Loading...
12/13/2021 - Meeting Minutes MEETING MINUTES SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE ELECTRONIC MEETING HELD MONDAY DECEMBER 13, 2021 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT Jennifer Hale, Chairperson _ Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities Kathy Davis, Committee Member Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Rob Pett, Committee Member Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney's Barbara Murphy, Committee Membe =4.,,,l,,;,Cap Comm,ith,,,a,,,a Office Anne Oliver, Committee Member / c°"geb"""'e ais`C°"""""` Renato Olmedo-Gonzalez, SLC John Kemp, Committee Member _ RP Me - Economic Development .� f � _=�1 Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering 73ate , January 10, 2022 Nelson Knight, Planning COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Steve Cornell, Committee Member "' ""' Jennifer Hale, Chairperson, welcomed everyone to the Monday, December 13, 2021 meeting. Members in attendance: Jennifer Hale,Chairperson; Rob Pett,Committee Member; Barbara Murphy,Committee Member;Anne Oliver,Committee Member; Kathy Davis, Committee Member; John Kemp, Committee Member; Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney's Office; Joan Swain, SLC Facilities; Renato Olmedo-Gonzalez, SLC Economic Development Public Art Manager; Nelson Knight, Planning; Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering Agenda Item 1: Reading of the Electronic Meeting Letter—Jennifer Hale I,Jennifer Hale, Chair of the Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use committee hereby determined that conducting public meetings at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. Due to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention social distancing requirements, I find that conducting a meeting at the anchor location constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location. In accordance with this amendment meetings will be held on an MS Teams video meeting on December 13, 2021 at 4:00 pm. For future meetings, notifications will be sent out with the minutes of the meeting and will be as determined by the level of risk at the time. Thank you for your cooperation and willingness to serve. Agenda Item 2: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for November 8, 2021 Jennifer Hale stated that it was time to review and approve minutes from November 8, 2021 and asked everyone to take a minute to review. Barbara Murphy moved to approve the meeting minutes for Monday, November 8, 2021. Jenny Hale asked if we have a second. John Kemp seconded the motion. Jenny Hale called for a vote. The committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes for November 8, 2021. Agenda Item 3: Land Acknowledgement on Allan Hauser Sculpture at the City and County Building—Renato Olmedo- Gonzalez Renato Olmedo-Gonzalez introduced himself and explained that he works at the Salt Lake City Arts Council and I'm the Public Art Program Manager for Salt Lake City. He has come to this group to talk to the Committee and gather feedback 1 and input regarding a Land acknowledgement that the City wants to add on a very prominent art piece within the City's collection that is located on the grounds of the City and County Building. The piece is a sculpture made by Allan Hauser, an indigenous artist who made a sculpture of an indigenous man making an offering of peace through a pipe. The sculpture is on the North East corner of the of the City and County Building grounds. It ended up in the City's art collection following the 2002 Olympics that took place here.Joining the Olympics there is something called a Cultural Olympiad, which is sort of like an art and cultural demonstration that occurs during the Olympics. So,this piece ended up in the Salt Lake City public art collection in 2002. It is also very prominent because many people that visit Salt Lake City, specifically the City and County building or the library across the street, may end up bumping into it and seeing it.There is currently not a plaque, so Renato came to tell the Committee a little bit about the plan for this piece and see what the Committee thinks. Renato explained that the Salt Lake City Public Art Program continually seeks ways of integrating artwork by both experienced and emerging artists into everyday life in our urban surroundings and is very proud of the work they do and wholeheartedly believe that it enhances the quality of life of everyone here. He explained that the Public Art Program is committed to understanding and recognizing that Salt Lake City is located on the traditional territory of indigenous nations. In this case it's Shoshone, Paiute, Goshute and the Ute peoples and it is also home to many other diverse indigenous populations and people from all over the world. A land acknowledgement is typically something heard at the opening of a public event, wherein an acknowledgement is presented stating that the event is taking place on traditional unceded indigenous lands. Given that the Public Art Program places physical artworks throughout Salt Lake City, the Public Art Program believes it's the right thing to do.The best thing to do is to include a form of land acknowledgement on the plaques that accompany each work of art throughout the city. Renato explained this kind of acknowledgement and belief in the power of public art be an evocative entry point into this type of conversation and will help restore visibility to our indigenous communities here in Salt Lake City, create a greater sense of place and belonging, and it will spark a dialogue about the legacy of colonialism and our shared path forward. We accompany every single one of our public art installations throughout the city with a plaque. This plaque is informative and may offer some didactic information, but it primarily serves for people to know what they're looking at. So at least you're going to get an artist name and the title of the piece. Some of our public art plaques throughout the city, include a QR code linking it to the website or links to video if we have a video about it. In some cases, they may offer some didactic information or information