Street_Artists_Committee

STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE

Wednesday, February 13, 2008
3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70

MINUTES

Members present: Commissioners Alexander Lloyd and Sherene Melania

Members absent: None

Staff present: Director of Cultural Affairs Luis Cancel, Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar, Street Artists Program Associate Evelyn Russell

Commissioner Lloyd, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. and introduced the Arts Commission’s new Director of Cultural Affairs Luis Cancel. Commissioner Lloyd welcomed Director Cancel’s participation in the meeting.

1.     Hearing and possible motion to approve Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Street Artists Program budget including certificate fee increase. (item sent back to committee by full Arts Commission for hearing on further budget revisions)

Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel expressed his commitment, as a visual artist, to advocating for individual artists. For this, he stated some of his qualifications which included an undergraduate degree in painting and printmaking and the evolution of his work into digital media. He considered himself an “individual artist” who always championed what he termed “the creative class” – the people who actually make art: dancers, writers, actors, painters, etc. Without such individuals, he stated, culture does not exist. He exemplified this view by stating that when he managed New York’s Department of Cultural Affairs, a large cultural organization, he saw the agency go through economically lean times and yet continue to grow primarily due to Mayor Dinkins’ acceptance of Mr. Cancel’s arguments that the arts were fundamental to the economy of the city and the driving power behind the attraction of tourism. These arguments, he stressed, apply equally toSan Francisco. According to statistics, the number of individual artists per capita in San Francisco ranks fifth in the nation, even though the city’s population ranks fourteenth. Because artists, therefore, represent a very important segment of the city’s economy, he was happy to see that San Francisco’s Arts Commission has its mandate by ordinance to work with visual artists, like the street artists, to help them sell their works to the public.

This responsibility, he stated, which Program Director Howard Lazar has managed for the City, is a very important function for the Arts Commission which will not be considered as an afterthought.

Mr. Cancel went on to say that one of the new tasks he had to perform as a new director of the Arts Commission was to study the bases for the operation of all of the programs of the Arts Commission. As he examined the street artist ordinances with Mr. Lazar, he saw that the language authorizing the Street Artists Program is clear and unambiguous: the activity of licensing street artists has to be expense-neutral. In other words, he said, the costs of the Program cannot be subsidized by anything other than the street artist license fees. He therefore asked Mr. Lazar and the Commission’s accounting staff to prepare a careful analysis of the absolute minimum of costs required to operate the program. This was reflected in the budget which was now being proposed for fiscal year 2008-2009.

The budget, he said, represented a slight increase over the previous year’s budget.

Program Director Lazar clarified that the increase was due partially to a $20 increase in compensation for each meeting or other duty performed by members of the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners, a proposal heard and approved previously in committee.

Director Cancel continued with his explanation of the budget. Another part of the increase was due to union-mandated personnel costs. The biggest factor of the increase resulted from re-identifying the true cost of operating the program. Previously, there had not been a careful analysis of the allocation of the cost of the program’s office space. It was now carefully analyzed and included in the proposed budget.

In order to meet the budget, he said, the fee will have to rise from the current annual rate of $419.20 to $532.29 (or $133.07 per quarter).

Commissioner Lloyd clarified that a significant portion of the fee increase was due to the expiration of the program’s surplus of fees savings which had, for many years, subsidized the program’s budgets. Therefore, the actual percentage increase in the budget was not was not the sole contributor to the fee increase.

Director Cancel went on to say that the surplus fee savings had actually been depleted during the year before, leaving a negative balance to carry forward into the current year; therefore, the new budget will have to cover the negative number and make sure that the program meets all of its expenses. All of this is what accounts for the increased fee.

Commissioner Lloyd asked for comments from the Program Director.

Program Director Lazar stated that the present fee represented an equivalent cost to the artists of $1.15 a day. The new fee would be the equivalent of $1.46 a day – still less, he said, than the cost of a typical cup of coffee in San Francisco.

