Street_Artists_Committee
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70
MINUTES
Members present: Commissioners Alexander Lloyd, Chair, John Calloway,
Topher Delaney, Lorraine Garcia-Nakata, Sherene Melania
Members absent: None
Staff present: Director of Cultural Affairs Luis Cancel, Chief Accountant Kan Htun, Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar, Program Assistant Evelyn Russell
Commissioner Lloyd, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. and
welcomed Commissioners Calloway and Garcia-Nakata to the Committee.
1. Report by Street Artists Program Director regarding the budget, the proposed fee increases, and the differences between the application fee and the certificate fee; and other matters of the Program.
Program Director hearings on alleged violations. Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar reported that, as hearing officer, he conducted in the current month four hearings on alleged street artist violations. One case was about an artist’s alleged improper conduct of business; the other three cases were about artists selling items not in accord with the Arts Commission’s arts and crafts criteria.
Winter Holiday spaces. For the twenty-seventh consecutive year, the Program Director obtained additional selling spaces to be used by the artists during the winter holiday season. For this year, the Program Director had obtained from the Board of Supervisors a resolution designating the winter holiday spaces in perpetuity: for this year and ensuing years, some 60 winter holiday spaces in the Downtown area and 7 spaces at Harvey Milk Plaza will be available to the artists. The spaces will be available beginning on November 15th and ending on January 15th.
Street Artist Achievements. Mr. Lazar reported on the professional achievements of three street artists. Phyllis Williams, who sells at Justin Herman Plaza, received Best of Show at the Crucible’s Student Fall Open House for her fused glass “Cloud” platter. Linda Pedersen, an artist in the Street Artists Program for thirty years, saw her print entitled “Red Beets” reproduced on the cover of a flyer for the Berkeley Farmers’ Markets’ 17th Annual Crafts Fair. And Elden Deza sold a painting to the American Society of Hypertension, Inc, a company dedicated to improving the medical care of hypertensive patients; the ASH chose Mr. Deza’s painting of a San Francisco cable car scene to represent the city in which the company’s convention will take place in 2009, and his painting will appear in the company’s brochures and other publications.
The Commissioners, examining the artists’ works, conveyed their congratulations to the artists.
Artists’ proposed increase in application fee. At the previous meeting, the Commissioners received a petition from 54 street artists requesting that the application fee (for a certificate) be increased from the current $20 fee to a proposed $100 fee. The application fee covers the costs of processing applications and examinations of the wares for which applicants seek certification. The petitioning artists requested the application fee increase in order to cover the costs of more Advisory Committee monitoring of the artists’ wares on the streets. Program Director Lazar clarified that, by ordinance, each member of the Advisory Committee is allotted compensation of $100 per screening/studio visit/street monitoring assignments not to exceed a total of 35 of the same. Because of the current year’s budget constraints, the Program Director limited the compensation per member to a total of 20 meetings/assignments – 12 monthly screenings of applicants, 4 monitoring assignments during summer, and 4 assignments during the winter holiday season.
While the petitioning artists wanted to see the Advisory Committee on the streets year-round, the Commissioners at the previous meeting requested the Program Director to consult with the City Attorney as to whether it would be legal to increase the application fee to support such increased duty. Mr. Lazar reported that the City Attorney responded that it would not be appropriate because the application fee was meant to cover the initial costs of application processing and initial examination of wares. Instead of increasing the application fee, an increase in enforcement/street monitoring costs could be incorporated into the certificate fee.
Having received this clarification, Mr. Lazar chose to submit to the Commissioners a budget for FY 2009-10 to reflect compensation for the current allotment of 20 screenings/monitoring assignments per member of the Advisory Committee.
2. Discussion and possible motion to:
(a) approve Street Artists Program budget for Fiscal Year 2009-10 and corresponding proposed Street Artist certificate fee increase for Fiscal Year 2009-10 as well as automatic annual adjustment of the certificate fee beginning in Fiscal Year 2010-11 to reflect changes in the relevant Consumer Price Index (CPI), as determined by the Controller, and without further action by the Board of Supervisors. As required by Proposition K of November 8, 1983, any certificate fee increases would be limited to those necessary in order to finance the costs of the Arts Commission in administering and enforcing the provisions of the Street Artists Ordinance; and
(b) authorize the Street Artists Program Director to ask the City Attorney’s Office to draft a corresponding fee ordinance for submission to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
By way of review, Program Director Howard Lazar stated the following observations of the Street Artists Program: (1) Since 1972, the Program has provided a means for artists to make a living for themselves and their families by selling arts and crafts of their own creation in locations approved by the Board of Supervisors; (2) Street artist earnings contribute $4,000,000 annually to San Francisco’s economy (based on a conservative estimate of 200 of the Program’s 400 artists each earning $20,000 a year); (3) Since 1972, the Program has licensed nearly 8,000 artists; (4) The Program has always been self-supported by its license fees, never taking a penny from the City’s general fund; (5) The intent for the Program to be self-supporting was emphasized by the voters in 1983 who mandated that the street artist fee be equal to, but not greater than, the costs of the Arts Commission in managing and enforcing the Street Artist Ordinance.