about how the art piece was made. With this piece, 'May We Have Peace' we have initiated conversations on how to include a land acknowledgement in our public art collection and for pieces going forward. We currently do not do this so we thought that Allan Houser's 'May We Have Peace' sculpture would be a good place for us to begin this work. It is made by indigenous artist and it is located on the grounds of the City and County Building. We need a plaque for it and it's a highly visible sculpture within our art collection. Renato explained that the Public Art Program has sought consent from the artists estate in incorporating a land acknowledgement for this future plaque and is asking for the committee's feedback on this piece of art as they begin placing land acknowledgements on plaques going forward. It wouldn't be done in a one fell swoop but would do it as need for new plaques arises and as new artwork is created. We seek your feedback, input, and approval on us doing this and we want to start with Allen Hauser's piece. One thing to note here is that the Public Art Program wants to expand its work, and this starts the conversation.The Public Art Program still needs to talk to the PNUT Board but wanted to talk with this Committee and see what it thinks of the path forward because this will open the conversation, and it will serve as guidance into how we this work can be done in the rest of our collection. This Committee's feedback and input will help inform how the Art Program can successfully implement this type of work. Renato explained the next slide is his presentation is pretty much what has been prepared for the for this piece. 2 The slide shows some depiction of what the artwork is and how it ended up in the City's collection.The first paragraph is the story of this artwork and how it was brought here during the Olympics. There is a brief biography of Alan Hauser's work and how his last name was changed from an indigenous native name, which refers to the sound of and feeling of uprooting a plant, to Hauser. It includes some history about how he taught art, including here at an indigenous boarding school and Brigham City. We have an acknowledgement of the vast legacy of his work, which includes navigating the inheritance of state violence against his tribe and the ongoing marginalization of indigenous Native Americans.The hope is that this is something that can be done on all plaques throughout the city.This artwork like all of Salt Lake City is located on tribal land unceded from the Shoshoni, Paiute, Goshute, and Ute people. We honor their memory and continued presence physically and spiritually. Renato suggested this is pretty much sums up his presentation today and asked if anyone has any questions or if the Committee thinks this is a good idea or bad idea. Renato noted the Art Program has sought input from the community outreach office at the Salt Lake City's Mayor's office and we are going to be presenting to the PNUT Board. The Public Art Program places a lot of works in parks and public lands and want to do this throughout the City,therefore, this Committee's feedback and input, as stewards of the City and County Building and the grounds,will be of great value. Renato noted that Jim Cleland was kind enough to send him some guidelines, particularly referring to this piece and the plaque and it appeared there was no conflicting information about not being able to do this, so the idea is to open the conversation with the Committee. Robert Pett and Kathy Davis stated that there was a lot of text for the plaque and asked Renato if they had sketched out the plaque to see if the font would be legible. Renato acknowledged the plaque is quite big and suggested that right by the sculpture on the side there is a huge concrete rock slab that the plaque will go on top of. The Public Arts Program felt good about this plaque but could investigate revising and summarizing some of the information to put on it. Once the Public Art Program has this Committee's approval as well as the PNUT board approval, it will want to proceed and hash the details out. Barbara Murphy asked for a mockup drawing of where the plaque would go and its size. Renato suggested he would try to do that with photographs so the Committee can see where it goes and see what the plaque will look like in the end. Then he could come back to the group and run it by the Committee so this Committee can have a final say before the Public Art Program hits the "ok" button. Kathy Davis asked if Allan Hauser's estate had consented to the text. Renato replied,we reached out to Mister Hauser's estate.They had some feedback on the way we talked about his work and his legacy,so we've included that in this text. Jim Cleland asked how ongoing maintenance would be funded for the plaque. Renato replied,the plaque will be paid for through Public Art funds and it will be durable and constructed to be outside so it will last for a long time. Renato suggested he does ask his colleagues in the City that if there is anything related to public art in the city that needs maintenance or upkeep to let the Public Art Program know as it now has a maintenance fund and are now able to take care of some of those issues more appropriately than in the past. Barbara Murphy asked if the plaque would be vertical or laying flat on the ground. Renato responded that the concrete slab is at an angle but towards the ground, so to read the plaque you must look down. Sean Fyfe asked what material the plaque would be made of. Renato responded that it would likely be cast metal, but he would have more information on the material as well as sketches on the next visit with the Committee. 