to a point where it might be frustrating when an item returns to the council and we all feel like well. You know, what I had advocated so, you know, hard for wasn't included. Uh, you know, what happened? So I think this is a starting point, um, just having that captured in the minutes. I think is really helpful, but I agree very strongly. I think, you know, it's, whether it's the mayor or the mayor's designate, uh, the city manager, the department director. Um, I don't have a strong feeling, but, um, I do think making sure that everybody is on the same page about the direction that we provide, um, you know, and some, uh, mayors may want to be a little bit more. Um, uh, did, I don't know what the right word would be, uh, did, didactic. I guess, where, you know, I heard this, is there support for this, you know, and just go through the line of every new idea that I was in, that was introduced, to make sure that we've captured every idea, and that every, uh, member of the council has been given an opportunity at least through a straw motion or something, to, um, share their support or, or, uh, opposition to an idea. At any rate. Uh, how, however we do that, I think, you know, we could probably leave at the mayor's discretion at the time, but just making sure at the, the conclusion of the meeting, we all know what staff has heard. Staff agrees that, um, you know, this is the majority will of the council and there is no surprise when an item comes back to the council in the future, because we all know what we've shared, uh, or there's a shared understanding of what the direction was. I think that's that's sort of the desired outcome here. Um, so I'm, I'm okay with the language and the policy. I think, I'm, I'm, I'm, you know, I, I feel like we'll see how successful this is over time. Um, if we have to tighten up the language later on. I'm very comfortable with that, but right now I feel like staff, has a good sense of what the coun- the council is hoping to achieve. Um, and I think, I think this is a, a good starting point. So I'm, uh, happy to move the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thanks. So,

[00:17:24] Chair Lisa Matichak: um, Council member Hicks.

[00:17:29] Member Alison Hicks: Well, I was gonna 2nd it with the same caveats that I would like to continue to work on making sure we have mechanisms to really capture, um, whether to really capture, uh, whether we've struck off all the line items that council members have mentioned, and whether we've actually gotten a straw poll or some other mechanism to see whether, you know, to see whether there is consensus on certain items, I think. particularly in like our 1st study session on something, I would like us to be able to throw out a lot of ideas, for instance, on the housing element. I heard a lot of things I thought were good, some things I didn't think I would go with. I'm sure everybody did. I would hate that it get boiled down to, you know, only one or two things we came to consensus on and throw away all the other ideas because I, I feel that that's not really the nature of an early study session. So, I think, you know, I'm seconding this, but I would like to continue to work on it. I don't want anything that's too complex and unwieldy and vague, but I don't want to, you know, lose a lot of ideas early on. Or not find consensus to things that we really have consensus for. So that's my 2nd. So I guess, um, The

[00:18:48] Chair Lisa Matichak: one thing I was thinking when it came to, um, this is. I was wondering if in the wording we should make it clear that what goes in the minutes, um, is what's the direction provided by the council majority. Um, but there are lots of other comments that staff captures. That, um, they might still take into consideration for when the topic comes back to us. Um, but I feel like what goes in the minutes should be what the council majority. As said. Um, because I think, You know, I think part of the concern was, there were so many things that previous meetings discussed, that without, Coming to an agreement on what the council majority said, um, the council didn't necessarily know what the majority direction was, and staff didn't know what the majority direction was. Um, and, you know, some council members. You know, at the end of the meeting, we're like, what what did we, you know, come away with on that? Um, which I totally understand when you cover such a broad topic. So, I guess I was thinking this should really say, uh, the direction provided by the council majority, shall be recorded. I'm wondering how my colleagues feel about that. So

[00:20:15] Member Lucas Ramirez: if that's a friendly, I'm happy to accept it. Yes. It

[00:20:21] Chair Lisa Matichak: is a friendly man. So council member Hicks would, are you supportive of that one little word edition? Sure. Thanks. and it might be in more than one location. Um, quickly trying to look through the red line version here. Is it just in one place, Heather? Okay. So on page 18. Of the of the packet. Of

[00:20:48] Heather: the Peggy, yeah, it's page 6 of 9 of A13, and where it says right there at the end of the edition, in the case of items where no vote is taken a brief summary, as stated by the mayor or the mayor's designate of direction provided by the council majority. shall be recorded. Is that what you were? That

[00:21:10] Chair Lisa Matichak: is, yep, it is, thanks. Um, okay. So if there is no other discussion or no other comments. Um. We can take a roll call vote. Except um you're on mute, Kimberly. It's so tough to remember all this. And

[00:21:36] Kimberly: we had to have that on the record. Committee member Hicks? Yes. Committee member Ramirez? Yes. And then chair Matachek. Yes. Thank

[00:21:49] Chair Lisa Matichak: you. So that passes unanimously. Thank you. Um, so then we'll move on to item 5.2, um, which is council policy, K5, public art and capital improvement program projects. And I believe. Got so many things open here on my screen. Uh, public works director, Cameron, um, is going to uh, talk about this one first. Um, thank

[00:22:17] Don Cameron: you, Teramatachek, public works director Don Cameron. I would like to introduce Ray Rodriguez, a senior project manager. Who will take you through the presentation? Good