In line with this, Mr. Lazar researched the cost of fees of other American “street artist” programs, and made two discoveries: (1) there is no program similar to San Francisco’s which provides artists with the opportunity to sell their wares seven days a week and the opportunity to sell in not just one but in several prime retail areas in the city; and (2) aside from the San Francisco Street Artists Program, the two other premier “street artist” programs are the ones of Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington (Pike’s Market). Portland’s will not let the artists sell beyond weekends; if a street artist wished to sell during every weekend, the artist would have to pay fees totaling $2,340 for the year – which represents $6.41 a day. Pike’s Place Market in Seattle allows for daily selling; the fee is per day and varies depending on the day of the week and the week of the particular season. If a street artist wished to sell every day – as do some 150 out of 390 San Francisco street artists – the artist would have to pay fees totaling $4,866 for the year, representing $13.33 a day. Mr. Lazar concluded that, given these comparison figures, given the voters’ mandate that the Arts Commission be the exclusive agency to license the artists, and given the fact that its Street Artists Program is self-supporting, he felt that the proposed fee increase “pales in comparison with what the other two premier” programs charge.

He went on to mention the local street fairs and craft shows – everything from the Union Street Fair to smaller venues around the Bay Area – as charging $450 to $1,000 a weekend. Furthermore, he was informed by several street artists who had been in such shows that they had to compete with vendors in the shows selling commercially manufactured merchandise; and there is not even an attempt on the part of the show promoters to police such non-arts/crafts activities.

Mr. Lazar informed the Commissioners of the contribution to San Francisco’s economy on the part of the Arts Commission’s street artists: a conservative estimate is that the artists contribute approximately $4 million a year.

He also stated that the present fee will, by the end of June, have been unchanged for three years. It was supposed to have been increased two years ago, but by running the program economically and utilizing the surplus fee savings, the fee has remained the same for three years. This is not the only time in the program’s history that the fee has remained constant. The annual fee was $80 for seven years, from 1978 to 1985. The fee was $230 for five years, 1986 to 1991. And it was $350 for twelve years, 1991 to 2003.

In conclusion, Mr. Lazar stated: “If everyone says that this is a premier program on premier retail real estate – a former Commissioner actually said that the spaces on Grant Avenue by Sutter, by Banana Republic, are on a sidewalk that is the fifth-highest retail sidewalk in the world – I think that the proposed $1.46 a day is a deal.”

Director Cancel stated that he had another observation he wished to share with the Committee and something which should be considered in the coming year: There has been an improvement in the ability to gather complaints of street artist violations. There was a significant increase in 2006-2007 over previous years in the number of complaints that were filed. Whereas in prior years the complaints numbered between 50 to 90 per year, in 2006-2007 the number climbed to 181. It was not because more artists were violating; it was because the efficiency in gathering the complaints had improved with the electronic transmittal of complaints by the Union Square Business Improvement District. He foresaw that, in the future, such volumes of complaints will require additional personnel for their investigation. He and Mr. Lazar had decided not to ask for additional personnel at this time, recognizing that the fee would be increasing significantly in July. It was decided to hold off for another year to see whether the sharp increase in complaints will reduce itself; but if it reaches a plateau, it will require the program to add a staff person in order to address the complaints.

Mr. Cancel also stated that of the 181 complaints that were filed last year, only 37 were acted on.

Commissioner Lloyd inquired whether there were administrative steps that could be taken to take some pressure off the budget.

Mr. Cancel responded that it should be studied whether annual or bi-annual licenses, rather than quarterly licenses, for all artists would reduce the administrative burden; this, of course, would involve conferring with the artists.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that inquiries could be made on the possibility of imposing monetary fines for street artist violators to assist the program’s revenue.

Following Mr. Cancel’s statement about additional personnel, Mr. Lazar stated that he was severely burdened by the volume of cases submitted to him, especially now with the Business Improvement District’s submissions. He acted on only 37 cases last year because most of his time and effort were spent on the yearlong Manuel Loli case; whereas during the previous year he received 89 complaints and was able to act on 70 of them. Nevertheless, he needed an assistant who could be detailed to investigate or interview incoming complaints, write their reports, and discuss them with the Program Director; also have the assistant prepare the numerous form-letter warnings and notices of hearing – all of which takes an enormous amount of care and time.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that, as he had said previously, he had wanted to keep the fee raise to a minimum, but the Commissioners and staff did not know, until now, that the Mayor was going to order all departments to cut back on their expenses, making it necessary for the Street Artists Program to shoulder its portion of Arts Commission services.

Director Cancel stated that he appreciated the Committee’s flexibility because the Commission does have the ordinance-mandated responsibility to run its Street Artists Program expense-neutral. He said that he came in late in the budget process, did a quick analysis, and that the Program Director and he were able to see that the initial fee which was being proposed would not be able to cover the complete expenses.

Commissioner Lloyd called for public comment.

