Loading...
SR-305-003-01 (2) AC:DL:l)p Councll M€etlng: .ember 3, 1933 Santa .nlca, Callfornla 3t:')5~~3-0/ I/-B IIN 8 \lil TO: Mayor and Clty Council FROM: Clty Staff SUBJECT: RecommendatIons for the Establlshment of a Percent for Art Program for the City S-IJ-- NlJv 22 19B3 INTRODUCTIUN This report recommends the establishment of a Percent for Art (PFA) Program for the City. In additlon, this report recommends the following components of such a program for adopt1on by Co u nc 1 1 : 1. A Percent for Art (PFA) Program be established by ordinance 1n the City of Santa Mon1ca, to be effect1vely 1ncorporated Into the 1934-85 cap1tal budgetlng process. In additlon, C1ty Staff w1l1 identify currently budgeted but not yet implemented cap1tal proJects for the1r applicat10n under PFA. All appl1cable capltal proJects, as deflned ln the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budgeting Admlnlstrative Instruction, would include an allocatlon of at least 1% for art. 2. The followlng cap1tal proJects are appllcable to PFA: Any proJect lnvolvlng the construction, remodel1ng or renovation of property under the Clty'S Jurlsdlction w1thln C1ty parking facility, utll1ty, decoratlve structure and S:-A 1,'''1 '/221983 limlts; includlng any buildlng, park, sidewalk or street, lncludlng portlons thereof. 1 /1-8 iI1~ E. i~~ . . 3. Capltal projects involvlng maJor equipment acqulsltlon would only apply to the program where such equlpment was lntegrated in a substantldl lmprovement 1 n the physlcal structure. Deslgn and research studles of a given constructlon project are excluded. Percent for Art will apply to those capl ta 1 p rOJ ec t s for which there are no 1 e gal restrlctlons. In addition, the only projects funded by Communlty Development Block Grants WhlCh shall apply to PFA are construction and renovation of pUblic faclllties. 4. Deflnitlon of types of art lncluded in PFA: Arts lncluding, but not limlted to, sculpture, palntlng, graphlc arts, mosalcs, photography, crafts, mixed medla and environmental works. 5. The Santa Monlca Arts Commlsslon wlll be charged wlth overall guidance for the successful operations of the PFA program WhlCh w1ll be adm1nlstered by the City Manager. Admlnlstrative and art selection gUldelines wlll be developed and perlodically updated by the Arts Commlssion in keeping with ltS By-laws as adopted by Clty Councll. 6. The Capltal Improvement Program Committee budgetlng process will be the mechanism through which PFA allocatlons are determined, and those allocations wlll be reflected in the capltal proJect budget submltted to the Clty Manager and Clty Councll for approval. 2 . . 7. Where feasible and practlcal 1n the judgement of the Capltal Improvement Program Comm1ttee. art shall located at the slte of a project (Inter1or or exter1or) and accesslble to the public. If cIrcumstances requ1re, the CIP Commlttee shall decide to locate artwork off sIte. In the case of off-sIte art. opt1ons are the art purchase program of the Arts Comm1sslon and speclal proJects. 8. All PFA allocations and any private donat1ons to th1S program shall be placed 1n a Percent for Art account, to be drawn upon by the Arts Commlss1on subsequent to approval by the Clty Council of an annual Arts Plan detaIlIng use of such funds. 9. Actual admlnlstrative costs of the PFA program shall be taken from the yearly PFA allocatlon. under Jurlsdlcatlon of the Arts Commlsslon. in an amount not to exceed 18% of the total. 10. ResponSibillty for ensurlng proper maintenance of artwork shall be that of the Arts Commlssion, under the provlsions of an Annual Schedule of Artwork maintenance. Upon consultatlon with the artist and the clty's MaIntenance Divislon. a schedule of predicted maintenance costs shall be established. Ordlnary malntenance costs shall be the responslblllty of the MaIntenance Dlvlsion. Extraordinary malntenance costs shall be covered by the admlnistrative funds in the PFA account or may be negotiated as part of the artlst(s)' contract. At the end of three years, thls 3 . . procedure shall be reviewed by the Arts Commission and the Maintenance Divislon. 