[00:22:33] Ray Rodriguez: evening, uh, chair. and committee members. Let me pull it up. Okay. Uh, good evening. Um, So again, I'm Ray Rodriguez, the senior project manager in public works, and I'm joined by Robert Gonzalez, the principal civil engineer. Uh, but Don is also obviously available for some questions um, at the end. So I will run through this presentation quickly. Um, to start with a, you know, there's quite a few slides here, but I'm going to go through them fairly quickly. Uh, some of them I am going to just basically slide through because it's, they're going to be some that you may want to see late, so I can pull up for talking and questions, purposes. Uh, but otherwise I'm gonna go through this fairly quickly because it's very consistent with the man on the report. So to start with the recommendation. This is what we are looking for uh from uh the committee. Uh, on policy K 5. Uh, we're looking at basically 3 revision, 3 areas of revising the policy, and they apply to the, the types of projects, the threshold, and even the percent. Uh, so, so, uh, in 1987, uh, the council at that time, adopted policy K5. Uh, for public art. And it, the policy that are, you know, there's some clarifications that were needed, and the one that, uh, the clarification was at one% of the construction hard cost. Uh, would be used uh, for the calculation of the public art. And they also want to clarify that the role of the VAC and the, we'll see. Part of what originally staff wanted to do was incorporate revisions of policy K 5 with the public arts strategy that the visual arts committee is working on. Uh, they've been working on this since I think 2019. But with the Demic, uh, some of the progress was, uh, slowed and stopped and, um, and, um, they're working on that now and intend to bring, uh, a strategy to the council in early 2022. Now this strategy is part of the strategic roadmap action plan of council, council has said that they would like prior uh public art to be a priority, uh encourage more public art. Um, But because that is a little bit behind lagging just a little bit, and again, it'll come to council early 2022. Uh, we did want to get some revisions on the policy now that are applying to our cavalry pro uh cavalry improvement program. Um. So the current policy is here. I am not going to read it again. We can come back to this if you have questions on it. Uh, but the policy, what is, consists of about 5 components. And this presentation of the revisions are based on the 1st 3 um, uh, that are shown here. The 1st one, applicable, projects, the current policy, uh, calls out all major project improvement, all all major capital improvement projects. Uh, are covered. And over the years, staff is included, mostly buildings, and just recently, parks have started falling into uh, projects that have public art. Uh, but the recommendation is to really clarify in the policy, uh, more of the specifics about what types of projects. The 1st 3 bullets on this list are basically what we've been doing over the last um 25 or more years. Um, well, actually since 1987. Uh bullets 4 through 7 are really what we're adding in for just clarification. So to talk about the threshold, though, uh, in 1987, want to talk about that $1000000 and one%. Um, that was established, um, you, in 1987 based on the, the policy, you would have $10,000 a minimum, uh, budget for public art, but looking, uh, adjusting for inflation to 2021. Uh that $1000000 is equivalent to $240000000 today. Uh, and at one%, there would be a minimum budget of $24000. Um. But our recommendation. in 2021 is not necessarily to raise it to 2.4 Our recommendation is to raise 2.5 but also increase the percent to 2%. Uh, what about what the budget would cover on these projects for the artist? Uh, it is important because there are costs and and the, the artist needs to cover the materials, engineering, installation, uh, permits, transportation, everything you see here, including, um, this is how many of them make their living, so they need to have something, uh, that would, you know, feed them. So over the last few years, um, this table is showing, uh, projects that have been approved by council, since this is going back to 2013. Uh, and the top portion are projects that were approved with a one% heart budget. And the bottom portion, our most recent projects, which are the whole parks, approved with a 2%. You can actually see that the inflation that council seem to see that there's, there was a problem there and was they were approving 2% budget for these park projects. So I want to focus on the recommendation the 2021 recommendation of 150000 and the 2 now that's the low end. What happens with some of these other projects, we've, these are projects that are that are down the road. There's these are not approved projects yet. Um, but they're in the works. And you can see with these larger construction budgets. Um, that taking either one% or 2% um, there will be very healthy public art budgets. Um, and because, um, it's very challenging to fund these types of projects already. Uh, when you're talking about $100000000 or $2000000 and there are other com- competing demands for the funding sources. And so our proposal is to set a cap of $400,000. Uh, we, we are, we are, okay with the 2% but proposing a cap of $400,000 on, uh, any project. However, really over the years and even coming up in the next 5 years, the majority of the projects, uh, are either $200000000 or less. So it's, it's not affecting, um, a lot of the projects with this change. Table 2 uh this is the list of these projects that are coming up in the next uh 5 years. Um, the estimated construction budget is the column there in the middle, and then what we're showing on the right is the uh, anticipated art budget based on 2%. And so there's quite a few, uh, here, the top one being capped at $400,000. And on this table. These are all capped at 400,000, but there's quite a few projects coming up in the next few years. We did take the uh, the, um, proposed revisions to the VAC uh, earlier this month. Uh, they commented on the applicable project. Uh, they suggested that the political logic should include trails, uh, public plauses. Uh, they also, uh, commented on the $400,000 tap, on the threshold, uh, they seem to be okay with 2%. Uh, we did not get the consensus on the one. 1500000 dollars. Uh, the staff is recommending that. And finally, the next steps, uh, after tonight, your direction, uh, we will, as soon as we and you are ready, we can take this to the full council for consideration. My last slide is back to the recommendation, these 3 bullets, and I do actually have a, another slide with the exact language, but this is the recommendation that we're looking for. Um, and that concludes the presentation, and we're open to your question. Thank

[00:32:15] Chair Lisa Matichak: you very much. Are there any questions from committee members? Um. Council member Hicks. Yeah,

[00:32:30] Member Alison Hicks: I do have a couple of questions. Um, First, uh, I'm wondering how the public art strategy is gonna interact with the, um, decisions we make tonight. And I guess that that may be a vague question. Uh, more specifically, um, I'm imagining that, so with the, I'm imagining that some of the smaller, um, projects that would not be eligible for artwork may be in places that are very important in the city and that we might actually want artwork and some of them, maybe even more than in some other places. I'm also imagining that the public art strategy, maybe I'm not fully understanding it. But I'm imagining it, that it might pick out some of those places. So, I don't know. So that's basically my question, how will the public arts, will the public arts strategy pick out additional sites that are very important for art that are not related to the, um, you know, projects and the, and the dollar amount attached to those projects? Or is that not something that the public arts strategy will be doing?

[00:33:54] John Lang: Good evening, calendar, Hicks, uh, John Lang, economic mentality manager. Um, the public arts strategy is it's currently being invented and worked on by staff. Uh, I like to think of it as a stool. Um, And we'll talk about, uh, public art, that's one leg, um, and a way to implement art in the community. Another part of the store that we are working on and developing is a private side. Allocation of art. So, right now, the city only has public art, but what can we do with private art, um, private development? So getting to your point about having art and other locations, um, not just if they related to public projects. An additional component of the public art strategy is also looking at a donation policy. Um, would people like to actually donate, um, or gift art to the city and identifying where that is appropriate? And then the final leg of the stool. Um, is thinking through a desassation or decommissioning of art. Right now, we don't have a policy to deal with art that we may need to remove and what is the process to do that. So the art strategy is looking to Together the other legs of the stool. relative to the public art piece. So, one looking for more art offering. Um, where those can be located and identified through those other tools. Um, and so we think it will complement the overall public art strategy that's in front of you, uh, the seats. Okay.