Street Artist Michael Addario, reading from a prepared text, stated that he was “deeply disappointed that San Francisco’s Street Artists Program, despite my recommendation for a staff reduction and numerous other costs cutting moves that would have balanced the budget with funds to spare, instead submitted a budget that ignores all my recommendations and increases our fees by 27 percent.” His statement criticized the performance of the Program office staff and the staff’s inability to remove unlicensed vendors; and pointed to “accounting improprieties,” “lost revenue,” and “increasing program costs.” He also maintained that revenue was lost for the artists because 50 spaces at United Nations Plaza “have been unavailable, due to the staff’s apathy and incompetence, for the last 35 years.” He alleged a loss of time and cost to the artists because Program Director Lazar “is concurrently and covertly employed as a janitor” … “or when Program Associate Russell is requested to refrain from showing up to work, but paid by the street artists, because of an irresponsible City Attorney ruling.”

Continuing from his text, Mr. Addario stated that the proposed budget appeared “to be a thinly disguised, retaliatory, and pernicious attack against artists for raising valid questions of the Arts Commission’s lack of oversight and mismanagement of the program staff and possible malfeasance of the program funds and assets for the last 35 years …”  Citing “the Ninth Circuit Court” as deciding that “the Constitution protects artists who are not required to have any license or to pay any fees” to sell their art, Mr. Addario stated that “possibly this is exactly what the street artists now need to do ….”

Mr. Addario’s final text statement called for the Arts Commission to fund the Street Artists Program “from the million of dollars it receives each year from the 14% hotel tax … to promote art and assist artists.”

Commissioner Lloyd gave opportunity for staff to respond.

Program Director Lazar addressed Mr. Addario’s allegation that he was “concurrently and covertly employed as a janitor”. Mr. Lazar stated that on non-Arts Commission hours he was self-employed as a janitor, that therefore this work was not covert, and that he had declared it on conflict-of-interest forms on file at the Arts Commission for at least the past ten years. He clarified that it was not illegal for him to have a second job, that it was his right to have one, and that the City’s Department of Human Resources was cognizant of this work. He further stated the location and early morning hours in which he worked, prior to his hours of work at the Arts Commission, and said that he had learned that there were a number of Arts Commission employees who also held second jobs.

Commissioner Lloyd warned Mr. Addario against continuing a personal attack against the staff, stating that Mr. Lazar’s second job did not impact the budget, and that he wanted comments to be limited to the budget.

Street Artist Virginia Travers stated that she has been a street artist since the beginning of the Program and that, while she understands that costs in the world rise, she was concerned over whether the Program’s budget will continue to rise each year.

With regard to the Program Director’s statements about the competitive marketplaces in Seattle and Portland, Ms. Travers stated that what San Francisco’s artists “get for our $1.15 a day is a three-by-four-foot space on the sidewalk,” whereas “in Seattle, it’s an enclosed market” affording “ten feet per artist” along with lighting and heat; those artists, she said, “are not out on the sidewalk.” The same was true for Portland. She said that that is why the licenses of those cities were more expensive: the artists “get more.”

Ms. Travers went on to state that the artists “do not have any say in our Program”or where the money is spent; therefore, they should form a liaison committee that would work with the Arts Commission. She went on to cite problems of having to sell next to fellow street artists who “don’t have the best intentions of the program when they are selling”; to the Commissioners and staff, she stated: “You are not affected by that.” She reiterated that the artists needed to have a say as to how the Program’s money is allocated as well as the direction of the Program. “Otherwise what’s going to happen is that you’re going to end up with a revolt.” But revolting against the Arts Commission, she said, was not what the artists wanted. In lieu of this, she offered to gather a few artists on an elected basis to form a liaison committee to work with the new Director of Cultural Affairs.

She stated that the hotel tax should support the street artists; instead, she said, “we don’t get anything; we get a three-by-four-foot space on the sidewalk.”

Program Director Lazar clarified that, many years previously, the Program had a Liaison Committee which was elected by the street artists. He had met with the Committee monthly. The purpose of the Committee was to discuss issues – everything from street artist lotteries to budget issues – and the issues with the Committee’s recommendations were brought to the Street Artists Committee which, in almost all cases, adopted the Liaison Committee’s recommendations. What finally happened, however, was that the members of the Liaison Committee could not get along with each other, meetings broke down, and the Committee was disbanded.

Commissioner Lloyd said he was amenable to having a Liaison Committee reinstituted, and that he favored making changes requested by the artists. Furthermore, while he would like to see the fee held at a minimum and some of the hotel tax money come to the Program, that was not what the street artist legislation provided; the legislation was clear that the Program had to be self-sustaining.

Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel expressed support of street artist representatives working with the Commission and added that he was pleased to see that there had been precedent for this. He wanted to work with Mr. Lazar in exploring mechanisms to have the artists elect representatives who then could work with the Commission in addressing the various issues.

Street Artist William Clark stated that from 1972 to the present “we had a symbiotic relationship with the full Arts Commission in that our employees” [Street Artists Program staff] “often did little jobs which the Arts Commission requested of them” and did not “really have anything to do with the Street Artists Program.” As examples, he cited the times when Program Director Lazar or Program Assistant Toni Worthy would sit at the front desk as Commission receptionist or go to the bank on behalf of the Commission or stamp the mail of all the programs of the Commission. The Commission in the past, he said, acknowledged that these little jobs would not only offset the cost of the rent owed by the Program but would save the Commission the cost of hiring a receptionist. “There were a lot of little things that we were doing that weren’t related to the Program but were helping the Arts Commission; and we would like to continue to do that.” But if the artists were going to be charged for various Arts Commission administrative costs, “then what you’re saying to us is that we should no longer allow our employees that we pay through our fees to be doing these other non-related jobs for the Arts Commission.” He stated that he surmised the cost to be 76 cents per minute; “in that regard, if you’re going to ask our employees to do things, then we should have to charge you in return, but we would rather keep it the same way” in which the Program is not charged for rent or accounting service.

Mr. Clark went on to say that he respectfully had to refuse support of the proposed fee increase because of the “$275,000 of fees of our revenue that we’ve never gotten from the City, and before we have a fee increase, I think the Arts Commission should at least consider supporting us to get that money back.”

Mr. Clark’s final point was that, despite the screening committee’s not having an increase in compensation for a number of years, the screening committee received an honorarium for travel and parking. If any fee needs to be raised, he said, it should be the screening committee’s fee by $5 or some minimum cost, rather than the street artist’s fee.

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that from 1972 to 1978 the Program collected $198,000 in certificate fees which were supposed to be used only by the Program. “We got only four thousand dollars,” he said; “the City embezzled $196,000.” He went on to say that $35,000 in fees, under Proposition “J” which was obtained through the efforts of his brother, was supposed to go to the Arts Commission but was “taken by the City; we never got that money.” He added that with regard to “$40,000 of interest from 1991 to 1997” for which he had provided evidence to the Street Artists Committee, “the City Attorney has written bogus opinions claiming that our interest is no longer held in trust, therefore they don’t have to pay it back. Including the interest on this money, this City owes us $1 million. I am opposed to any fee increase until we get our money back for our use.”

Mr. Clark went on to question Program Director Lazar’s proposed revenue figure of $161,100. He said that the current 390 artists, multiplied by the current $419.20 annual fee, would yield some two thousand dollars more. He wanted to know how the Program Director had arrived at the “$161,100” figure. He also wanted to know where the accounting was for the $20 application fee of new applicants, which he figured should yield approximately $5,500 a year. He also wanted an accounting of the $20 fee paid by former certificate-holders re-entering the Program. All of this, he said, should be included in the revenue fund.

Mr. Clark concluded by stating that if the Program was going to be charged for rent, then “from this point forward” the Commission should be charged $.76 a minute for every minute  “our staff members … are taken away from their time, … for doing anything that has nothing to do with the Street Artists Program. If Howard goes down to mail a letter and he’s nice enough to take the Arts Commission’s letters down there, then I say we split the difference” and “charge you $.38 a minute for every time that Howard’s or Evelyn’s time is taken up. At the end of the year we will account for all that money. We will submit the bill to the Arts Commission to offset whatever rent fees, whatever things that you are now adding to this budget. I also suggest that, when the voters voted to put this Program into the Arts Commission, that the Arts Commission’s job is to oversee this Program. Their accountants are paid a yearly salary to do the job” as part of the Arts Commission’s responsibility. “We shouldn’t have to be required to pay an additional fee when they are paid a yearly salary to do what the voters have asked them to do which is to oversee this Program.”

Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan stated that she has been in the Program since 1974 and that she supported the idea of having a street artist liaison committee working with the Commission. She noted that the staff salaries were almost ninety percent of the budget; therefore, the artists wanted to see more accountability. She supported the request by William and Robert Clark to have the City return the street artist fees to the Program. She went on to say that if Justin Herman Plaza were no longer made available to the artists, they would be overcrowding their spaces at Fisherman’s Wharf.