Mr. Lazar described how his proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2009-10 reflects an estimated 4% increase in staff salaries/benefits. The budget includes the same expenditures as those of the current year for materials and supplies, storage rent for the artists’ space-assignment lottery supplies, the Program’s off-site records storage, telephone, etc.; and the same expenditure (as for the current year) of compensation for the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners to cover 20 – not 35 – screening-meetings/studio visits/street monitoring assignments. What has been added to the budget is the Program’s share ($38,531) of the Arts Commission’s administrative overhead costs (office rent, accounting services, IT maintenance, DTIS network services, etc.). All of the Commission’s programs have been requested to cover their share of the Commission’s administrative overhead costs.
Director of Cultural Affairs Luis Cancel stated that, shortly after his hiring, he requested the Commission’s Chief Accountant Kan Htun to commence an analysis of the costs of conducting business by the Commission and to allocate those expenses to each of the Programs based on their fair share of activity. This would be to cover administrative expenses not funded by the City. Mr. Htun, he said, undertook a careful analysis.
In response to a question by Commissioner Lloyd regarding the Street Artists Program’s share of the administrative expenses, Chief Accountant Kan Htun explained how the figure was calculated. In the past, he stated, the Commission’s administration subsidized or shouldered the burden of administrative costs of all of its Programs. In return (in the past) the administration charged the Street Artists Program – one of the Programs charged – just $8,000. Last year, however, the administration began analyzing each item of program cost relative to the administration. For example, each Program is now being billed for its share of usage of the postage meter; the Street Artists Program’s share is $500. Another cost is rent, for which the Programs until now have not been charged; “admin” paid all its Programs’ shares out of its annual budget.
Mr. Htun went on to describe how, for the past five years, the City’s budget situation has become very restrictive – along with the state and federal budgets. With San Francisco’s budget cuts, the Arts Commission’s administrative portion receives City funding for only salaries and benefits of its four-person administrative staff; the rest of the Commission’s administrative expenses have been cut by the Mayor’s budget office. Therefore, to recover these expenses, there is no other way but to charge the Programs who are using the administration’s services. If unable to do so, the services would have to be shut down.
Mr. Htun discussed the Commission’s rent cost for its Suites 200 and 240. Each Program is being charged according to the measurements of the space it occupies. Out of the 3,065 square feet of Suite 200, the two-person staff of the Street Artists Program occupies 224 square feet; the Program’s share of the rent cost is $5,053.
Another administrative cost, Mr. Htun stated, is accounting. Every organization requires accounting staff to process receipts, payments, and payroll. He calculated the cost according to the time and number of documents the administrative accounting staff spends on each Program. Because 9% of this time is spent on the Street Artists Program’s documents, the Program’s cost to be recovered is $24,246 of the accounting’s budget of $275,000.
In response to a question by Commissioner Garcia-Nakata, Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel described how, in prior years, the City provided greater administrative support to the Arts Commission’s administration. As this lessened, the administration chose to charge its programs flat amounts per year – as, for example, $8,000 charged to the Street Artists Program. Therefore, in the past years of covering this figure, the Street Artists Program was not pressured to meet its ordinance’s mandate to pay its just share (in the Commission’s costs of administering and enforcing the Street Artists Ordinance). With the recent serious general fund reductions, however, the Commission’s flexibility in subsidizing its Programs has vanished. Realizing that there is not enough money to run the Commission properly, Mr. Cancel instituted a very rigorous cost accounting. As a result of charging the Programs their fair share of the costs, he said, the goal of operating the Commission properly is being met.
Commissioner Lloyd stated that it was a big step for the Street Artists Program to climb from $8,000 to $38,000, and asked whether the Commission, in the past, was subsidizing the Program by $30,000.