[00:35:46] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. Actually, your sound was breaking up a little for me. I don't know if it was for other people. Yeah, it was. Um, I think I understood what you said. I'll assume I did. Um, uh, I'm gonna maybe ask the same question in a different way, which is that, um, that I talked to some members of the arts community that said they've, they've kind of been thinking of some smaller sites, that may, uh, merit artwork, but may not have the construction budgets, like the place may merit it, but there may be no construction going on there, such as, for example, one that I'm thinking of is on Castro and El Camino. sort of gateway park and the entrance to, um, you know, the entrance to Mountain View, one, a public art strategy might identify that as an area that deserves some art, even if there were no construction going on there. So I'm hoping that the public arts strategy would cover that, but I'm situations like that. But I'm not clear that it does. That was my question. So, I'm

[00:37:01] John Lang: hoping you can hear me a little better. A little bit. Um, I may have to jump off and I think Tiffany would be in a position to answer this, but I will, um, try it and see how all this goes. So, once again, part of what I'm solving for on the private side is much like development projects can pay in Luffy. One of the things you can do on a private side is create an and loofy. So we could actually create an budget. And do those types of smaller pieces. Um, but that would come through the private side of the, that one other leg of the stool on the iPad. So we are working on a policy, to support private development, whether it be through in lieu, or actually private size, implementing, and developing private public art, or parts made available to the public.

[00:38:10] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so I'm trying to see if I understand this, because, uh, you're saying in loop fees from private developers, and that fund could be used, anywhere that's chosen, not on private developments necessarily, but, for example, on a site like the gateway site, which is a public site. Okay. Okay, then I have a last question, which is actually somewhat related to that. Um, which is, When, uh, an art project has a particular budget, And the artwork that's selected for that space comes in under budget. What

[00:38:53] Chair Lisa Matichak: happens to the

[00:38:56] Member Alison Hicks: additional unspent money, and could it be put in what does happen now, and could it, if, could it be put in some sort of like in lieu fee related bucket, in some bucket for other projects that might go a little over, or that might be like small projects that have no budget? So the basic question is what happens to excess money that's not spent after allocated. Right.

[00:39:27] Robert Gonzalez: So Robert Gonzalez principal, civil engineer. So currently, what happens with the CIP project? So this policy is specifically related to CIP projects. So projects that these projects have a specific budget and the art is one element of the budget. So if there's a one% or a 2%, uh, project, a budget for art, and we're slightly under that. That's a small amount of the overall project budget, but it would be considered as part of the overall budget. So it may be subject to, um, uh, change orders for other reasons for the project. So we keep that in the project budget until the budget until the project is done and accepted. And at that point, uh, it looks like Director Cameron might have some clarification for me.

[00:40:16] Don Cameron: Yeah, and I also think we need to consider the process by which public art is selected and approved by counsel. There's actually an and, um, business development specialist, Chu, can jump in on this if she needs to, because she has guided so many of our CIP projects through the public art selection process. But even before we come to council for approval of plans and specs to advertise a construction project. Uh, either at that meeting or before that meeting, We've brought forward to counsel the artist and art selection for approval. And that includes the amount of money that is, um, that will need will be spent based upon their proposal. So we come in and we say, there is, you know, what, you know, before it was one% of the budget, let's say it was a $5000000 project, one% would be $50,000, and we say there's a $50,000 art budget. Here is all of, uh, the visual arts committee did all this work to solicit proposals, wait through them, and they come forward and bring to the council, uh, a recommendation. And uh, in my time here, I've yet to see a recommendation that uses less than the, um, the art budget. And so that's already precommitted. before we even go out to bid on the construction project. And there's already an agreement with the artist of how much we're going to spend and, um, you know, I've never seen the artwork be something that is time and material basis or anything else that would cause it then to come in for less. I don't know, and I can't speak to on, if on occasion we found it, rent into a few unanticipated costs. But the project if we did, the project would have just covered that through its contingency funds. So, um, I invite members, other staff members here that have more experience with this. Have you have experience anytime where we committed less than the full art budget? Good

[00:42:26] Tiffany Chu: afternoon, council members, uh, business development, Tiffany Chu. Uh, for a majority of the projects, yes, the public art projects come at the one% or the council directed budget for public art. We have had one project that has come in under budget. Um, that is the, I believe it's the, the Maura Park project that came in under budget, but I believe that has been, that was reabsorbed back into the park budget. But as when we go through the selection process, the budget is upfront and committee members, the visual arts committee selects the art with the budget in mind. Yeah,

[00:43:07] Member Alison Hicks: so that I actually talked to members of the arts community who said something like that. They rarely come in under budget, but they did also wonder if there was some incentive to not come in under budget because there's no place where that money could, could go if there were, but this may be part of not tonight's meeting, but a, you know, uh, the public arts strategy, some way of having a fund where that excess money could go. Anyway, that's not on the agenda for tonight, though. Thanks for clarifying. Thanks,

[00:43:40] Chair Lisa Matichak: uh vice mayor? Thank

[00:43:43] Member Lucas Ramirez: you, chair. I appreciate the questions from council number Hicks, because they inspired some of my own. Uh, so, uh, trying to get a better sense of how the public arts strategy will relate to, uh, council policy K5. Well, well, council policy K 5 remain distinct from the public arts strategy or will the public arts strategy basically become the, the council policy. So,

[00:44:18] Unknown Speaker: we envision uh, K5 to just be an element within the public arts strategy. So once again, there's the policy that dictates how we will do public, um, capital improvement, public art. And then the public art strategy really addresses all the elements of the private side in lieu, decommissioning of art. So it will work together. But the K5 will kind of stand alone and really provide the direction on how we're addressing capital improvement projects, um, and funding art through the CIP budget in that way. So it's just an, it's a, as I like to say, once again, it's one of the legs of the stool. Um, it doesn't make up the whole stool, it's just one leg that will wrap, will wrap the strategy around. And then elements of this strategy can also help address some of the issues. Um, that may arise in some of these capital improvement projects, for instance, the Rangstorff, um, uh, project. Um, there's art there, but it's art that's old. So how do we deal with keeping the integrity of the art that's there, or how do we maybe have to get rid of some of the art? What is the process for doing that? Making sure that we have a process to do that? That's fair and reflects the needs of the community. Um, either because of life safety issues or um, disrepair or it's too costly to maintain. So, those are going to be some of the other elements that will help inform. Um, inform the CIP public art piece. Okay,