Ms. Hallinan stated that, economically, “We’re barely hanging in there. … People are not buying arts and crafts … The artists are struggling; they’re having a hard time paying their rents, their fees, etc.”

Street Artist Susan Pete stated that she has been a street artist for thirteen years and that “we don’t get new spaces; we have been using the same spaces. Some are good; most of them are not. Every time we try to get more spaces, some business argues about it. They have more money, they have more power …” Designers of buildings, she said, deliberately create doors to prohibit the placement of adjacent street artist spaces. With respect to the price of the street artist certificate per day, she stated that most artists do not sell every day; it is usually Friday, Saturday and Sunday. She added that, unlike the store businesses, the artists do not have any unloading rights next to some of the spaces – as, for example, Stockton Street. In Berkeley, she said, the artists receive a yellow zone permit for unloading, whereas they do not receive one for San Francisco. She expressed hope that Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel would help the artists get more spaces, even at Fisherman’s Wharf.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that he had heard at least five good ideas, and that he wished to work to help the artists.

Commissioner Melania affirmed this by stating that that was the purpose for the Commissioners holding their meetings.

Commissioner Lloyd urged the artists to elect their representatives to meet and to submit concrete ideas to the Street Artists Committee.

In reference to Robert Clark’s point that the Program Director’s proposed revenue was $2,000 less than what it should be, Commissioner Lloyd asked Mr. Lazar for clarification.

Mr. Lazar stated that, as he had stated previously to the Committee, that the Program’s revenue typically decreases at this time of the year (January through March); therefore, it would not be accurate to simply double the figure of the revenue collected from the previous July through December to arrive at a figure of annual revenue. He went on to say that the certificate fee, by law, had to reflect the true costs of the Program, and that the Commission could not request a fee higher than what was needed.

Mr. Lazar clarified that the revenue of the $20 application fee was included in the proposed figure of annual revenue, and the $20 fee revenue reflected payment by new applicants as well as former certificate-holders granted priority by the Commission to return to the Program.

Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel stated that his staff and he would be looking expeditiously at a method of electing street artists who could work with the Street Artists Committee, the staff, and himself to look for ways to improve the Program.

He went on to address the problem of a lack of unloading zones for the artists. He felt that this is an area where the Commission could advocate as an “ombudsperson” on behalf of the artists with the other departments responsible for creating such zones. Street artists who have paid their fees, he said, should be able to unload and set up shop without having to receive traffic citations.

Mr. Cancel observed that there were a number of issues raised by the artists for which the Commission wanted to be helpful. The first step was to have the artists get their representatives in place who would then assist the Commission in focusing on the key issues it should be pursuing.

Mr. Cancel addressed the allegation that staff time was not entirely devoted to the work of the street artists. It was his “observation that they are “110% devoted to the work of the street artists” and were not running errands, answering phones, or doing other activities for other programs of the Commission.

Program Associate Evelyn Russell stated that the Program Director “sits in a fishbowl” cubicle at the Arts Commission, and that he is the only director of a Commission program who does not have an office. His work requires concentration in writing and working with figures; but he does not have the opportunity to have concentrated time because he is constantly interrupted throughout the day with persons entering the suite and looking for other program personnel. Furthermore, recent remodeling of the suite squeezed his cubicle closer together – “it’s like going inside of a very small closet,” she said.

In response to a question by Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan, Program Director Lazar, through the chair, clarified that the dramatic increase in complaints of violation submitted to him last year was due to the Union Square Business Improvement District’s efforts in helping him monitor “one of the most egregiously violated” street artist areas of the city – the south sidewalk of Market Street, between 4^th and 5^th Streets, adjacent to the Westfield shopping complex.  While there are only six designated street artist spaces in that location, there would typically be ten to twelve street artists selling there. Time would not permit him to monitor that sidewalk every day. The Business Improvement District, in the interest of keeping the area in proper usage for the Westfield complex, offered the services of its redcoat “ambassadors” to monitor the spaces and to e-mail photos of observed violations to Mr. Lazar. As a result, he said, this is now the first time in years that it can readily be observed that no more than six artists are selling. As Mr. Cancel has stated, he said, the Business Improvement District’s efforts are a boon to the Program’s ability to enforce the Street Artists Ordinance.