11. Methods for art selectlon shall be outllned ln PFA SelectIon Guidellnes drawn up by the Arts Commission. The guidelines shall assure varled approaches and diverslty of lnput into art selectlon. Representatlon of communlty, clvic and business voices should be provided for, as approprlate. 12. Responsibllity for flnal art selection for each proJect shall lie wlth the Arts Commisslon Via its ratlficatlon. All declsions may be appealed to City Council. BACKGROUND Introduction In proposlng a Percent for Arts (hereafter referred to as PFA) program in Santa Monica, we Join with approxlmately 35 other Amerlcan clties and some 15 states wlth programs successfully ln place. The approprlateness of a government role 1n the arts and partIcularly 1n public art - has been trled and proven. The Arts Commlssion has previously indicated to the City Council the numerous beneflts of thlS program, including mltlgating potential negat1ve effects of the bUilt environment; improvlng land and real property values (especIally 1n the case of functlonal art); and increasing tourIsm, community prlde, and the natlonal reputatlon of Santa Monica. Because of art's potentlal to affect all of these areas, we have purposely structured the program wlth 4 . . breadth. We are encouraged by the noticeably strong expreSSlon of support by Santa Monica cltlzens in the quallty of thelr clty'S env1ronment, reflected 1n the recently completed Needs Assessment Survey. A PFA program 1S a tlmely and appropr1ate response to that need and represents government POllCY that 1S creatlve and forward-thinklng. History of Public Art Programs At both the local and natlonal levels, the role of government agenc1es has slgn1f1cantly contributed over t1me to the concept and cred1billty of publ1C art. Government lnvolvement has focused attent10n on 1ncorporatlng art 1n archltecture 1n its publ1C bU1ld1ngs and broadenlng the base of c1t1zen interest and support for the arts in general. The former effort acknowledges an impl1cit responsib1lity on the part of government to examine the cultural/aesthetlc impact of an expand1ng built environment on the public. It was just such a perspectlve, coupled with a des1re to support the v1sual arts and art1sts, that led the C1ty of Ph1ladelph1a through a 1959 ordinance to mandate a maX1mum of 2% from Redevelopment Author1ty construct1on costs for the acqu1s1t1on of art. The city of Baltimore flve years later passed a Slm1lar ordlnance. They have SlnCe comm1ssloned some 200 works of art V1a their C1vic Des1gn Commiss1on. Both c1t1es llm1ted the application of PFA to new construct1on, emphasizing on-site improvement in the design and product1on of architecture. Other c1ties, most notably Seattle in 1973, would allow for a more flexible appl1cation of 1% to capital construct1on, 5 . . renovatlon and remodeling engaged in by the Simultaneously, they ellminated the absolute tie-ln constructlon slte where appl1catlon was not feasible, the resources ln an arts fund for another slte and use. city. to the holdlng The federal government caught up to local 1nitiat1ves 1n 1963 when it developed an Art in Arch1tecture Program under the d1rect1on of the General Servlces Admln1stration. That program allocated 1/2% of the est1mated constructlon cost of each new federal bUlldlng to art. It proceeded untll 1966 when it was put on hold, ostensibly due to the lnflatlonary trends of the constructlon lndustry. Speculation remalned strong, however, that the more llkely reason was the potential for publlC controversy generated by certain artworks. {The GSA was stlll smartlng from negat1ve public reaction to a mural placed that summer in the John F. Kennedy Federal BU1ld1ng in Boston.} Reactivated in 1972, the Art ln Archltecture Program got off to a successful start with Alexander Calder's "Flam1ngo" sculpture ln Ch1cago. Slnce that tlme, the GSA has spent over $5.3 m1llion for public art V1a the program. The controvers1al aspects of publlC art, however, have not subslded. nor should we expect that they wlll. GSA's Art ln Architecture director Donald Thalacker lnsists that only 20% of the pieces generate any controversy. And the large scale of the GSA's art proJects would seem to he1ghten both the level and frequency of publlC reactlon. Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned from the GSA experlence 1n chartlng lts course over these twenty years that could beneflt our PFA program. 6 . . The GSA has had to reVlse its art selection procedures to assure that local commun1t1es have a greater say 1n the nom1nat1on and selectlon process. This results from controverS1es over speclf1c pieces and reflects a procedural reallty. 1.e.. that particular responslbility exists w1thin the realm of publ1C art to be sens1t1ve to the reclpient publ1C. The controversy surround1ng some artworks may be generated more by a public offended at be1ng overlooked than by one d1sput1ng the qual1ty of a piece. In point of fact. the presence of controversy when speaking of art 1S seen by many as opportun1ty d1sguls1ng 1tself. Inlt1ally. th1S may be a hard aX10m for apP01nted off1c1als or department admin1strators to swallow. as they ant1cipate be1ng deluged by negative phone calls and letters. But at the local and nat10nal levels exper1ence has proven that publlC controversy 1S synonomous wlth public involvement and increased conSClousness of art and the city enV1ronment. Exper1ence has also proven that controversies do subslde over t1me as the artwork 1S ass1milated. Under PFA procedures for 10cat1on of artwork. nominat1on and selection of art1st(s) and execution should prov1de for a communlty role. Once assured. the Clty can more comfortably conslder the oplnlon of Julie Brown, curator of the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art. who asserts: "If you try to get a noncontroversial work that won't offend anybody, then it won't satl sfy anybody either. II 7 . . Although other Federal efforts predated the GSA program, (one source c1tes the earl lest federally-sponsored publ1C v1sual art to be the comm1SS10n of Constant1no Brum1dl in 1855 to pa1nt frescoes in the Cap1tol 1nter1or) the Art in Arch1tecuture Program expanded slgnif1cantly the concept of long-term government responslblity and adm1n1strative scope 1n the v1sual arts. By comparison, the federal governments' other maJor foray 1nto art sponsorsh1p, the Work Program Adm1nistrat1on's (WPA) Federal Art ProJect was largely an effort to employ artl$ts and was seen as a temporary proJect, diverse 1n ltS arts applicat10n. The growth of the Nat10nal Endowment for the Arts, establ1shed by leg1slation 1n 1965, has both catalyzed and been 1tself expanded by the development of state and local arts councils. Th1S 1S a slgnificant fact relat1ve to PFA leg1slat1on, for 1t 1S the state and local arts counc1ls and their advocates that are most responslble for further1ng PFA proJects. Thus, that art Wh1Ch has by 1tS nature and h1story been most accessible, i.e., v1sual art, alded expansion of the term publ1C art and the redef1nitlon of ways 1n Wh1Ch governments could become more 1nvolved 1n art 1n publ1C places. D1Scussion The Clty CaunC1l has previously requested that the City Manager and the Arts CommlSSlon further investigate the lmplicat10ns of a PFA program 1n Santa Mon1ca. Th1S report presents the results of that effort, and recommends speclflc PFA program appllcations for adoptlon by City Councll. We further recommend that the Clty 8 . . Counc11 d1rect the C1ty Attorney to prepare an enabl1ng ordlnance for PFA 1n Santa Monica. The recommendat1ons presented 1n this report come about after extens1ve interviews with City Department Heads, the Cap1tal Improvement Program Commlttee (CIP), numerous PFA program admlnistrators, government agenc1es and arts organ1zations across the country (See Attachment #1). In addltlon, we have sought, and continue to develop, methods for community lnput and involvement to assure maximum cr1tlcal feedback on the adm1n1strat1on of PFA. An Interlm Report was dlstributed in September to pertinent C1ty departments and members of the CIP Comm1ttee. Comments and suggestions on program improvement were sol icited and lncorporated, where appropr1ate, in our f1nal recommendations. What follows 1S a discussTon of the administratTve content of the proposed program. Adm1n1stratlon AdminTstratlon of the Percent for Art Program wl1J be the responsib1Jity of the Arts Comm1ss1on and one of the duties of its D1rector. Most c1tles ind1cate that the1r PFA programs take an