[00:46:09] Member Lucas Ramirez: so I, I'm, I'm curious about the, there, there are, uh, I don't know if you want to call them capital improvements, but there are projects that don't quite fit neatly in any category like popas, right? So, they're parks. But we're not paying for them. Um, and it feels like a missed opportunity not to integrate public art in in Opopa. So, uh, is that something that would be covered in the public art strategy? Is that something that we might want to reference in this context because it's, it's an alternative mitigation to a capital improvement that might be eligible for public art, how, how do we think about public, public art in those kinds of content? Um,

[00:46:53] Unknown Speaker: that is a, that is a great and I think, you know, staff's initial thinking was, um, one, by able to creating, in essence, this loo in this, in lieu fund and creating kind of a fun. Um, Where, where could we start to deploy art? So I think a big part of this will also be creating kind of an inventory where we could actually have art, and deploy art. Um, art isn't necessarily gonna go everywhere. It doesn't always make sense to have art in a lot of different places. So we need to be thinking strategically. We also need to think about the maintenance of art. Um, there is a considerable amount of time that goes into maintaining art, um, and understanding what it takes to maintain the art. So, um, Those are all pieces we have been starting to vet internally. Um, but, you know, as we bring the public art strategy, this is some of the feedback we're gonna want from both the VAC, uh, from council and helping shape this and make sure we're not missing some of those pieces. Um, as we go forward. We'll certainly take the feedback tonight. In, and as we're building out the public arts strategy. Okay,

[00:48:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: and but for the time being, this is pretty nearly stoked to public capital improvement projects where we're providing the lion's share of the funding, I guess. And

[00:48:23] Cameron: and what's being brought to you tonight, as we said, is, is just focus on the capital improvement program, and the reason we're bringing it forward is, um, we've now gone to council a couple times with a project. And it has a one% art budget and we hear, wait a minute, I thought we were doing 2%. When are we going to do 2%? And, And that really came to a head with the ring store for Aquatic Center, which was based upon one%, which is the current policy. And even the visual arts committee was, uh, you know, ended up, didn't say it to staff, but said it to certain members of the council, uh, they were disappointed. They just assumed from here on out, it was going to be 2% and they wanted to do more. And based upon that, of course, you know, staff looked at it and and came up with an option that counsel considered and adopted, that added more of the art that was selected. But this is the type of thing that can really slow down a capital project. I mean, we were very fortunate to be able come up with that solution and not have to delay. Get the ring store for aquatic center and getting it out to bid. But staff, we, we really can't have that happening because it can delay projects. So we really want certainty. And knowing what our 5 year CIP calls for, and that table too, for you in that memo, it's just a sample. It's the ones we could immediately identify that would qualify for public art under what we're proposing, including optical projects. But, you know, I was looking at the unscheduled list. I know other things that are coming online, there's more parks that are going to come online. We don't yet have the CIP. So there's going to be a lot more of this. And so we decided we really do need you to consider revising the policy, for the CIPs, so that staff has clear direction as we move forward in design, with our capital projects. And then, you know, as asked. Um, the public arts strategy, which is a much broader approach to public art for the city. can then build around that and then if as part of the part of art strategy, council also wants to discuss, you know, yes, maybe, you know, by the way, I I hope you notice that on table two, the dollar amounts for art were significantly higher than we've ever shown for art, if you looked at table one. So yeah, maybe there is a possibility that you say for this particular location, maybe that's a very high investment in art. Maybe do something less. And, you know, maybe that other money could go towards another location. Those are all things that we would prefer be discussed on the part, public art strategy. Um, overall, in a larger framework, and we can adapt based upon that discussion. Uh, but by considering the, the recommendations, uh, staffs put before you tonight, it will give us direction, uh, for our current projects that are starting design. And we can work from there. Great.

[00:51:47] Member Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. That's helpful. Last question. Um, is a parking structure, a building? Would that qualify for public art?

[00:51:58] Cameron: Yes, a parking structure is a building. Okay,

[00:52:01] Member Lucas Ramirez: just checking. Thank you. Um,

[00:52:05] Cameron: and thank you. That one should have been listed the the the bar instructor. Thank you. Great

[00:52:12] Chair Lisa Matichak: question. Um, and I appreciate hearing about the, um, Public arts are the art strategy, um, I was wondering if, um, and I'm not sure I'm going to use the right terms here, so bear with me. Um, you know, sometimes when you see a large expanse of concrete, and it's, um, got, um, I would say art built into it, like a design of some kind, is that considered art or is that considered part of the project and it wouldn't take away from the art budget? Uh,

[00:52:51] Robert Gonzalez: Robert Gonzalez, principal civil engineer. So that is most likely going to always be considered art. Um, uh, particular for CIP projects. CIP projects are designed and established for a specific purpose, whether that's an aquatic center or, um, you know, when we built the MOC or community center. And the art budget was intended for that kind of external facing, um, public art. So yes.

[00:53:23] Cameron: But being public art means that it went through an artist, an art selection process, which means it's being uniquely designed for that project. I, uh, Chair Matachek, I think I know what you're thinking of. I've seen this on on sound walls and maintaining walls and it, You can see it in multiple places and it's kind of like a standard design. You know, it's just a design feature. I, that would not necessarily rise to, uh, you know, public art, if it didn't go through an art selection process where an artist was designing it and it was unique. It's not, that's the public art process that's in your policy, K5. That's how we're supposed to spend the public art. Are

[00:54:10] Chair Lisa Matichak: you thinking of like a texture? Yes,

[00:54:12] Cameron: exactly. I think she was thinking about a texture, which you, you know, how you can just select the different ones and, and, or they might have, sometimes like it's a design in it, but it's not, it's not unique, and it wasn't designed by an artist.