Commissioner Melania moved that the Street Artists Program budget, as presented, for fiscal year 2008-09 with certificate fee increase be approved; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lloyd and unanimously approved.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that he was reluctantly supporting the fee increase, and he wanted to see the proposed liaison committee work on ways to establish a fee increase which, at worst, keeps up with inflation but does not go over that. Nevertheless, the Arts Commission was presently in an unfortunate budget situation, and the fee reflected what the Director of Cultural Affairs recommended.

Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel stated that, with the creation of elected representatives to work with the Commission, one of the things required would be to examine the language of the ordinance and try to find some ways to propose changes to be taken to the Board of Supervisors so that there could be greater flexibility in not having the fee take the full burden of the costs of the Program, and to see if there were ways to subsidize the Program.

Commissioner Melania stated that, as an artist, she heard the street artists in their statement “that things are challenging in this economy; but hopefully, with the elected street artists, we can create an open dialogue to promote increased efficiency within the Program.”

2.  Hearing and possible motion to approve continuous annual designation of temporary winter holiday spaces for street artists.

Street Artist William Clark stated that for the last 27 years Program Director Lazar has gone before the Board of Supervisors to request temporary locations for the winter holiday season of November 15^th to January 15^th. Mr. Clark was proposing that Mr. Lazar request the Board of Supervisors to approve a resolution that would provide for continuous annual designation of the same temporary winter holiday spaces. This would save Mr. Lazar time in having to prepare and present legislation before the Supervisors every year.

Commissioner Lloyd called for public comment. There was none.

Commissioner Lloyd moved that the Program Director be authorized to submit a resolution to the Board of Supervisors requesting continuous seasonal designation of temporary winter holiday spaces for street artists; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Melania and unanimously approved.

3.  Hearing and possible motion to approve certain street artist spaces, including temporary winter holiday spaces, for use on Saturdays only.

Street Artist William Clark proposed that the Arts Commission consider submitting a resolution to the Board of Supervisors requesting certain spaces that would be available for street artist use on Saturdays only.  The reason for this was that the majority of artists come out to work on Saturdays, but there were currently not enough spaces for the artists. He asked that the list of temporary winter holiday spaces be reviewed to ascertain ones that would be best suited for year-round Saturday usage. In addition, new spaces could be proposed for Saturday usage. He asked that this item be continued to the following Committee meeting to allow artists the opportunity to submit proposals. Once a “package” of spaces is determined by the Committee, a resolution designating the spaces for Saturdays could then be submitted to the Supervisors.

Mr. Clark commented that the Street Artists Ordinance was a measure passed by the voters and, as such, cannot be changed by the Board of Supervisors.

Commissioner Lloyd called for public comment. There was none.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that he would be in favor of supporting a Saturday-space increase for the Program; he encouraged the artists to return with proposals for the next meeting. He would like to see every artist in the Program able to work on Saturday.

Program Director Lazar commented that, relative to William Clark’s comment about the inflexibility of the voter-mandated Street Artists ordinance, it was possible for the Program’s fund to accept donations from any source; it was his understanding that this could not only include charitable gifts but also possible transfers from the general fund or the hotel tax fund.

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that the Street Artists Ordinance provides for a violator of the ordinance to be brought up on criminal charges by the District Attorney. Mr. Clark requested that evidence used in Arts Commission hearings on street artists who are found in violation be submitted to the District Attorney who has the power to levy fines against the individuals; the fines, in turn, would be able to go into the Street Artists Program’s fund, and this would help the Program pay for enforcement.

Street Artist Edward Steneck asked whether the Program office had commenced verifying with the Board of Equalization the validity of the artists’ State Seller’s Permits. If artists do not have valid Permits, they are not paying the state sales tax they are required to collect. This would be unfair to artists like Mr. Steneck who, he said, are registered with the State and pay their taxes.

Program Associate Evelyn Russell affirmed that the office has commenced verifying the Seller’s Permits. She also developed a form letter which she sends to artists attempting to renew by mail but lacking valid Seller’s Permits, informing the artists of the Program’s inability to renew their certificates until they produce valid Permits.

4.  Street Artists Program Director’s Report.

Program Director Lazar reported that the requested list of current street artist certificate-holders was posted on the Program’s web page. At the present time, there were 392 artists.

Commissioner Lloyd thanked the eight artists (Michael Addario, Robert Clark, William Clark, Kathleen Hallinan, Lyn Magnuson, Susan Pete, Edward Steneck, Virginia Travers) for attending today’s meeting.

There being no further business, Commissioner Melania moved to adjourn the meeting; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lloyd and unanimously approved.

The meeting adjourned at 4:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Howard Lazar

Street Artists Program Director

February 26, 2008