Mr. Cancel responded with an example of the Department of Human Resources charging the Arts Commission for the services of a staff person.
Commissioner Delaney noted that Human Resources was charging the Arts Commission $60,000; she questioned this flat cost in the face of the department’s attempt to save money.
Mr. Cancel clarified that the Arts Commission was obliged to use the services for conversations between employees and the City; the Human Resources staff person is the liaison between workers and management.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata asked whether there was any room for negotiation over the figure.
Mr. Cancel stated that the figure was submitted by the budget analyst based on formulae for calculating costs to the various departments based on the number of employees, etc. He went on to say that, for the upcoming year, for the first time, the City Attorney will be charging the Arts Commission for legal services. The City Attorney has allocated a finite amount of hours of availability to the Arts Commission. If the Commission exceeds the limit, the City Attorney will charge the Commission. One of the Programs, he said, which continues to eat into the Commission’s allocated City Attorney hours is the Street Artists Program. He noted that, while the City Attorney overtime expense is not reflected in the Program’s budget, it may be an expense to be faced by the Program if it continues to use up City Attorney time.
Commissioner Delaney stated that, coming from the private sector, one of the things she analyzes is the costs of comparative services – for example, the cost of an accountant. Some of the figures, she said, relative to the Street Artists Program appeared to be low figures. But some of the “big-budget items” appeared to be impenetrable, that they did not reveal the hourly rate of an attorney. An hourly rate would help the administration in its budgeting for City Attorney time.
Mr. Cancel responded that the Arts Commission has already challenged the City Attorney over the amount of hours being allocated to the agency. The Commission has been allocated only 325 hours for the year; but, having finished the first quarter, the Commission has consumed almost 40% of the allocation. He felt that the method used by the City Attorney in calculating hours for the Arts Commission should be re-examined.
Commissioner Lloyd asked Mr. Cancel if there was any flexibility relative to the $38,000 of administrative costs being charged to the Street Artists Program. Mr. Cancel responded that the figure represented a very thorough analysis of the administration’s current and anticipated expenses and its share allocated to the street Artists Program. However, the figure does not include possible City Attorney costs because the Commission was still debating with the City Attorney on the appropriate level of legal services to be provided.
Commissioner Delaney noted that the cost of rent was nominal at $420 a month for 224 square feet. By seeing a breakdown of the cost, she said, this was one example of being able to assess whether or not a cost is excessive.
Commissioner Lloyd noted that, while the Street Artists Program’s cost for accounting seemed high, 91% of the total figure is shared by the other Programs.
Commissioner Delaney asked for the accounting’s cost per hour. Mr. Cancel responded that the Commission has an essential accounting staff whose cost is prorated according to the accounting staff’s usage by each of the Programs.
Mr. Cancel went on to emphasize that the Street Artists Program is mandated to pay its own way.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata noted that the $38,000 of administrative costs proposed for the Street Artists Program appeared to be conservative in light of possible further costs, as a City Attorney cost.
Commissioner Lloyd asked Program Director Lazar to continue with his presentation.
Mr. Lazar stated that the same formula, as for the current year’s budget, was applied to next year’s budget to arrive at the proposed street artist fee: the budget total divided by the average number of street artists. The proposed budget of $235,587 divided by 390 street artists yields an annual fee increase of $71.80, or a quarterly fee increase of $17.95, or a daily increase of 20 cents – representing an overall 13% increase over the current year’s fee.
Mr. Lazar went on to state that the proposed 13% fee increase is not unusual for the Street Artists Program. The fee of $160 established for 1985 was 100% more than the previous fee of $80 for the years 1974-84. The fee of $350 which lasted for 12 years from 1991-2003 was 34% higher than the previous fee of $230 which lasted for 5 years from 1986-91; and the $230 fee was 30% higher than the previous 1985 fee of $160.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata stated that consideration should be given to whether the Program would be jeopardized if the necessary fee is not enacted, in view of the ordinance stating that the Commission should meet its expenses in managing and enforcing the ordinance. She questioned whether a deficit could be tolerated.
Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel responded that, by ordinance, a deficit cannot be permitted. If a deficit did occur, the fee would have to be raised the following year to cover the deficit as well as meet the current expenses.
Commissioners Garcia-Nakata and Melania questioned whether a deficit would jeopardize the existence of the Program. It was the Program – the artists’ livelihood - which should be protected. The costs of certain Commission administrative expenses could possibly be re-examined, but if no action were to be taken to enact a fee to cover the Program’s expenses, the Program could be jeopardized.