[00:54:27] Robert Gonzalez: So, yeah, director camera is definitely thinking of like something like a sound wall where you're picking a material that has like an uneven surface and that's going to attenuate sound. Or

[00:54:37] Chair Lisa Matichak: sometimes I would say, um, I hate to use this analogy, but like, you know, you can stamp in concrete, um, a design, um, that might be swirls and other things or it could be flowers or birds or something, but it's like stamped into the, the concrete itself. If I may take a different approach to this question, this

[00:55:00] Cameron: may help, um, our principal engineer also. K 5 policy specifies there's a process by which the public art budget is to be spent, and that is to go through the visual arts committee, to select the artist and the art. Now, when we do our in initial design phases for a capital project, one of the things we do, which helps the visual arts committee, and it's very important to make sure whatever it's done for art is feasible, is we work to select the opportunities to integrate art into the project. So, you know, depending upon the type of project it is, for instance, if it's a, it's a bike ped overcrossing, one of the great opportunities for art is how the railings are designed, right? But we do have, for instance, um, the Caltrain, uh, transit center grade, separation project. And one of the art opportunities is how you are going to handle the walls. going in and under and make something very visually appealing for the users of that undercrossing. So, um, that's an example where we would say, okay, the walls create an opportunity, and maybe there's a different opportunity also, and we take that to the visual arts committee. And that's what they work for to work up our proposals. So again, it comes back to in terms of the public art budget and how it's spent. The policy, which is relatively short, says, were to try to integrate it into the project. Where possible. And 2 where to follow the process of the visual, working with the visual arts committee, to select an artist and the art. Yeah,

[00:57:01] Chair Lisa Matichak: that's very helpful because the exact example I was thinking, you just mentioned, the transit center, um, because I do want to make sure that the, um, experience that someone has walking or biking under Central Expressway is a pleasant one. And I think art. Maybe not art through the policy, will enhance that experience on the walls. Um, but I get, you know, I feel like, hm, okay. I feel like I'm buying into everything you're saying, I think. It sounds like all the right words. So

[00:57:39] Cameron: the other thing I'd like to mention about a project like that. So there's going to be art. That is produced by an artist and in select locations. But we also intend, we've told Caltrain this. That there's also the selection of the materials outside of the art that's used. That's very important for creating the aesthetics and a very appealing place. And we'll call those design features and design enhancements. We fully expect to do that as well. And that's not part of the art budget. is part of the project budget. Okay. Okay. Can

[00:58:22] Ray Rodriguez: I give you one more example? I think that'll help you because the library. If you go to the library, we renovated a library in 2018. And I worked, that was my project. So you take a look at that glass. Take a look at the art glass there as you go into children's, right? The little door. Yes. But but also the glass, the painting on the glass. So that's equivalent to a a sound wall or retaining wall. What we did on that case was we, uh, paid a an artist for a design fee. And then use the rest of the budget to pay for the additional cost that it took to create that artwork. And it was all incorporated in the construction documents so the contractor provided it, taking the artist's design. But basically it's all integrated. Okay. And you could think of that glass wall as a retaining wall. So it's all the same thing. Mhm. It's

[00:59:26] Chair Lisa Matichak: a very attractive feature in the library. Um, okay, I think I got it now. Um, so then my question is, um, when it comes to the art strategy. Um, You know, we often have the discussion about functional art versus my favorite term, plot art. And um, in the art strategy, are we covering both of those? Like, interesting benches and interesting bike racks and integrating art into a function. Or is it just plot art? Oh, oh, it's

[01:00:10] Unknown Speaker: a great question, um, recognizing Arctics, many different forms, and, you know, we could be talking about murals. We could be talking about plop art or functional art. Really, the, the, a public art strategy is kind of encompassing of all of that and depending on where the location is and what are we trying to achieve. So it could actually achieve all those things. Um, I don't think we're looking to identify specific, very specific. It has to be this art everywhere. We want to keep it open. At the end of the day, we are looking to have, um, these, these projects, um, go through the visual arts committee and have their input and review into it. So, um, we do look to the the committee for their guidance, um, and an evaluation of that. Um, and, um, but I don't think we want to get so refined into the type of art and what it should be. I think artworks in different places. That's my opinion. Um, So, you know, recognizing, I think, want some a little bit of flexibility, um, in that. Um, but we can certainly better define that in a strategy of what, you know, we would prefer a focus on these kinds of things, um, for these types of projects. We could certainly identify language in a strategy like that. Okay. And

[01:01:46] Chair Lisa Matichak: the strategy is coming to the council before it's finalized for input? Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, thank you. This has been a very educational session. Um, appreciate it. Um, any other questions from committee members? Okay, well, open it up to public comment. Um, and um, there's 2 um, Mr. England. We'll have 3 minutes per person. Thank

[01:02:15] Mr. England: you, Truman, check. Um, yeah, I have several comments on this. This all sounds reasonable and probably kind of pro forma for something that you want to do to update your policies. But at the same time, there are competing priorities that was raised during the discussion already. And um, I'm particularly interested in active transportation and biodiversity, and the work that's forthcoming on the active transportation plan and all the CIP projects that members of the community would like to see completed in, you know, a timely manner. Some of them have been there for a long time, as Director Cameron knows and others. And Even though it's probably low risk. I just want to raise the point that we wouldn't want to see those projects compromised, you know, slowed down or anything like that because of this increase in the, um, in the art, uh, portion of the of the budget or what's funded. Probably not a big deal, but I just want to raise it. Um, And then also, uh, Remember Hicks was talking about the, you know, size of a project and the amount of art that might go in and the trails, for example, cover a larger footprint and say a small portion of land. And so the cap might not make sense if you're looking at a variety of different projects like the trails, for example. So I don't know if you want to think about that. Um, And then this is probably out of scope for this discussion, but, um, The VAC talks about public art, and I know that there's been discussion over the years about them looking at private project art too and making recommendations. So we can have a more cohesive art strategy across all projects across the entire city, not just the public location. So again, probably out of scope. I like the idea of the donations and gifts that Mr. Lang brought up. an interesting sort of angle on us. And then lastly, putting art on parking structures to me is really sending the wrong message. Like if you were putting flowers and birds on a parking structure. That's just the wrong thing. I just as soon see the parking structures be bland and, you know, they're just strictly functional. They're not something we should be proud of. And we should put our art on things that really represent. We want Matthew to stand for like trails and bike bridges and things like that. Thank you. Thank you

[01:04:38] Chair Lisa Matichak: Um, any other members of the public? I saw on hand, but now it looks like there it is. Mr. Cup. Hello?

