Approved Minutes — original pdf

Approved Minutes

EMMA S. BARRIENTOS MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER REGULAR MEETING ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES Wednesday, March 2, 2022 The Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Advisory Board convened via in person and video conferencing. Board Members in Attendance: David Goujon, Chair Art Navarro, Vice Chair Gerardo Gandy, Member Ricardo Maga Rojas, Member Tomas Salas, Member Endi Silva, Member Board Members Absent: Wayne Lopes, Member Staff in Attendance: Laura Esparza, PARD Division Manager Michelle Rojas, ESB-MACC Manager Olivia Tamzarian, ESB-MACC Supervisor CALL TO ORDER: Chair Goujon called the Board Meeting to order at 6:05pm. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Larry Amado spoke about the past year’s citizens communication regarding setting up meetings for the community for Phase 2. He mentioned asking for meetings for musicians group and that meeting was never organized. He feels like there has been a lack of meetings available for the community. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (AGENDA ITEM 1) A) JANUARY 26, 2022 B) FEBRUARY 2, 2022 Member Ricardo Maga Rojas made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Vice Chair Art Navarro seconded the motion. Vote passed. (6.0) 2. CHAIR REPORT (AGENDA ITEM 2) A) THE CHAIR WILL BRIEF THE BOARD AND ENCOURAGE BOARD DIALOGUE ON AGENDA ITEMS Chair David Goujon states appreciation for the comments made in the previous meeting and asked for people to continue to share comments. 1 3. STAFF BRIEFINGS (AGENDA ITEM 3) A) STAFF REPORT ON ESB-MACC PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS ESB-MACC Supervisor Olivia Tamzarian provided the staff report, which included an overview of the current exhibitions, Education camps, Caminos, the Latino Artist Access Program, and the MACCnifico special event. Vice Chair Navarro asked about scholarships and demographics. Manager Rojas replied that only certain questions were asked at the time of registration and racial / ethnic backgrounds was not one of them. Navarro congratulated and thanked staff for producing and promoting MACCnifico. He also asked further details about the Crystal City play reading produced by UT. Chair Goujon asked for clarification on the LAAP’s contracts. Manager Rojas mentioned that LAAP contract was extended for a third year and have been working with the LAAP artists to find alternate locations for them during the construction period such as at other cultural centers or recreation centers. She mentioned that they have also been encouraged to apply for the artist access program which will guarantee them a spot at another cultural site. Chair Goujon asked if volunteers will be needed for MACCnifico. Manager Rojas responded that volunteers are always needed for events and informed the Chair that volunteers could sign up on GivePulse. Goujon mentioned that he would be signing up to volunteer. He also inquired about where the performances would be held and how many people were expected. Rojas responded that all performances would be outside and that about 1200 people were expected each day. Vice Chair Navarro asked about the MACCnifico staging configuration. Manager Rojas responded that the stage would be set up facing the north side of the Zocalo so the sound would not interfere with the neighboring developments. Discussion was had about the where the stage came from and whether the MACC owned. Rojas mentioned that equipment rentals were also really scarce during that time frame due to SXSW events. 4. NEW BUSINESS (AGENDA ITEM 4) A) DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY23 Ana Maciel inquired about the budget and what it included. She mentioned signing up to attend the Austin Music Commission meeting to continue advocating for the Music Hub and asked the board members to also attend the music commission meeting. She said she supports a music residency program and prefers a third party entity to run the program. She stated that staff need to be clear about what the needs of the community are. Vice Chair Navarro asked when the Music Commission meeting was scheduled. Maciel mentioned that it was the following Monday. She also mentioned that there are 16.8 million in funding. Navarro inquired about the status of the RFP. She mentioned the creation of the Austin Economic Development Corporation (AEDC). She also mentioned that Teresa Alvarez was hired as director. Chair Goujon mentioned that he applied and was accepted to 2 be part of the cultural trust committee. He mentioned the efforts of creating music hubs not just at the MACC. Chair Goujon inquired from staff what recommendations they were interested in making. He mentioned last year’s request for a replacement golf cart for maintenance of the grounds. Manager Rojas mention that the all-terrain vehicle had been received and purchased. Division Manger Esparza mentioned that the $100,000 to develop the Music Hub program should also be included in the recommendation. The recording studio program needs to