average of 50% of one member's staff t1me and that the adminTstrat1ve burden 1S part1cularly heavy at the program's beginn1ng. The Arts CommissTon will absorb Tn ltS present budget rout1ne adm1nistrat1ve costs of PFA. However, 1t cannot susta1n all such costs Wh1Ch, 1n add1t1on to staffTng, 1nclude: spec1al program consultants, off1ce suppl1es, prlntlng and telephone costs, juror fees. cost of documentation and unusual ma1ntenance. Most c1t1es with PFA programs charge aga1nst the requTred percent 9 . . for admlnlstrat1ve costs (Sacramento. CA.: 20%; Cambrldge, MA.. up to 25%; Seattle, WA. 16.5%). The actual admin1stratlve costs up to 18% recommended 1n th1S report represent the Art Comm1ss1on's best Judgement as to reasonable admlnlstratlve costs to be antlclpated 1n the upcoming year. It compares with the experlence of other citles and hypothetlcal PFA budgets 1n Santa Mon1ca over the past two flscal years. We suggest a review of the admlnistrative costs of the program - and a report to the C1ty Council - one year after ltS 1mplementatlon. Admln1stratlve Process for PFA As lndicated, the CIP Comm1ttee cap1tal budget process will be the mechan1sm for "rout1ng" PFA appl1cations to cap1tal proJects. The approach w1ll be, on a step-by-step basls: 1. The User Department (as def1ned 1n CIP Adm1n1strative Instruct1ons) 1ndicates on the1r CIP PrOJect Proposal Form (under language provided) the appropr1ateness of PFA to the proJect. They forward a copy of the form to the Arts Commiss1on. Th1S early step prov1des the beg1nning of a dlalogue between the department and the Arts Commlssion, 1n ant1c1pation of future action by the crp Committee. 2. The CIP Comm1ttee reV1ews the eIP Project Proposals and the appropr1ate appllcation, 1f any, of the PFA program. The attendance of the D1rector of the Arts Commission, or h1S representative, lS requ1red at all such meetings. The Comm1ttee w1ll also determlne whether artwork is feasible 10 . . for on-slte location. Where off-slte art is necessitated (e.g., for capltal prOJects involving underground malntenance or sewer repalr) the Committee has two options. It may choose to dlrect the funds to the art purchase program of the Arts Commission, or it may decide to undertake a special proJect at a Clty facility or publlC place. 3. Fol lowing actlon by the CIP Committee, and the adoption and appropriatlon of the capltal budget by the Clty Councll, the Arts Commisslon wlll proceed to the selection process of art and art1st under ltS establlshed Selectlon GUldel1nes. As early as possible, the Arts Commission Selectlon Commlttee 1S requlred to secure the advice of the Malntenance Dlvlsion or other approprlate departments concerning proJected malntenance that may be required of a glven artwork. The selectlon commlttee, or any approprlate Jury or advlsory panel, must serlously weigh the determination of the Malntenance Dlvlslon prlor to making ltS declsion. Flnanclng PFA We recommend a 1% appllcatlon set-aslde for financlng thlS program. Included in the 1% costs will be: artlst{s)' fees; artlst{s)' asslstants' labor; artwork/arts purchase; fabrlcatlon; transporatlon; artlst{s)' and artwork lnsurance, as needed; 1nstallatlon; worker's compensation; perm1t fees. 11 . . Ma1ntenance of Artwork It is our recommendat1on that ma1ntenance of artwork be approached 1n the first years of PFA 1n Santa Mon1ca with flexlb1l1ty. Th1S 1ssue, most cons1stently at the top of Santa Monica department heads' concerns has not been a priority for PFA programs 1n any of the cit1es with Wh1Ch we spoke. Most lnd1cated that the "user department" absorbed maintenance costs, and only when extraord1nary ma1ntenance efforts are ant1c1pated 1S prior department approval requ1red. Ma1ntenance costs will vary, dependlng upon the type of artwork. In some cases, 1t 1S possib1e to secure reliable estimates of ma1ntenace over the years. Certain artwork, for lnstance, will requlre the most m1nimum of care. It is clear that some wi11 demand spec1al periOdic expert restoration, wh1le others can be routinely 1ncorporated into the Ma1ntenance Divis10n's ongoing schedule of care for a part1cular C1ty park or fac1l1ty. Because of these 1mportant var1ations, we recommend the fol low1ng flex1ble approach to ma1ntenance adm1nistration, to be reviewed after three years: 1. Early consultat1on w1th the Maintenance Div1sion by the Art Selection Comm1ttee for adv1ce/d1rect10n as to poss1ble maintenance 1mplications of artwork at a part1cular slte. Th1S consultation shall result 1n an annual ma1ntenance schedule project1ng ant1c1pated maintenance requirements and costs. 