[01:04:49] Mr. Cup: can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. So, um, nice to see y'all tonight, and this is a great discussion. I just had a couple comments. Um. I just wanted, I hope you can, you can expand the locations to include, um, like, and pedestrian paths, all of them. I'm not sure if that's clear in the language as it is. Um, or another option would be to go instead of, instead of trying to include all the locations that you want the K 5 policy to apply to. Um, you could specify exclusions and say it utilized everything else. That, that could be one way to make sure that, um, we haven't missed anything. I remember right at the, There could be something that you want or to oblige you that we haven't done it here. So, that might be one of them. Um, and I wanted to bring up a couple examples of, uh, different public agencies working with cities to bring public art to their projects. So, I got, um, an email from a San Jose, um, mobile card committee member who let me know that BK, um, Recently paid 700,000 for public art at various station in San Jose, um, which I thought was really awesome, and San Jose is also doing art and new work stations. Um, I also talked to Barbara Keegan at the water district. And they have in the past contributed to a percent per Earth. Um, for cities they've worked with on projects, and basically, she said all we have to do is ask. money is not the problem for them. It's that the artist outreach and selection is not their specialty. So that's something that, you know, as long as the city could do it, they're happy to give them money. So, All that is to say, we shouldn't limit ourselves to only city funded projects, maybe we can't require these other public bodies to contribute a percentage for, but we can at least ask. And oftentimes the answer will be yes. Um, So, that's, that was my main point. Um, Also kind of as an aside. Um, Maybe with that hard cap, a 400 K, you can make an inflation adjusted just so that it can, it can increase a little bit over time. Um, and I think, I think that 1000000 is enough if you have it at 2% for some good quality public art. Um, so recently, the visual arts committee was able to provide art for about that, now, $20,000 at, more or Jacob Park. So, if you could consider, um, lowering that minimum before change my policy kicks in to 1000000 instead of one. 5 that would probably, um, help make sure you don't miss any pocket parks or little micro projects, um, Just some, some things to consider, but thanks, thanks for listening and thanks for, uh, caring about public art. That's all. Thank you.

[01:07:42] Chair Lisa Matichak: And I don't see any other hands. Um, so we'll close public input and bring it back to the committee for any further questions or comments. Vice mayor Ramirez? Thank

[01:07:56] Member Lucas Ramirez: you, Sarah. quick question that came out of the public comment. Uh, so I am interested in better understanding, uh, major cross jurisdictional projects and uh, what comes to mind, you know, thinking about the, uh, the water district was, uh, the McKelvey Park water detention base and. So what a project like that, the eligible uh under council policy K 5 if it's, you know, for instance, the valley water led or ETA led major capital project. There's obviously city collaboration. Um, how do we handle public art in? Projects that that go beyond just the city of mountain.

[01:08:45] Cameron: So I'll start by saying that these are special cases where we would have to, you know, consider them as they come up, it's, it's not that frequent. We have a major, large project and partnership, such as McKelvey Park. Um, definitely was interested to hear uh, what the member of the public said about Valley Water being willing to contribute funding towards public art when they're doing a major project if we just ask. So we'll, we'll keep that on our radar screen. Should they be coming to town again to do another major capital project? Um, because happy to take their money and work through our art selection process. Um, we, we are going to be facing a sim- similar situation with the Bernardo undercrossing, the bike pit undercrossing. of Central Expressway and Cal, and the Caltrain tracks, as you know, that is a, it's now a, um, 3 party partnership to deliver that project, uh, VTA is providing the lion's share of the money through measure B bike ped grants, uh, towards construction. It's been selected And they're going to actually take over management of the project when it goes into final design and construction. But both Sunnyvale and Mountain View are expected to contribute to the cost of that project because it's right there on the border and portions of it will be in both cities. So, We looked at that project, we're like, we're not quite sure how K5 will apply. It's a question we will be bringing to council when it's time to commit funding from the city. For instance, we could, you know, our goal, our thoughts would be we would want Sunnyvale to be willing to go in jointly on public art. And um, then between the 2 cities, we are providing a budget. But it's going to get tricky because they may have their own public art selection process. That's different than ours. And so that's another piece that can tie us up. So we have it on our radar screen. We just thought we would, um, cross that bridge or go under that undercrossing. Uh, when we get to it and we do know it needs to be discussed because we would like to see art in there and we don't want Mountain View. You know, the construction cost is 20 million. We don't want Matt View providing 400,000 and nobody else is providing any money. Especially since Mountain View's share of the cost may only be $5000000. Okay,

[01:11:28] Member Lucas Ramirez: thank you. very helpful. I guess a quick follow-up would at least some preliminary direction now be helpful to staff or do you want to take more time and return with the recommendation down the road? I, we would, I think it

[01:11:46] Cameron: would be better if you let us return with a recommendation down the road. Um, unless you, you're not interested in us pursuing this, our, our goal would be to have a real discussion with City of Sunnybale about, we need, you know, we want public art. What's the process and agreeing that each city's going to contribute towards it. Got it. Okay, thank you. Council member Hicks. So,

[01:12:16] Member Alison Hicks: I'm, um, Almost ready to make a motion unless other people have lots of additional comments. I guess my only sort of question that's been triggered by previous discussion now is, I, I had thought that as Dawn said that we're mostly doing this to update the one% for art to 2%, for the reasons she suggested. And I'm assuming that if there are any other kind of, um, as the public art strategy rolls forward, if there are any contradictions that come about, that then this, this K, whatever. whatever it is, I've forgotten the exact label, but that this policy comes back to us at that point. So I'm not gonna worry about that too much, but tell me if I should be worrying more than I am. Um, otherwise, I would make a motion with a couple of small amendments that people have been bringing up over time. One is that, um, that to broaden the, this is the part where it says, specify the following applicable capital projects. It does say bike and pedestrian, but I thought maybe adding, At the end, it says, and new bicycle pedestrian over undercrossings, and I would add, and paths, if that's, okay. And then I also did like the, I would like the, uh, the cap of 400,000, to be adjusted for inflation, and I'm wondering if staff has a suggestion for how we might do that. Um, because that cap could become, you know, 10 years from now that that cap could look very small to us. So I don't know if there's a regular way of updating that. Um, and then I would be into doing, increase the project construction hard cost, threshold for determining applicable CIP projects to 1000000 to cover somewhat smaller projects. So those were my 3 proposed changes. And the inflation one, I'd like some suggestions on. Director

[01:14:41] Chair Lisa Matichak: Cameron, do you want me to start? Well,

[01:14:43] Cameron: if you have a suggestion, I have an idea too, so you may hear some competing things, but go ahead.