3 John Kemp asked what the purpose of the land acknowledgement is and if it is to acknowledge that the area was at one- point tribal land. Renato responded that this was correct and that given the piece, it's context, its provenance, and who made it, it would be a good place to start adding land acknowledgements. Anne Oliver stated that it was out of the purview of the Committee to sign off on the language used on the plaque and asked if approvals had been received to use the language in the plaque. Renato explained the Public Art Program people are going through this even as we speak. This Committee is part of that process and part of developing the policy. The end goal is to set up policy, at least when it comes to public art, in which we can say our works in public property in Salt Lake City,will have this land acknowledgement or will acknowledge indigenous communities in one way or another.That's the end goal, but it is literally starting with this Committee and will move forward from here. Renato suggested he has had internal conversations with colleagues throughout the city, at the mayor 's office and the Arts Council but this is just the starting point of this work. Nelson Knight explained that he works in the planning office and is on the staff for the Historic Landmark Commission and technically the Public Art Program will need approval from the Commission or administrative approval from the Planning office because this is a landmark site. Nelson expressed that he would love to do that administrative approval because he was the staff member who took the proposed sculpture to the Historic Landmark Commission when it was purchased after the Olympics. It would really be an honor to be the bureaucrat to sign off on the plaque. Robert Pett asked if the sculpture is accessible to those who are unable to visit the site. Renato responded that there is a public art website at saltlakepublicart.org where the public can view objects by artists. Art objects can be viewed through a map, or they can be viewed by district.There is also an Instagram account, on which Renato noted he just did a post on for indigenous people's day in November. Part of the Public Art Program's job is to steward the collection and to steward the works of art, much like the Committee does with City and County Building and its grounds. It's part of the Art Program's ongoing job to promote it. Renato explained he has spoken with Ashley Cleveland at the mayor's office about an upcoming event in May with indigenous communities and it is his internal goal that everything will work out by the time May arrives so when those people are visiting the City and County Building the plaque is there. Agenda Item 4: Committee Training—Open Meetings Act—Jaysen Oldroyd We have a statutory obligation for the committee to receive training once a year, so this is the meeting where we are going to be doing that. Essentially what will be discussing is the Open Meetings Act. Meetings generally need to be public, unless there's a good reason to close them.There's a definition of a meeting, which is that it constitutes a convening of at least a quorum of the committee for the purpose of discussing or acting upon something that falls inside the purview of the committee's responsibilities. If you have chance social gatherings or If there's less than a quorum that wouldn't technically constitute a meeting and it wouldn't trigger these requirements. Regarding the meetings themselves, one of the things we need to do is we need to make sure that we give adequate notice to the public of the meeting and what we will be discussing at the meeting. We need to provide a 24-hour public notice that includes an agenda,the date, the time, and the place of the meeting. Typically, what we would do is we would post the notice of this meeting at the principal office of the committee, on the Utah Public Notice website, and provide a copy of it to either a newspaper of general circulation or to a local media correspondent. If we're doing an emergency meeting, to hold the emergency meeting we just need to try to give the best notice practicable. We need to try to contact all the committee members and majority of the committee members need to vote to approve holding the meeting, so if there's something that comes up that is an emergency or a crisis,we can meet with less notice, but we need to make a good faith effort to reach everyone and get a positive response to holding the meeting. 4 Regarding the notice that we provide and what the agenda has on it; we need to make sure that the notice is sufficient to provide reasonable notice and specificity about the topics being considered at the meeting. Anyone who looks at our notice or our agenda should be able to determine whether there's something we'll be doing that they have an interest in. If something comes up that is not on the agenda, we can't take any action on it unless it's listed under an agenda item or included in the advanced public notice. If the public does bring something up if a member of the public is present.At the discretion of the chair,we could discuss that item, but we couldn't vote on it or take any official action until it had been on a subsequent agenda and had been properly noticed or actions take place, so the general rule, we're operating under is that the meeting is open to the public. Robert Pett asked if the notice had to state that an action would be taken? Jaysen Oldroyd responded that it does not necessarily need to state that. It needs to identify the topic that's being considered.Typically, our notices say something to the effect of we will be reviewing or discussing a particular item but does not necessarily need to say an action will be taken, although it certainly could indicate that that is something that is a possibility. There are only a few reasons for which we can close the meeting. We do have occasional circumstances where that's the case here, I believe, although I think they're rare. We can close a meeting to discuss the character, professional competence, and physical or mental health of an individual. We can close it for a strategy session, to discuss collective bargaining, to discuss pending or reasonably eminent litigation, or to discuss the purchase or sale of a parcel of real property. We can also close meetings to discuss the deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems or investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. Most of that list typically wouldn't apply to this body, but some of those may. I could see circumstances where we would be discussing the deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems.You can also