be set to achieve its purpose to serve the musicians that it is intended to serve. She also mentioned the lack of funding for the build out of the shell space and the equipment. Esparza mentioned that the AEDC would make decisions in June. She mentioned the funding would support a very meaningful engagement with Austin Latino musicians to be part of the program. There was discussion on the timeline of the budget process. Goujon mentioned that this item would continue as a recommendation for FY23. Goujon recounted the previous recommendations that included hiring of all vacant positions. Manager Rojas mentioned that there are still two vacancies and after reclassifying those positions, there are still plans to hire them this fiscal year and funding was included in the MACC’s budget so there wasn’t a need to include it this year. There wasn’t a need to continue with this recommendation for FY23 budget. Goujon also mentioned that for FY22 there was also a request to make long standing temp employees permanent. Manager Rojas explained that it was not funded last year there was a proposal for FY23 to add one full time position that could be filled by long standing temp employees. Vice Chair Navarro asked that if funding for signature events was also included. Chair Goujon asked about the MACC’s overall budget for FY23. Manager Rojas responded that there was no indications of any cuts to the existing MACC budget. Manager Rojas mentioned that programs and signature events would continue to be held at alternate locations so the existing MACC staff would continue to work, they would just be located at alternate sites. Discussion ensued about the need to recommend that the positions continue to be funded and Esparza mentioned having received approval from PARD director McNeeley that MACC staff were approved to work off site or teleworking. Vice Chair Navarro asked if MACCnifico would be a recurring event. Manger Rojas mentioned that yes there was a plan to continue MACCnifico as a MACC signature event. Chair Goujon summarized that the budget recommendation would be $100,000 for music hub planning and to convert long-standing part-time employees to full time employees. Vice Chair Navarro motioned to approve the budget recommendations. Commissioner Maga Rojas Seconded. Vote passed (6.0) B) DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PHASE 2 SHELL SPACE FUNDING Chair Goujon recounted what shell space is and proposed a recommendation to explore general fund funding to finish out the shell spaces. Vice Chair Navarro asked if there was an amount that needed to be specified 3 Esparza mentioned that this recommendation was also done by the Asian American Quality of Life Commission. They recommended that City Council fund the finish out of all shell spaces. Goujon made a motion that City Council fund the finish out of all shell spaces. Member Silva seconded. Vote Passed (6.0) C) DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON MACC ART RELOCATION AND PLANNING FOR PHASE 2 Chair Goujon mentioned that this item was on the agenda to ensure that all the artists are kept up to date and informed of any changes to their artwork. That they don’t learn or hear about changes to their artwork being made without their knowledge. Chair Goujon made a motion that the Phase 2 planning team inform any artist with current installations of any potential relocation of their art. Discussion ensued about budget needs. Member Salas seconded. Vote Passed (6.0) D) DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDING FOR PHASE 2 Chair Goujon mentioned the potential to tap into parkland dedication funding for Phase 2. Member Silva asked if this type of funding had been requested in the past for other projects. Esparza mentioned that she did not recall. She also informed the board that Director Kimberley McNeely had already committed Parkland dedication funds to the CIP project. Goujon thanked Director McNeely for helping to identify the potential for funding of Phase 2. Member Maga Rojas inquired about how the parkland dedication funds assist the project. Esparza mentioned that the initial cost estimate came over budget and the parkland dedication funding would be used to cover that gap. 5. OLD BUSINESS (AGENDA ITEM 5) A) DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PHASE 2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Ana Maciel spoke with regards to her not being in support with the engagement process for Phase 2. She wanted to go on record stating that she does not approve the process that the Chair provided to the community. Member Maga Rojas asked to clarify how Chair Goujon was at all involved with the selection of the architects and to clarify what she meant by her statements. Maciel then continued with how important this project is to the community and how she felt that the community was not heard or recognized during the community engagement process. More discussion ensued on the role the board plays in giving feedback and on the community engagement process. Larry Amaro spoke with regards to the schematic design and mentioned