05-08-12 Workshop MeetingCITY COMMISSION
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
WORKSHOP MEETING - TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012
6:00 P.M. DELRAY BEACH CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR CONFER ENCE
ROOM
The City will furnish appropriate auxiliary aids an d services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the b enefits of a service, program, or activity conducte d by the City.
Contact Doug Smith at 243-7010, 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably
accommodate your request. Adaptive listening device s are available for meetings in the Commission Cham bers.
WORKSHOP AGENDA
1. Public Art Master Plan
2. Consider Bid Proposal for the Davis Cup Finals
3. Discussion regarding South Central Regional Waste W ater Treatment and Disposal Board
(SCRTWDB)
4. FY 2013 Departmental Budget Presentations:
a. Administrative Services
b. Clean and Safe
c. Tennis
d. Human Resources
e. City Attorney
5. Commission Comments
Please be advised that if a person decides to appea l any decision made by the City Commission with res pect to any
matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City n either provides nor prepares such record.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Linda Karch, Director of Parks and Recreation
Alberta Gaum-Rickard, Recreation Superintendent
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:May 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.1 - WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 8, 2012
PUBLIC ART MASTER PLAN
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before Commission is a presentation by Ela yna Toby Singer, Palm Beach County Art in
Public Places Administrator, regarding the City's P ublic Art Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2011 the City of Delray Beach enter ed into an agreement with Palm Beach County for
Public Art Consulting Services. Since that agreemen t two Service Authorizations have been
executed. The first addressed updating the 2004 Cit y of Delray Beach Public Art Master Plan and the
second changed the scope of services to address Pub lic Art priorities outlined in City of Delray Beach &
CRA master plan, strategic and cultural plans and p ublic art ordinances.
Based on the Public Art Advisory Board direction, E layna Toby Singer has prepared for Commission
review a final assessment report and presentation o f her findings.
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
i
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
An
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Th
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
In
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
B
o
a
r
d
1)
T
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
–
C
i
t
y
’
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
–
C
i
t
y
’
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
–
C
i
t
y
/
C
R
A
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
&
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
2)
T
o
b
r
o
a
d
e
n
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
a
b
o
u
t
pu
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
y
p
e
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
–
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
e
p
s
–
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
R
o
l
e
s
&
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Th
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
t
o
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
•
Ci
t
y
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s
•
Ci
t
y
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s
•
C
i
t
y
&
C
R
A
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
t
a
f
f
•
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
i
s
t
s
c
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
&
C
R
A
•
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
&
P
a
s
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
B
o
a
r
d
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
•
N
o
n
-
a
n
d
F
o
r
-
P
r
o
f
i
t
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
A
r
t
s
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
i
s
a
pr
o
v
e
n
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
r
i
v
e
r
th
a
t
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
j
o
b
s
,
an
d
de
f
i
n
e
s
p
l
a
c
e
.
•
At
t
r
a
c
t
s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
•
At
t
r
a
c
t
s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
•
At
t
r
a
c
t
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
•
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
=
H
i
g
h
e
r
t
a
x
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
•De
v
e
l
o
p
s
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•St
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
en
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
•Cu
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
un
i
t
y
•Re
f
l
e
c
t
s
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
’
s
di
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
a
n
d
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
f
o
r
L
i
v
a
b
l
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
.
C
.
“H
o
w
t
o
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
A
r
t
s
&
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
o
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
”
Pu
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
m
i
x
t
h
a
t
i
s
a
ma
g
n
e
t
f
o
r
pe
o
p
l
e
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
&
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
Pu
b
l
i
c
i
m
a
g
e
c
o
n
v
e
y
e
d
b
y
a
C
i
t
y
ca
n
b
e
a
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
t
o
f
sp
u
r
r
i
n
g
lo
c
a
l
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
En
h
a
n
c
i
n
g
a
c
i
t
y
’
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
a
r
t
s
m
a
k
e
s
a
ci
t
y
c
o
m
e
a
l
i
v
e
fo
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
.
Ar
t
s
+
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
=
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
•
A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
T
a
x
W
a
t
c
h
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Re
p
o
r
t
,
74
.
9
%
o
f
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
t
o
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
in
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
a
r
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
•
I
n
2
0
0
8
F
L
h
a
d
58
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
@
a
r
t
s
a
n
d
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
e
v
e
n
t
s
84
%
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
1
6
%
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
no
n
-
l
o
c
a
l
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
s
p
e
n
t
1
3
7
%
m
o
r
e
pe
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
($
5
7
.
4
9
v
s
.
$
2
4
.