close the meeting to receive legal advice from your legal counsel, so that's something that crops up occasionally, if you want to close the meeting. There is a specific procedure for closing the meeting. We would start with an open meeting that would need to be in session with a quorum present and at least 2/3 of the of the committee would need to vote to close the meeting. The meeting could only be closed for one of those reasons we discussed previously, and there need to be an announcement made and entered on the minutes that way.They include the reasons for closing the meeting, the location of the meeting that would be held, and the vote by name of each committee member either for or against closing the meeting. Once we do that,then we can go ahead and hold the closed meeting. Regarding the records of the meetings, we need to keep records of both the open and closed meetings with a few exceptions being in place for closed meetings. For an open meeting, we keep both written minutes and the recording unless we are doing a site visit or on a traveling tour. In those instances, we can either use written minutes or a recording and that's sufficient. If we only have one of the two methods of recording the meeting taking place, we can't take any vote or action on an item. So, if we do a traveling tour the only way we can vote while we're out on the traveling tour is to have both written minutes and the recording being kept. In those cases, it is probably easiest for us to go ahead and come back and have both the written minutes and the recording going before we take any official action. When we do our traveling tours, we often have a recording going on. I think it's usually with a little personal recorder as we go, and I think my recollection is that it can often be hard to catch everyone's comments in that type of a scenario because of distance and the ambient noise. If we are keeping both, we can go ahead and we can take the action.The recording and the written minutes need to include the date time and place of the meeting,the names of all the committee members who are present, and those who are absent.The substance or the general idea of the matters proposed or discussed by the committee a record by individual committee member of each vote that is taken.The name of anyone who's not a committee member who provides comments or questions during the meeting and the substance of those comments that are provided. Also, if you have anything that you want to make sure makes it into the minutes, you can make a request that something be specifically identified and entered into the minutes as we're talking through everything. 5 The recording itself needs to be a complete and unedited record of all the open portions of the entire meeting and it should be properly labeled with the date time and place of the meeting.The official record of the meeting is the written minutes, rather than the recorded copy of the meeting. We do need to approve the minutes and we've got some time frames for doing so.Within 3 days of holding the meeting we need to make the recording available or within a reasonable time after we hold the meeting. We need to make the pending minutes available.Those would include the unapproved or not final version but those would be available to the public. Once we have approved the minutes we would then, within 3 business days, make those approved minutes available to the public.The written minutes are retained permanently under our retention schedule. Recordings are maintained for at least 3 years. All that deals with open meetings. For closed meetings,the rules are similar, but just a little bit different.When we close the meeting, we keep a recording of the closed meeting and we have the option to keep written minutes as well.They would disclose the contents of the meetings so the recording and any minutes of the closed meetings need to include the date time and place of the meeting,the names of the committee members present and absent and the names of everyone else present unless the disclosure would infringe upon with the confidentiality if it's necessary to fulfill the purpose for closing the meeting. In a closed meeting,there are two circumstances where we don't need to keep any recording or minutes.Those are if we're discussing the character, professional competence, or the health of an individual or if we are discussing the deployment of security personnel devices or systems. In those cases, we don't need to keep any records. We just need to have the chair sign a statement swearing that the only thing we did in that closed meeting was discuss those topics. If we're doing a closed meeting,then the written minutes and the recording must be retained permanently if we keep both. If we only do the recording,then only the recording would need to be retained permanently. We have the option as part of this committee to do electronic meetings, such as what we're doing now. We have the necessary ordinances in place to do so. When we have an electronic meeting, in addition to the other notice provisions, we need to include notice that it could be an electronic meeting and indicate how people can be connected to that meeting. The open meetings act does not prohibit a committee member from transmitting an electronic message like an email, an instant message, or a text to other committee members during the meeting. However, please be aware that any of these electronic communications could be subject to GRAMA. If there is a GRAMA request those may need to be disclosed. So,you are not prohibited from sending them but be careful with what you send recognizing it may be a public record. The open public meetings act does not prohibit the removal of a person from a meeting if the person willfully disrupts the meeting to the extent that the orderly conduct of the meeting is compromised. I don't think we've had to do that personally but over the past several years I know there have been various instances in which there were disruptive activities taking place in meetings and that particular provision has come into play. Regarding the consequences of violating open meetings law, any action that is taken by this