[01:14:51] Robert Gonzalez: Well, so in terms of inflation, we can certainly add that. Um, and, uh, policies, uh, are reviewed regularly, we can put this on a, on a calendar so that we look at it every 5 years, every 10 years, um, to see if inflation is appropriate. I would, I would tie both numbers, both the, the floor and the ceiling to inflation. Um, I do have concerns about lowering the lower limit from 150000000 to one million. The type of project you get between 1000000 and 1500000 are typically smaller in footprint, smaller in scope. Um, they very often have a very precise budget, and there's not a lot of room or time for staff to incorporate artwork. So I'm a little concerned that. Something like a bike path. Well, I need to be more specific about that because if it's a bike path within public right of way, and I'm putting it on Renksdorf, that's a much different project than an extension of a bike trail. So

[01:15:57] Cameron: I would like to add on, when you say path, I think trail. Uh, it's called a class one bike ped facility, which is uh, which is basically a trail that is not in the road right away. Okay,

[01:16:14] Member Alison Hicks: I'll take that off because I do see, it does say trails here.

[01:16:17] Cameron: It says trails and extensions of trails. That would be good. Um,

[01:16:23] Cameron: I would like to, um, in terms of adjusting the cap for inflation. Absolutely, but, um, I agree with him with thinking along the same terms, as principal so engineer, Gonzalez, that it would be, we would just set something that says it will be adjusted every 5 years. Uh, or something like that. We adjusting it annually will be too hard for us to keep up because, you know, we need to make the adjustment and then every project that is starting design after that works with that adjustment or, of course, it's just the big picture project. So we'll work that out. But generally, for something like this, it would be better to say you're just going to do an adjustment every certain number of years, but it will be based on occasion.

[01:17:14] Member Alison Hicks: An adjustment every 5 years based on inflation would be fine. Okay, good. And then if the, so, lowering it to one million, you know, I'd like to see what other council members think, but I would be willing to, if those seem to be projects that are that are generally too small and problematic, I would be willing to save that for the public art strategy. you know, to look at key smaller projects. You know, that would be an alternative way of doing it. Um,

[01:17:51] Chair Lisa Matichak: did you want comments from other council members on that one?

[01:17:53] Member Lucas Ramirez: I do. Vice mayor? Thank you. I'll go ahead and Um, uh, because I support it. Um, I, I'm, I'm open to, uh, some, uh, some adjustments too, but I, I feel like, um, the, uh, so sorry, I, I had, I had a question about whether we had some discretion, if, if, for instance, it's technically challenging or there are some operational impacts to, uh, incorporating a public art budget for small projects, so at the $1000000 range, for instance. The what the council has discretion to say. Maybe we're not going to incorporate public art in the context of that project, but we could put that funding aside, um, in, in a reserve for public art that could be used at another location, um, or to achieve some other purpose related to, uh, public art. Is that is that within our ability? So. I,

[01:18:57] Robert Gonzalez: I think that's a bigger question and, and, uh, uh, vitality manager link and, and can add to this. Um, it's certainly within your discretion. For example, the Ringsdorf Aquatic Center was one where you had an, where you took discretion and adjusted a specific project budget. So there could be a small project budget that is just below the $1500000 threshold. And you see that it is appropriate and you would advise, you know, you would direct staff to go ahead and incorporate art for a particular project in the same way, um, for projects that are above the 1500000 proposed threshold that are inappropriate for art or for some reason, staff recommends. It's not included. Um, I think you would probably have to set up some sort of fund. I don't believe there is a art fund citywide at this point, but maybe I'm mistaken.

[01:19:57] Cameron: I'd like, Again, we don't, we wanted to keep the policy simple and straightforward. It's much easier for for direction, but council always has the discretion to say, I, they want to do something different for that project related to public art, more or less money, that type of thing. Um, so I, I want to throw something out to you. We don't feel it needs to be in the policy, but it's the way staff thinks and we would bring it forward. The council made you aware of this. We have a project in North Bay Shore. Where staff is already actually talked to the visual arts committee about this. Where because it's for the fire station, the new training facility, um, there may be limited ability to provide public art that the public could truly enjoy, if it was part built into that project. So there was some discussion of Well, take that public art budget. And we have another project coming up in North Bay Shore that's gonna have public art, and maybe we in, we, we give it extra money, and we do more, and that's actually in Shoreline Regional Park. Where you could get more opportunities for the public to actually enjoy the art. So we we do try to think in these ways and we would bring forward those concepts after we discuss it and work it with the visual arts committee. We don't think it has to be actually laid out like that in the policy. But there's always that flexibility to say, Now here what we're doing is we're moving from one capital project to another capital project. And that's what makes this possible. And we can deliver on it. And we're going to depend upon the overall public art strategy that if it ever sets up a fund, That might start delivering art separate from our capital projects in other locations. Then that can be start discussed under the public arts strategy also. That's that's helpful.

[01:22:04] Member Lucas Ramirez: I guess I don't want to. I agree with council member Hicks. I't want to lose out on the opportunity to include public art. Um, for instance, in, in, small parks, uh, in neighborhoods that may be underserved, right? That, that might be the opportunity to get, um, some, some public art, incorporated where otherwise we might not have the, the ability. Um, so I, I'm, I'm open to, um, it sounds like there are a lot of different potential solutions. I would support keeping it at 1000000 I would support splitting the difference, you know, putting that at one. 25 or something or maybe having a minimum uh so 2% or you know 25000 or something. Um, you know, whichever is greater. Um, but, but I think capturing the spirit of the intent, which is to deliver public art in areas where we might not otherwise have an opportunity.