12 . . 2. An agreement between the Arts CommlSSlon and the Maintenance Dlvlsion for those artworks under PFA WhlCh will come under the routlne care of the Maintenance Dlvls1on. 3. Where appropriate. a provlsion in contract{s) w1th art1st(s) that they outl1ne care and ma1ntenance of the artwork. Contract(s) may also negotiate maintenance via an underwrlt1ng of, or fee for serV1ce provision by. the art1st(s) over a perlod of t1me, where such approaches prove cost -effec t i ve. 4. Extraord1nary ma1ntenance costs not "absorbed" as outl1ned above be drawn agalnst admln1strat1ve funds 1n the PFA account. Guidellnes for the Select10n of On-S1te Art 1. Introduct10n Select10n of art under the Percent-far-Art program is a sensitlve and important job. It requ1res not only a knowledge of art, but an understanding of the site as well: its h1story, how 1t relates to the community, and how 1t wlll be used by the public. These areas of expert1se are best J01ntly covered by the Arts Comm1ss1on and a proJect's user department (as defined by the crp committee). These two v1eWpolnts wlll be balanced by a th1rd party of mutual choosing. Depending on the site, 1t may be appropr1ate for e1ther a few or many people to have a say 1n select1ng an artwork. To best determlne how a plece of art 1S to be 13 . . selected, a representatlve of the Arts Commisslon working closely wlth the user department and a thlrd party will have to consider a number of boundaries. These gUldellnes are intended to enumerate these boundarles and to present a varlety of options concernlng selection. They are not to be considered rigid; lt lS expected that the guidellnes wlll evolve as the program does. All costs Incurred In the process of selectIon, apart from artists' fees, wIll be considered admlnistrative costs and drawn against the PFA account. Reasonable limlts on fees for artists' rendeflng shall be set by the Arts Commission. 2. GUldelines These guidelines shall apply for each capital improvement proJect for WhlCh the Capltal Improvements Program Committee determines on-slte art to be appropriate. A selectlon committee of three shall determIne the method of selectlng the artwork for the sIte. The experlence of other CIties has shown 3-member panels to be the most effectIve. ThlS commIttee shall be composed in the followlng manner: the Arts CommiSSIon shall apPOInt a commlSSloner to represent itself; the user department shall appolnt elther Its proJect monltor or some other representative; these two representatlves shall then mutually choose a third person to complete the committee on select,on. One of these three members shall be an artist. 14 . . The selected artwork must be ratif1ed by the Arts Comm1ss1on. All decisIons of the Commiss10n may be appealed to the C1ty Counc11. 3. Dutles and Respons1b11ities The committee on select10n shall have the follow1ng dutIes and responsibilities: A. To const1tute 1tself as a Jury or to establIsh a separate jury to select an artwork. B. To ensure the artwork selected 1S of the highest qual1ty. c. To ensure that a chosen artwork site's overall des1gn, and is malntenance and operat1on. is approprIate for the pract1cal 1n terms of D. To consider all poss1ble constra1nts on a SIte, e.g., phys1cal 11mitatlons, zon1ng laws, and fund1ng restr1ct1ons as they relate to commun1ty 1nvolvement. E. To work with the appropr1ate reVlew board when a proJect 1S under a board's Jurisd1ctlon, e.g., the landmarks CommissIon or Arch1tectural Review Board. F. To solicit advice from professional artlSts. des1gners, curators, arch1tects, and crit1cs. G. To seek counsel from commun1ty groups that will be affected by a proJect, e.g., ne1ghborhood and merchant organ1zat1ons. 15 . . H. To choose competltlon. purchase. the method of selectlng an artwork: open llmited competltlon. invltation, or