that he had asked for choices and presented his own design. He showed his own plan where he discussed placement of various activities throughout the MACC property. Chair Goujon recounted the issues with the community engagement process. He stated that success is determined by a meaningful community engagement process, and he felt it had not been achieved. He asked that the project team prioritize from here on out the engagement process. Discussion ensued on possible recommendations. Navarro stated that he was prepared to approve the Phase 2 schematic design but wanted to include caveats that recognized how problematic the community engagement process had 4 been. Member Maga Rojas echoed Vice Chair Navarro’s sentiments and would like to see a more broken-down community engagement process for design development. Heidi Tse recounted the plans for community engagement outreach for the design development phase. She explained the Community Communications Forum (CCF) and mentioned that this group of individuals were being formed into a monthly group made of up 12 members of the community to represent and take back information to their respective communities. This group would meet for the next 2 years through substantial completion. The list of proposed members had been provided by PARD staff, previous consultant, and previous participants of engagement meetings. Discussion ensued on the timeline of the CCF. Vice Chair Navarro inquired about the members that had been selected for the CCF and proposed recommending members to serve on the CCF. Member Salas discussed the need to be cautious about the members that were possibly going to be recommended for membership into the CCF. He also reminded everyone that everyone involved are part of the community and it is not just those that live in east Austin. He said that the Mexican American community is spread-out all-over Austin. He feels that it is impossible to cover everything that the community has asked for and wants the project to move forward. Member Silva went on record saying that she understands the issues with community engagement and was disappointed that the names of the members of the CCF were not discussed with the board ahead of time. She mentioned wanting to receive a digest or feedback loop about what is happening in the CCF meetings. Member Maga Rojas commented that he would like to see diverse representation on the CCF. Tse mentioned that the members did include a diverse group and could also include a board member. Chair Goujon engaged in discussion back and forth with Tse with regards to the CCF. Discussion ensued on the recommendations that would be made along with the approval of the Phase 2 Schematic Design. Vice Chair Navarro proposed adding Larry Amaro, Leonard Davila, and Anna Maciel be added to the CCF list. Member Salas mentioned that he felt that the three individuals represented the same special interest group and proposed only adding one of them to the group. More discussion was had about who could nominate members to the CCF. Discussion ensued on whether the board had authority to approve the members of the CCF. Goujon responded that the board could make recommendations. Goujon motioned to support Schematic Design with the following conditions, 1. The role of the Advisory Board be leveraged for improved community communications. 2. Feedback on any surveys completed from Schematic Design be shared with the Advisory Board. 3. A monthly digest of CCF be presented to the board as it progresses. 4. Advisory Board have input and oversight of the CCF participants through the life of the group. 5. The CCF participant list is to be originated by the Advisory Board in collaboration with the project team. 5  Seconded by Member Gandy. Vote Passed (6.0) Chair Goujon asked Tse about the current budget figures for Phase 2. Tse responded that the most recent cost estimate was 17 percent over budget and were just recently informed of the additional Parkland Dedication funds that could cover the additional expenses. Chair Goujon inquired about the estimates for the build out of the shell spaces. Tse responded that she would get back to the board. Goujon inquired about what actions were being taken to reduce the overages on the budget. Tse responded that the project team had had several meetings with the MACC staff about areas that could be modified during value engineering exercises. Goujon inquired if there are any alterations to the schematic design that has been presented. Tse mentioned that estimates had been based on schematic design and that as design development took shape, the cost estimate would be more refined. 6. REPORTS ON ALL WORKING GROUPS 1. ARTS- JOINT CULTURAL COMMITTEE LIAISON REPORT 2. TRANSPORTATION 3. PHASE 2 PROJECT Discussion was had on the Phase 2 working group meeting scheduled for the following Monday. 4. BUDGET 7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (AGENDA ITEM 6) None 8. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Navarro motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 pm. Chair Goujon seconded. Vote passed. (6.0) 6