Commissioner Delaney asked whether consideration had ever been given to privatize the Program. She stated that, as a businessperson, she felt uncomfortable hearing about flat costs which did not appear to allow room for negotiation. She questioned whether the artists would not be better served under privatization.
Mr. Cancel responded with the question “What is being licensed?” and answered it with the statement: “What is being licensed is public space. It is the public’s space.” In serving the public, the government, he maintained, is entrusted with the responsibility to set the parameters under which public space may be used. Furthermore, criteria were built into the Street Artists Program whereby people who are knowledgeable about the arts screen and certify the products of individuals on behalf of the public’s interest in the use of its space. Therefore, he said, it is appropriate for the Street Artists Ordinance to exist and for a public agency to administer it.
Program Director Lazar stated that any move to privatize the Program would require the repeal by the voters of two ordinances they passed in 1975 and 1983, respectively.
Commissioner Lloyd stated that he did not feel that most people would support privatization of the Program.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata stated that the artists want to sell in spaces that are on property belonging to the public.
Commissioner Lloyd stated that the Program was created by people who wanted to see public areas used by street artists, and the way they could make it happen was by having an ordinance passed. The citizens of San Francisco voted on the measure, and any amendment of it would require a vote of the people.
Commissioner Melania stated that consideration could be given to developing a funding body such as a “Friends of the Street Artists Program” whereby interested private donors could help build up the Program’s reserve. She added that one of the reasons for the current budget/fee increase situation is because the Program no longer has a reserve of fees.
Mr. Cancel stated that a “Friends of the Street Artists Program” could be created by street artists themselves creating an IRS 501(c)(3) organization to request donations which would be a way to help ameliorate the Program’s costs.
Commissioner Delaney responded that she liked the idea because she assessed that “need” was present at the meeting.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata highlighted what she called the reality of starting and maintaining a nonprofit organization. Having started and worked for non-profits, she found that enthusiasm and steps to raise funds end up being a very difficult project to maintain. Furthermore, it is difficult to raise money from the private sector, maintain a board of directors, and pay for staff salaries – all of which, she said, would total far more than the $38,000 administrative overhead costs incurred by the Street Artists Program.
Commissioner Lloyd stated that, even without setting up a 501(c)(3), anyone at the present time could make a donation to the Street Artists Program’s fund.
Mr. Cancel stated that there was currently a mechanism set up for the Arts Commission whereby persons could make a donation dedicated to the Street Artists Program, and this would help to offset the expenses.
Commissioner Delaney stated that it was clear to her that the Program was headed for a deficit because the City Attorney’s fees were not included in the budget.
Mr. Cancel responded that it was still early in the budget process to discuss the costs. What his staff and he wanted to do was to alert the artists and the Commissioners of next year’s expenses and begin a conversation in order to see what steps could be taken to meet or offset the expenses.
Commissioner Lloyd asked for the Program Director’s concluding remarks.
Mr. Lazar concluded his presentation by stating that the Program’s fee, in comparison with the fees of other premier daily or weekly outdoor market venues, is still “a bargain.” While it is being proposed that the fee be raised from $1.46 a day to $1.66 a day, a San Francisco street artist selling daily would still pay far less than he/she would pay if participating daily in Seattle’s Pike Market for $13.33 a day, or in Portland, Oregon, for $6.41 a day, or in Honolulu for $150 - $400 for weekends only.
Furthermore, Mr. Lazar stated that, because their program exists in San Francisco, street artists enjoy a climate unsurpassed by most cities, thereby making for a seven-days-a-week, year-round selling opportunity. In addition, street artists in San Francisco sell in some of the highest retail real estate locations in the world – as attested to in a public meeting by a former Arts Commissioner who heads a retail architectural firm.
The Program Director stated, as per the meeting’s agenda, that he was proposing that a new ordinance which would provide for a new certificate fee also contain a provision for an automatic annual adjustment of the fee by the City Controller, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The automatic adjustment would be based on costs of the Program’s current expense items and not on any new significant expense (for example, the hiring of an additional position) which would require Board of Supervisors approval.
Finally, Mr. Lazar stated that, if the Commission were to approve either of the proposals to be presented by Street Artist Michael Addario and Program Assistant Evelyn Russell, the costs of an electronic identification card system for street artist licensing would have to be added to the budget which would further increase the certificate fee.
At the request of Commissioner Delaney, Mr. Lazar explained the composition, duties, and compensation of the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners.
Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel clarified that the budget being presented was for discussion purposes, that there was still several months before the Commission would be formally submitting its entire budget to the budget analyst.
Commissioner Lloyd called for public comment.
Street Artist William Clark stated that he opposed any increase of the certificate fee until the Street Artists Program could be allowed to use all of the unused street artist fees that the City collected and never allocated to the Program. Mr. Clark stated that this amounted to $250,000 of fees plus interest.
Mr. Clark disagreed with Program Director Lazar’s current year’s total budget figure as well as the number of street artists in the Program. Instead of the current budget being $207,594, it should be $201,594, subtracting $6,000 of application fees from the overall fee revenue, and this figure being divided by the current annual fee of $532.28 reveals that the actual number of street artists in the Program is 379 artists and not 390. Mr. Lazar, then, should base the proposed fee on 379 artists.
Mr. Clark requested that the proposed budget reflect a full funding of compensation for the Advisory Committee – the maximum number of 35 meetings/street monitoring assignments per member – because law-abiding street artists lose more money due to the Committee’s absence from the streets and the continuation of the activities of street artist violators than it would cost for additional street monitoring.
Mr. Clark went on to propose that, instead of each member of the Committee receiving compensation for 35 meetings/assignments, a total of 175 job assignments be given for the total Committee; this would allow a member to perform more than 35 meetings/assignments.
Mr. Clark stated that he did not feel an automatic annual fee increase by the Controller, based on the CPI, was necessary because Proposition K (passed by the voters in 1983) provides that the fee can be raised only if necessary, and it would be impossible for the Arts Commission to know what the fee revenue would be for the next year and ensuing years. Similarly, the Commission would have no idea of ascertaining the number of applicants it would be screening nor the number of former certificate-holders returning to the Program. The Commission should continue its current procedure of reviewing the costs of the following year’s budget and ascertaining the necessary fee.
Street Artist Robert Clark stated that he, like his brother William, was one of the people who started the Street Artists Program. He said that he had to drop out of the Program as a result of the current year’s fee increase. For thirty-six years, he said, his brother and he have been arguing with the City because they had evidence to prove that the City “embezzled” over $250,000 from the Program, and that the City Attorney “filed false opinions to cover up the fact that there were criminal violations that have occurred.”
Mr. Clark went on to say that he and his brother were able to get the City to return over $100,000 to the Program. It was now time, he said, for the Arts Commission to request the Board of Supervisors for a return of the other unallocated fees.
Mr. Clark further stated that the City Attorney’s office’s request to be paid for its time was a form of intimidation.
Street Artist Michael Addario stated that one of the problems in the Program is that it has not been verified that there are 390 street artists. The artists, he said, have been asking for two years for an accurate list of the number of artists. He also asked for an audit so that it could be understood “where our money is at, where it’s going.” He added that he wanted to see Chief Accountant Htun’s “papers that” he “analyzed.”
Mr. Addario went on to say that he perceived the existence of a myth that street artists are unable to receive money from outside sources. The law did not imply that the artists had to pay for all the costs of their Program; money could be received from outside the fees. The budget, he said, looked like “a fiscal shell game” to him, and the fees paid by San Francisco street artists were “way out of line” with those paid by other vendors of Oakland, Berkeley, and Venice Beach. For Venice, he said, the artists pay only $25 a year and $10 to renew because “the City pays for everything.”
Mr. Addario stated that, in San Francisco’s Street Artists Program’s budget, 85% of the fees paid by the artists covers the employees’ salaries. He stated figures of guaranteed salaries of the two employees as well as the number of paid sick pay days and paid holidays allotted them. He stated that the two employees also are eligible to receive a pension and receive medical coverage, dental coverage, automatic yearly pay increases. The artists, he said, pay 7% of the employees’ social security tax. Mr. Addario then stated that the artists, in return, receive no guaranteed salaries, no sick days, no paid holidays, no pension, no medical coverage, no dental coverage, no paid vacations, and no automatic pay increases. The artists also have to pay 14% social security tax, and they have no seniority and receive no protection from unlicensed vendors. “What we get is a space for us to sell.” He said he was totally opposed to the proposal. He added that the only way to fix the Street Artists Program is to go non-profit.
Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that the country was in a recession, the Dow Jones dropped another 411 points today, and people were losing their jobs. Prior to coming to today’s (Wednesday) meeting, Mr. Steneck passed by Fisherman’s Wharf and saw that in all of Taylor Street, Jefferson Street, and Beach Street there were only eight street artists set up and hardly any passersby. He was opposed to the proposed increase in the Program’s expenses which, he said, should be reviewed. “Give us a break,” he said.
Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan stated that she has been a licensed street artist since 1974. She said that there were “two realities … the Arts Commission with its $20 million budget, and then you have the Street Artists Program.” She likened the Program to the cable car system whereby, after a number of years, the system was reviewed to make changes to it. She stated that the artists’ Program was “crumbling” because it has not been given any attention by the Arts Commission; whereas the Arts Commission, with its $20 million budget, was in a position to be “the Friends of the Street Artists Program” and give a grant to it.
Ms. Hallinan went on to say that the artists could not afford “two clerks”. She also stated that, for the artists’ money, the artists do not receive the benefits received by Portland artists, such as a ten-foot x ten-foot display and a heated and lighted environment. “We get a five by four; we’re crowded in.” She stated that San Francisco is “the top city in all of the world”, and the artists’ spaces on Beach Street and Justin Herman Plaza were “some of the best real estate in the world.” But the citizens of the city, she said, do not know that the street artists are artists or that they have to struggle. Ms. Hallinan told the Commissioners that they should spend some money on the Street Artists Program; while the Program has existed since the early 1970’s, no attention has been paid by the Commission to its Program which “is “very special in the whole wide world”, not to be found in New York City nor elsewhere. She accused the Commission of not funding a study of the Program or a questionnaire of the artists while it funded other art activities in the city. The Commission should do more than just tell the artists each year that their fee is being raised.
Ms. Hallinan added that she was “so proud of this Program; I’m so proud of the way that it runs” and that it has afforded “all these people who sent their kids to college.”
She stated that the Program would not require “two clerks” if an automated licensing card system were to be approved. She added that the Program did not need privatization. What was needed was some attention placed upon it by the Arts Commission.
She went on to say that her income has gone down significantly, that she only gets to sell once a week because the rest of the time she has to create her items. However, while she could have gotten a much better job somewhere else, she chose to stay in the Street Artists Program because she liked making her arts and crafts and offering them to people.
Commissioner Lloyd closed public comment.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata commented that, as a practicing artist for many years and also doing other work, she wanted to affirm that it was not an easy road but a choice – and, she said, a very honorable choice.
She also stated that the idea of a survey could possibly happen, but because surveys are expensive, she would like to see a survey resource donate its service to the Commission for such a venture. It could be a feasibility study and an assessment of future direction.
Commissioner Calloway noted that there were two issues being discussed: (1) the cost of the Program and (2) an assessment of how the Commission is serving the street artists. He commented on the need to evaluate the street artist experience.
Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel commented that he would like to see traditional fundraising methods used to raise money dedicated to the Street Artists Program and to work with the street artists to find ways to channel that support so that the Commission would not have to be forced to make the certificate fee cover all the expenses. He went on to say that, in this difficult economic time, he had been advocating with the Mayor to direct some of the City’s advertising and promotion to the regional level in order to make San Francisco a shopping destination. Within that context, the street artists, with their unique items priced in a very accessible way, could play a major role.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata stated that one of the reasons for her wanting to serve on the Arts Commission is Mr. Cancel’s ongoing work to position the Commission in such a way as to not be an adjunct to other City concerns but to place the Commission’s agenda and issues within other important issues. By extension of this, she said, Mr. Cancel is looking to partner with other departments to be able to draw on resources that would be mutually beneficial.
Commissioner Calloway stated that while there is the reality that the Street Artists Program has to be self-sustaining, it was difficult for him to understand that the City Attorney’s office, a City agency, should charge another City agency for its services.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata responded that, when she was administering an education program at Yerba Buena, her program was charged back by its own organization to make it run. In these current difficult times, the practice of agencies charging each other is not new.
Commissioner Delaney stated that she has started an e-mail correspondence with CCA’s MBA program to see if some of the graduate students will assist the Arts Commission in examining the Street Artists Program to come up with potential scenarios. She could not understand why the Street Artists Program has not been computerized, like all agencies.
Commissioner Delaney went on to say that she could not perceive a clear identification for the street artists as a group on the street. She congratulated Mr. Cancel on reaching out to other organizations that are private; she would like to see the Arts Commission joint-venture with GAP or some other private business in order to obtain awnings that would identify that the artists are of San Francisco.