direct I. To choose an artist without regard to residency. J. To lnform the Arts Commission as to how a cholee was made; whose adVlce was Sollcited, and the aesthetlc rat10nale for the decis10n. K. To allow an artlst, after careful considerat10n of the above, creative freedom when des1gning a work for a slte. 4. Method of Art Selectlon Each of the followlng methods produces varY1ng degrees of publiclty, communlty partic1pation, quallty of art, approprlateness of art to slte, and ease of adm1n1stration. Each of these factors must be welghed and balanced to the needs of a particular proJect. A. Open competitlon: Notlce lS glven concern1ng a proJect; anyone may submit a proposal. The competltlon may be admin1stered 1n two stages, so that several artlsts are asked to develop more detailed renderings at the second level. Artists are paid for this second render1ng. B. Llmited competltion: This method lS slmllar to the second stage of an open competlt1on; several artists (usually three to five) are lnvited and pald to develop proposals. 16 . . c. InV1tatlon: An art1st IS lnv1ted and paid to develop one or more proposals for a site, often collaborat1ng closely with a proJect's arch1tect. D. DIrect purchase: for the site. A completed work of art 15 purchased 5. Jury GU1delines The selectlon comm1ttee has the optlon of const1tutlng a Jury 1tself or choos1ng a separate Jury. In e1ther case, the follOWIng gUldel1nes shall apply: A. A Jury shall conSlst of three or fIve members, depending on the size of a proJect. A maJor1ty of Jurors shall l1ve or work 1n the City of Santa Mon1Ca. All Jury members shall be rat1f1ed by the Arts Comm1sS1on. B. Jury members shall be chosen from the professional arts community and the commun1ty at large. When appropriate, Jur1es shall 1nclude members of the business commun1ty, ne1ghborhood organlzat1ons, and other affected groups. Members of commissions and review boards, and experts from other fields, whose expertIse may be appropr1ate to a particular site, may be appointed to serve 1n an adv1sory capac1ty. For example, an eng1neer may be consulted if a mechanical work of art were beIng consIdered. 17 . . C. Jury members shall be lnformed of any constra1nts on a slte. and shall be advised of aesthet1c or techn1cal cons1derations of a site. D. If a consensus cannot be reached by the Jury. then a vote shall be taken, with the maJorlty carrying the dec1sion. Each Juror shall have one vote, and no Juror shall have the power of veto. E. Jury members who are not C1ty staff or Arts Commissloners may be awarded honoraria; th1S shall be determined by the Arts Commission. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT One of the recommendat1ons of thIS report is that the Percent-far-Art Program beg1n on a regular baS1S wlth the 1984-85 Flscal Year. As the funding sources for the 1984-85 Percent-far-Art Program w1ll vary with the type of cap1tal proJects proposed and sources of revenue for these projects. lt is not possible to determ1ne the exact flnanclal impact of PFA at thlS tIme. In addltion. lt 1S recommended that City Staff identify currently budgeted but not yet 1mplemented cap1tal projects for the1r applicatlon under PFA. Untll thIS is done. it will not be pOSSible to determ1ne the exact financ1al impact of PFA on these projects. 18 . . However, if a Percent-for-Art Program had been 1n effect dur1ng Flscal Year 1983-84, the PFA allocation would have been between $50,000 and $70,000 from the $13,451,952 Capltal Improvements Program budget, depending on how the PFA ord1nance would have been drafted. The establ1shment of separate Percent for Art accounts in the Arts Commiss1on budget 1S recommended for clar1ty in administerlng PFA funds. Under th1S arrangement, the F1nanee Department would account for these funds 1n a manner slm1lar to the current CDBG account1ng procedure: Appropriat1on authority for speclf1e PFA proJects, as approved by the C1ty Counc1l, would be deslgnated on a llne-item bas1s, unprogrammed appropr1ation authority would be placed 1n a cont1ngency account for subsequent allocat1on by the C1ty Coune1l, and appropriate 1nterfund transfers would be budgeted 1n order to transfer mon1es from other funds to f1nanee actual proJect expendItures. The F1nance D1rector adv1ses that thlS 1S the most advantageous and easily admin1stered approach for hlS department. The Arts Comm1ssion, pursuant to the actual receipt of monies, will from t1me to t1me expend funds from the appropr1ate Percent for Art account as a glven art proJect proceeds through completion. However, 1n those special cases where alternate accountablllty procedures may be necessary separate PFA accounts and interfund transfer mechan1sms will be establlshed 1n the budgets from Wh1Ch expenditures are to be made for thIs program. 