committee in violation of the open public meetings act is voidable by accord, but the lawsuit to void that action must be started within 90 days after the date on which the action is taken. So, it's a short window in which the actions of the of the committee could be challenged. A committee member who knowingly and intentionally violates or advises the violation of the open public meetings act could be found guilty of a Class B misdemeanor so we would strongly encourage everyone to avoid knowingly and intentionally violating the Open Public Meetings Act. Agenda Item 5: Update on the Interior and Exterior Repairs—Sean Fyfe The Stair repair piece of the project is getting really close to completion.The stone has all been repaired and set, and the caulking is all in place. The only piece that really remains are the expansion joints.They are formed and put in place currently, but their unfinished, at the moment, and we have been waiting for what we call a texture sample which we 6 have apparently received as of late last week. Nathan Johnson from my office will be scheduling a meeting on site with Rob, GSBS, and others to review the texture sample along with the color sample. We hope that shortly after that meeting our contractor can get the expansion joints to the powder coater to get their final finish and then we will reinstall those after they're finished. One item that is remaining is we need to do a final inspection of the stair repairs. Nathan is going to set up that meeting as well. We will just walk it and make sure everything is complete per the plans and specs. The other item, as you are all aware, is the contract with GSBS. Believe it or not,that's finally recorded. It took a lot longer than I expected, but we had that under contract. We issued them notice to proceed on November 19th I believe, and so they are working on the project.They're actively visiting the site now and were last week and will do so this week. We are in what we call the due diligence phase of the project. Some highlighted scope there is they are going to hire a drone operator to video the entire exterior of the building. We haven't really taken a real close look at if there is any earthquake damage to the exterior stone, other than what we could see from the ground. We haven't observed anything yet other than what we've repaired at the stairs, so GSBS is going to be using spotting scopes along with the drone footage to see if they can identify any earthquake related damage to the stone. In addition to that, GSBS's mechanical and electrical engineers have crawled in the basement to observe if there is any damage to the infrastructure there related to the mechanical system, electrical system, or the plumbing. They've crawled that space and we expect to see a report in the next few weeks from them about any needed repairs to that part of the building. In a similar vein,the structural engineer will also be crawling into that basement area looking for any potential earthquake related damage that we haven't observed already. Part of that effort is to take one of the base isolators out and ship it to California and do a performance test. We took out a couple of the base isolators and had them tested in California about 10 years ago. On the previous test the base isolators impressed everyone on how well they performed and I'm hoping we'll see a similar performance this go around. Part of the what the structural engineer are going to look for when they're in the basement is any visible damage to a base isolator. We don't anticipate anything, but they are going to look for us. During the due diligence phase, we are going to start talking about phasing for construction. We are going to be meeting with Department heads that occupy the building to start trying to form a plan about how we're going to phase the repair effort. We're not going to just consume the entire building at once and try to do the repairs at once. It's going to be a phased approach, either by level or part of a particular level, so that is something we will be developing. We anticipate the report from the due diligence and preliminary idea on phasing to be completed by the end of January, based on our current contract. From there GSBS will start developing a design package.That will take quite a while for all the trades involved. We anticipate that effort to be completed at the end of July with the hope that we can advertise at that point for construction from a general contractor.The hope is to get them under contract at the beginning of October and have the repair projects start at the site at that time. Currently we are assuming the repair projects will take about a year, but we're going to refine that as we develop our phasing plan.The phasing plan will impact the duration of construction. Robert Pett added, I was over at a meeting with the Building Department today and I noticed that GSBS was on site. They are walking the building and recording damage so they're in there currently.They also had the local structural engineers on site today and the seismic engineers from California will be on site tomorrow to go through and review all the isolators. Sean continued, I imagine there will be periodic updates and we may invite the consultant to one of these meetings when we have a better idea of how we're going to approach some of these repairs. Rob has been very accessible and will continue to be so for the project on behalf of the committee, which is of course, greatly appreciated Rob. I feel good about our team right now and it's nice to have a target for when we're going to start construction. I know the mayor 's very anxious to get these repairs completed so we have it on the schedule now, which is a nice thing. Jenny Hale suggested this is everything for this meeting and asked if someone wanted to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. 7 Barbara Murphy moved to adjourn the meeting. Jenny Hale thanks Barbara and asks if we have a second. Kathy Davis seconded the motion. Jenny Hale thanked Kathy and asked for a vote to adjourn. The Committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting. Jenny Hale thanked everyone for coming. 8