[01:22:59] Cameron: May I suggest um, through the chair? Although I I appreciate staffs, um, you know, and I agree with them that, uh, 1500000 would make the sense in terms of, it's not even a major capital project anymore, at 1500000 smaller than that. Keeping it at 1000000 we can work with that. Um, what, what it does mean is, um, if we have a park, one, I really will be surprised if any park project. project comes in for under 100. construction anymore. Just because of how construction prices are going up.

[01:23:40] Chair Lisa Matichak: But if we have one that comes in at one. 4 Uh,

[01:23:44] Cameron: we, we, we work with it, and if Steph has serious concerns about, the, because the project is only has a construction cost of one. 10000000 and it, it's a qualifying project. it needs to be a qualifying project. We can come to the visual arts committee and the council and say, Okay, it's only $20,000. We really don't think it'll work here, but would you like to transfer it to a different project or something like that? Um, In other words, as the public works director, I'm saying, I don't want the 1000000 versus 1500000 to be what brings you to a stop tonight.

[01:24:26] Chair Lisa Matichak: I'm gonna take a turn here. Um, I, um, agree with, um, in adjusting the cap every 5 years, and it would be for the inflation over the past 5 years. Um, and I kind of, um, had similar thoughts about leaving the, um, size of the project at 1000000 rather than increasing it to one. 5 so I appreciate that flexibility there. I guess, and maybe I read this incorrectly, but I feel like I read somewhere that there was a minimum of 30,000. What was that for? A 30? is an example

[01:25:08] Cameron: of if you raise the threshold of 1500000 is 30,000. But if you keep your threshold at one million, 2% will be 20,000.

[01:25:22] Chair Lisa Matichak: Yeah, that's what it was. Okay, thank you. So, um, I was wondering based upon, um, some comments tonight. Well, I know we don't have to put it in the policy to say, you know, council always has the discretion. Sometimes in policies, we do say, like, or alternative mitigation or something like that at counsel's discretion. And so I kind of feel like maybe I would like it. in here, in the area that talks about, Let me see if I can find it. Um, the projects that, um, The expanded list of projects. Um, Should we also add there or other projects at council's discretion? Um. Would that make sense to do? Looking at my colleagues and they are not either shaking their head up, yes or no. Any thoughts on that?

[01:26:27] Member Alison Hicks: I'm fine with it unless anyone has some objections unless anybody wants to stop us from doing something stupid, I'm fine with it.

[01:26:38] Chair Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I guess I'd like to add that as a friendly amendment to the motion. Um, just in case. Okay, so we have emotion and a second. Um, and it looks like the only 2 Well, we're leaving it at 1000000 Um, adjusting for inflation and adding the words at council discretion for the other projects. Anything else. Any other comments from staff on those? I feel like this has been a really good discussion, which I, again, I really appreciate. Okay, then we'll do a roll call vote. Committee

[01:27:20] Unknown Speaker: member hits.

[01:27:22] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:27:23] Unknown Speaker: Committee member Ramirez.

[01:27:25] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[01:27:26] Unknown Speaker: Chair Matachek.

[01:27:27] Chair Lisa Matichak: Yes. So that passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, so on to item 6. Committee staff comments, questions, or committee reports? Are there any from, oh, sorry. From committee members, uh, vice mayor?

[01:27:47] Member Lucas Ramirez: I have a request, but I'll go after Kimberly. Oh, yes, Kimberly. Oh,

[01:27:52] Unknown Speaker: Steph just had a brief comment. Thanking the committee for this year's work, and also highlighting that you do have 3 pending items that are reported of your work plan, uh, that we will carry into 2022, and that is council policy D9. Uh, council policy A10, and also council policy K2. Some modification. Dates will be coming to you in 2022. That's staff's brief comment. Thank you. Nice mayor. Thank

[01:28:22] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. So actually, you you've, uh, anticipated my, my request in many respects. Uh, because the meetings occur so infrequently, I forget what's in our work plan, and I was hoping we could include, um, in, uh, in the agenda, either a standing item or just maybe at the end of the agenda, the up, the items that are on our to-do list, uh, because it's, it's so difficult to keep track of everything, but a report at the end is fine too. I think it achieves a substantially similar purpose.

[01:28:55] Chair Lisa Matichak: I kind of like including it at the end, just so not only um, we know, but also members of the public know. Um, and they don't have to necessarily come to the meeting. If that is easy to do. Um, any other? Council member Hicks? Only,

[01:29:16] Member Alison Hicks: I agree with what's being said, but I, I would personally like you to read both not just the number of the policy, but the, um, sort of the title, the subject, because honestly, and even if you could do that now, because honestly, I have no idea what, whatever it was, K 9 or whatever these are, I have no idea what they are.

[01:29:37] Unknown Speaker: Of course. Staff would be happy to do that now if you'd like. That's great. Yes, okay. Yes. So, uh, and I think that there would be no problem. We usually do provide an update to the committee, at the end of each session, so we'll continue along that pathway. What we have coming up will be council policy D9, which is the appointee communications and performance evaluation process. There will be some modifications for human resources. Division will be our department will be wanting to make to that. There is also council policy A 10, which is the authorization to execute city contracts. and agreements and increase certain limited appropriations. There are some minor cleanup items that our finance department would like to make to that policy. Then the 3rd item is council policy K2, which is council, uh, advisory Bodies, and the council code of conduct. There will be a number of modifications. The city clerk will be bringing recommendations, uh, to align uh, with the political reform act, uh, uh, coming to you in 2022. Thank you. Okay,

[01:30:53] Chair Lisa Matichak: anything else? I don't see any hands up. Um, okay. Well, thank you everyone. I really appreciate it. Again, it's a good discussion. Um, I appreciate the progress we made on these items, and I look forward to the council saying yes. So thank you again.

[01:31:11] Unknown Speaker: The meeting's adjourned at 634.

• Next →