19 . . RECOMMENDATION It 1S respectfully recommended that the City Counc1l dlrect the City Attorney to prepare an ordlnance creat1ng a Percent-for-Art program which encompasses the provislons as set forth 1n th1S report and to examine the posslble applicatlon of PFA to Redevelopment and Parking Authority funds. Prepared by: Davld Lutz, Dlrector. Arts CommlsSlon 20 . AT'1'~ '1 INDIVIDUALS AND ORCWflZA'l'IOBS CON'TAC'1'ED Local Arts Aienci,.s Jan P.rqol! Jlil"auk.e, Wiseonsin Art. Ccm-; .sion John Chandler 'l'he C'.....hridqe, MA. Art. Council Jill Manton San Francisco, CA Art. C........i..ion Jennifer Dawley Sacramento, CA. Art. CODIIIIis.ion Doris Weber City of Balti~re Civic Design Commission victoria Hamilton County of Santa Barbara, CA Betty Clausner City of Santa Barbara, CA Richard Andrews City of Seattle, WI. Arts Commission Robert Vanni, Esq. Counsel, Department of CUltural Affairs City of Rew York, NY Michael Cart City of Beverly Bill., CA Mary Kilroy City of Philadelphia, PA Redevelopment Authority Mary Wolfsberqer City of Brea, CA N~tional Art. Or~anization8 Joyce Schwartz Works of Art for Public spaces New York, NY American Council for the Arts llIew York, NY . . ..tion.l Art. O~anization - COntinued Teri Cornwell Congressional Arts Caucus Washington, D.C. Itay Scri.mqer U.S. Conference of Mayors Itaren Ringen Program Assistant Public Art Trust Washington, D.C. i i Donald Thalacker Art in Architecture Program General Ser~ice. Administration u. S. Government Washington, D.C. Stacy Paleologos National Endowment for the Arts Washington, D.C. Santa Monica City Officials Vivian Rothstein, community Liaison Lynne Barrette, Deputy City Manager Mike Dennis, Director of Finance Judith Meister, Pier Development Manager James Lunsford, Director of Planning Neil Hiller, Assistant Director, General Services pegqy Gardel., Assistant to the City Manager Ernesto Flores, Economic Development Manager/CEO Don Arnett, Director of Recreation and Parks Rusty Flinton, Arts Advisory/General Services Carol Aronoff, City Librarian Barbara Stinchfield, Grants Administrator, CEO Mark Tigan, Director, Community and Economic Development Jacquelyn Kelly, Senior ~~M;~istrative Analyst/General Services J.F. Hutchison, Director of Transportation Robert Myers, City Attorney Santa Monica Orqanizations Santa Monica Area Ch..her of CUKUudrce Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bur.au . . National Arts Orsanization - Continued Teri Cornwell Congressional Arts Caucus Washington, D.C. ~ Kay Scrimger U.S. Conference of Mayors Karen Ringen Program Assistant Public Art Trust Washington, D.C. Donald Thalacker Art in Arch1tecture Program General Services Administration U.S. Government Washington, D.C. Stacy Paleologos National Endowment for the Arts Washington, D.C. Santa Monica City Offic~als V1vian Rothstein, Community Liaison Lynne Barrette, Deputy City Manager Mike Dennis, Director of Finance Judith Meister, Pier Development Manager James Lunsford, Director of Planning Neil Miller, Assistant Director, General Services Peggy Gardels, Assistant to the City Manager Ernesto Flores, Economic Development Manager/CEO Don Arnett, Director of Recreation and Parks Rusty Flinton, Arts Adv1sory/General Services Carol Aronoff, City Librarian Barbara Stinchfield, Grants Administrator, CED Mark Tigan, Director, Community and Economic Development Jacquelyn Kelly, Senior Administrative Analyst/General SerV1ces J.F. Hutchison, Director of Transportation Robert Myers, City Attorney Santa Monica Organizations Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce Santa Monica Convention and visitors Bureau