Mr. Cancel stated that he had observed that, while some of the artists display their certificates, what is needed is more visible signage that would convey: “This is a San Francisco artist.” This would be an excellent opportunity for website promotion of the street artists. The topic of signage should be addressed in the next few months.
Adding to Mr. Cancel’s comments about signage, Commissioner Lloyd stated that it was difficult to discern that this is a street artists program, rather than a street vendors program. While other cities have street vendors, San Francisco’s Street Artists Program is very unique and specific to a city which allocates public spaces whereby artists can sell directly to consumers.
Mr. Cancel stated that, because the Arts Commission has to submit its budget to the budget analyst in February, the Street Artists Program’s budget and fee for FY 2009-10 should be decided at the next meeting of the Street Artists Committee, which is scheduled for January 14th.
Commissioner Lloyd stated that, given the Program’s flexibility of the number of certificate-holders, it did not seem reasonable to legislate an annual automatic adjustment of the certificate fee. Furthermore, a budget meeting will be held by the Street Artists Committee annually.
The Commissioner also expressed agreement that the Advisory Committee should be fully funded in order to help fulfill the Arts Commission’s duty of enforcing the street artists ordinance.
Commissioner Melania stated that, based on past hearings conducted by the Street Artists Committee, it would be helpful to have the members of the Advisory Committee on monitoring duty more often.
Commissioner Calloway agreed and stated that increased usage of the Advisory Committee on monitoring assignments would help differentiate the street artists from other vendors and would enhance the visibility of their Program.
Commissioner Lloyd requested Program Director Lazar to submit two proposed budgets for FY 2009-10 at the January meeting: (1) the same budget proposal as was submitted at the present meeting; and (2) a budget proposal to reflect compensation for the maximum number of 35 meetings/assignments of the Advisory Committee and inclusion of the costs of an electronic identification card system (to be heard under Item 3 of the present meeting’s agenda), which would also impact the certificate fee. The Commissioner confirmed that the Street Artists Committee would not be meeting in December; he affirmed that a FY 2009-10 budget would be formally voted on at the January meeting.
3. Discussion and possible motion to approve for inclusion in Street Artists Program budget for Fiscal year 2009-10 the cost and related costs of electronic identification card systems for street artist certification.
(a) Presentation of proposal by Street Artist Michael Addario.
Street Artist Michael Addario stated that some of the issues he has with the current street artist certificate cards are that they are hand-written cards, some of which have been found to have had misplaced names, transposed numbers, and duplicate numbers; there have been people counterfeiting their certificates; also, there is not an accurate list of the current number of street artists. Because the cards are hand-written and then entered into the computer, there is opportunity for information to be misconstrued, transposed, etc. This becomes a problem when the lottery committees are signing in artists for their spaces; they are signed in by their certificate number. Mishaps in the licensing, he said, resulted in six people who were caught selling without licenses which, in turn, caused licensees to lose spaces.
Mr. Addario went on to say that he contacted AlphaCard which sells to Venice Beach’s street artist system; AlphaCard also provides licensing for San Francisco’s City Hall, the Health Department, and pot clubs. He submitted two samples of cards from downloading AlphaCard’s software. Any street artist information – artist’s photo, expiration date, codes, etc. – can be placed on the AlphaCard. He submitted two quotes from AlphaCard: $1,992.42 would buy, he said, one level of security; $3,497.09 would buy a higher level of security.
Mr. Addario stated that there were some street artists who would help in the data collection; they would examine the file of every street artist to capture the name, address, telephone number, and a digital photo of the artist – all of which would be encompassed in the database. If an artist were to renew his certificate, the only item to be changed would be the date of the certificate’s expiration. The problems arising from handwriting information on renewed certificates, and cutting and pasting photos, would be eliminated.
Mr. Addario requested that outside funding, as a grant, be solicited to pay for the new system, rather than the street artists paying for it.
In response to questions by Commissioners Delaney and Lloyd, Mr. Addario stated that the cost, after initial expense, would be about 50 cents per card.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata asked if there were any “use fees” or hidden fees involved with the proposed system. Mr. Addario responded that AlphaCard provided toll-free support and would help the Program in setting up the design of the card.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata expressed that there might be another City department which uses the same system and with whom the Arts Commission could partner instead of going to the expense of creating a special system for the Street Artists Program.
(b) Presentation of proposal by Street Artists Program Assistant Evelyn Russell. Street Artists Program Assistant Evelyn Russell stated that she wanted to thank street artist Michael Addario because this was a project she herself had started last year. She had researched a number of companies which manufactured electronic identification card systems in order to find quality for the best price. From her research, she had selected a company called Capture Technologies. Her research, however, had been tabled (by the Street Artists Committee) because of cost issues.
