The most pressing topic was the board’s deliberation over the appropriate budget for a mural and a sculpture. Members engaged in a discussion about the distribution of funds, with some advocating for reducing the mural budget while increasing the allocation for the sculpture. There was a consensus that the mural budget might be excessive given the proposed size of the artwork. A suggestion was made to allocate between $5,000 and $7,500 for the mural, which would encompass both the artist’s fee and the cost of materials. This proposal led to a motion that was seconded and appeared to pass, establishing $7,000 as the planned budget for the mural.

The board also considered the budget for a sculpture, acknowledging its potential for greater longevity compared to a mural. Discussions included the possibility of permanent installations rather than temporary loans, with suggestions that a higher budget could be justified. The notion of setting a variable price range for sculptures was proposed, allowing artists to submit their budgetary needs rather than adhering to a fixed maximum price. However, concerns arose about the potential challenges this might present during the review process, as members might find it difficult to assess the value of submissions.

Compounding these budgetary discussions were broader logistical considerations, such as the dimensions and placement of the artworks. For the mural, specific measurements of 8 by 13 feet were mentioned, influencing the decision to adjust its budget. The board emphasized the importance of using durable materials, like aluminum panels, to ensure longevity. Similarly, discussions about the sculpture included considerations for protective measures against vandalism and the necessity of maintaining surrounding public spaces. The board underscored the need for clear budget lines separating artwork costs from installation expenses, with a focus on ensuring funds were allocated appropriately.

In addition to budgetary matters, the board addressed scheduling conflicts for future meetings, originally set for the second Wednesday of each month. Due to scheduling conflicts, the board agreed to shift meetings to the third Wednesday, settling on dates of May 21, June 18, and July 16. This decision aimed to provide consistency and alleviate planning issues for members.

Another topic was the evaluation process for submitted artworks, particularly the notion of assigning a fixed value to all submissions. The board debated whether to specify a maximum budget threshold in the call for artists, rather than a flat rate for every piece, allowing for flexibility and ensuring that artists’ valuations were considered. The practical aspects of placing sculptures in public spaces were also discussed, with suggestions for height requirements and the potential need for pedestals to protect the artworks from damage.

The board also explored the idea of convening a special meeting with an artist to discuss a watercolor painting in greater depth. This suggestion arose from the board’s desire to gain clarity on artistic choices and potential adjustments, emphasizing the importance of direct communication with the artist. Concerns about the architectural lines in the painting and its overall likeness were noted, prompting the board to consider meeting with the artist to facilitate a thorough understanding and expedite the approval process.

Towards the end of the meeting, a motion was introduced to seek council approval for the board to make minor purchases independently. This motion was supported, with a note that council review would be needed to modify financial limits established by city regulations.