Ms. Russell produced a sample of a current hand-written street artist certificate which, she said, was wonderful in its day but was something that now, because of modern technology and its education of children, her five-year-old grandchildren, she said, could do better.
Ms. Russell stated her reasons for recommending Capture Technologies. The issue of hidden costs had surfaced when she discovered that other companies would only help the purchaser through technical problems over the telephone or online. This would invariably result in the company requesting the purchaser to package the item and mail it back to the company, with the purchaser left without a means to continue its work. Ms. Russell stated that she required one-on-one, “hands-on” instruction, and that Capture Technologies will send a representative to the worksite if there is a problem. Furthermore, she said, with regard to the necessary training period to learn to operate the new system, Capture will send a representative to the worksite to train personnel, whereas the other companies offer training over the phone or by email.
Ms. Russell went on to say that Capture Technologies services the San Francisco Fire Department, the Sherriff, Municipal Railway, Human Resources, Public Health, City Hall, the Academy of Sciences, Moscone Center, and other organizations and programs.
Ms. Russell introduced Account Executive Jeff Atkinson of Capture Technologies and asked him to give a presentation.
Mr. Atkinson produced samples of two-sided cards with a bar code generated by his company. He described his company’s history, the position of data cards in present times, and various city, state, and private departments serviced by Capture. His company is able to design a card to the Arts Commission’s specifications and in the form of three types of cards. His company performs onsite examinations of its systems and provides a yearly maintenance agreement. A machine can be leased from Capture for $131 a month; or a single-sided card system can be purchased for $1,400; or a double-sided card system can be purchased for $6,600.
Ms. Russell stated that, with respect to the issue of the production of a list of certificate-holders, the Capture system will also double as track-keeping data of the artists.
Commissioner Lloyd stated that it made better sense for the Street Artists Program to lease the machine than to purchase it and to have the machine on the premises rather than to partner with another department for its use. The Commissioner called for public comment.
Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that an expense item in the budget comparable to the cost of the new system should be deleted from the budget, so that the budget is not additionally increased.
Street Artist Michael Addario stated that he wanted to see the comparisons of Capture’s product with those of AlphaCard. Furthermore, he would rather see the system purchased, rather than leased.
Commissioner Delaney stated that, with a new time-saving system, Ms. Russell could put her attention to other tasks. She asked her how much time was involved in issuing a certificate.
Ms. Russell responded that the time varied depending on the number of crafts which required listing on an artist’s certificate. Total hours per week are roughly five to ten hours.
Commissioner Delaney stated that the cost of a new machine was insignificant compared to the current salaried cost of Ms. Russell’s hours.
Closing public comment, Commissioner Lloyd proposed that, given the restrictiveness of the budget, the artists not bear the cost of purchasing a system, and that a low-end system be leased and situated in the office.
Commissioner Delaney stated the she would purchase the machine for the Program and that she wanted “this system in place.”
Commissioner Lloyd requested that Commissioner Delaney head an ad hoc subcommittee to choose the unit.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata stated that the costs of the systems of both companies be investigated before a purchase is made. Addressing Mr. Atkinson, she stated that she would like to see an offer made by his company to the Street Artists Program for the first year of its system’s usage.
Commissioner Lloyd moved that Commissioner Delaney, Evelyn Russell, Michael Addario, and Commissioner Lloyd, serve on an ad hoc committee to decide on the appropriate unit for Commissioner Delaney to purchase for the Street Artists Program.
Commissioner Garcia-Nakata stated that, because the Arts Commission is a public institution, there are certain procedures that must be followed by donors giving money to an institution; therefore, Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel should be consulted on the process to be followed in the contribution and designation of the gift.
Program Director Lazar stated that the ordinance which provides for the street artist fund also allows for the receiving of gifts.
Commissioner Lloyd withdrew his motion, saying that it was not necessary to form an ad hoc committee if Commissioner Delaney, as an individual, chooses to make a donation.
4. New business/public comment.
Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan stated that the street artists were willing and able to interact with the Commissioners and staff to give input on issues. She also requested that the Program produce a Chinese interpretation of its handbook of rules and procedures for the Chinese street artists.
There being neither further new business nor public comment, Commissioner Lloyd adjourned the meeting at 5:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Howard Lazar
Street Artists Program Director
November 26, 2008