2
5
)
Fo
r
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
th
e
r
e
’
s
a
t
r
e
n
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
“
p
l
o
p
a
r
t
”
to
a
m
o
r
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Pl
o
p
A
r
t
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
,
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
-
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
C
I
P
s
“L
i
g
h
t
s
O
n
”
T
a
m
p
a
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
1
n
i
g
h
t
t
o
3
w
e
e
k
s
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
:
2
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
An
n
u
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
s
:
$
2
0
K
-
$
1
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
25
-
5
0
%
C
i
t
y
,
7
5
-
5
0
%
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
Ci
t
i
e
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
ar
e
r
e
a
p
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
ro
m
th
e
i
r
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
.
De
l
r
a
y
i
s
a
n
e
v
e
n
t
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
w
n
!
↑
Sa
l
e
s
@
R
e
t
a
i
l
&
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
↑
“H
e
a
d
s
i
n
B
e
d
s
”
↑
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
↑
Me
d
i
a
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
“G
L
O
W
”
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
H
a
p
p
e
n
i
n
g
s
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
“I
N
:
S
I
T
E
”
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
•
Ar
t
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
d
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
in
u
n
d
e
r
s
e
r
v
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
•
Re
d
u
c
e
d
v
a
n
d
a
l
i
s
m
an
d
g
r
a
f
f
i
t
i
•
Ar
t
i
s
t
s
a
c
t
a
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
am
b
a
s
s
a
d
o
r
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
•Pr
i
v
a
t
e
l
y
f
u
n
d
e
d
•Pr
i
v
a
t
e
l
y
f
u
n
d
e
d
Ar
t
i
s
t
L
e
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
r
i
v
e
n
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
A
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
Ho
w
D
o
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
Fi
t
I
n
t
o
Fi
t
I
n
t
o
De
l
r
a
y
’
s
P
l
a
n
s
?
Ar
t
h
a
s
a
l
w
a
y
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
t
o
D
e
l
r
a
y
’
s
V
i
s
i
o
n
In
2
0
0
4
,
w
h
e
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
th
e
y
,
a
l
o
n
g
wi
t
h
C
i
t
y
S
t
a
f
f
a
n
d
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
,
re
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d
t
h
a
t
:
•
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
i
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
s
g
o
a
l
s
objectives and
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
to
o
u
r
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
to
o
u
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
•
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
is
v
i
t
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
l
i
f
e
of
i
t
s
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
,
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
of
i
t
s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
at
t
r
a
c
t
s
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
and
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
•
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
re
f
l
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
a
n
d
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
r
t
w
o
r
k
s
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
b
y
a
r
t
ists
th
a
t
a
r
e
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
,
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
pe
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
’
s
P
l
a
n
s
&
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
n
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
B
e
a
u
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ar
t
s
a
n
d
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
V
i
b
r
a
n
c
y
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
G
r
o
w
t
h
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
U
n
i
t
y
20
0
2
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
20
0
4
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
20
0
6
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
20
1
0
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
-
2
0
2
5
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
-
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
De
l
r
a
y
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
R
T
ha
s
b
e
e
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
WI
T
H
O
U
T
-
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
&
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
Wh
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
f
De
l
r
a
y
’
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
to
d
a
y
?
+
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
o
r
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
+
A
h
a
n
d
f
u
l
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
SU
C
C
E
S
S
F
U
L
on
a
n
a
d
-
h
o
c
b
a
s
i
s
=
U
n
d
e
r
R
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
AD
H
O
C
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
≠
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
R
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Sa
m
p
l
e
C
I
T
Y
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
“I
d
a
’
s
C
o
o
l
S
p
o
t
”
Ar
t
i
s
t
:
Lo
i
s
B
r
e
z
i
n
s
k
i
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
NE
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
N
E
2
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
“U
n
t
i
t
l
e
d
”
Ar
t
i
s
t
:
Mi
c
h
i
k
o
K
u
r
i
s
u
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
P
a
r
k
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
P
a
r
k
un
d
e
r
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c
A
v
e
B
r
i
d
g
e
“S
e
a
R
o
o
m
”
Ar
t
i
s
t
:
Jo
h
n
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
Kn
o
w
l
e
s
P
a
r
k
Sa
m
p
l
e
C
I
T
Y
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
“F
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
”
“C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
L
o
o
p
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
”
Ar
t
i
s
t
:
Ga
r
y
M
o
o
r
e
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
NW
5
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
SW
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
&
M
a
r
t
i
n
L
u
t
h
e
r
K
i
n
g
B
l
v
d
“F
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
”
Ar
t
i
s
t
:
Ca
r
l
o
s
A
l
v
e
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
P
a
r
k
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c
A
v
e
.
at
t
h
e
I
n
t
r
a
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
Wo
r
t
h
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
Ch
a
n
g
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
S
p
a
c
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
C
I
T
Y
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
N
e
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
to
E
n
e
r
g
i
z
e
&
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
De
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
’
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
•
St
e
p
1
Re
o
r
i
e
n
t
&
E
x
p
a
n
d
t
h
e
V
i
s
i
o
n
•
St
e
p
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
St
e
p
3
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
&
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
fo
r
T
e
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
St
e
p
1
Re
o
r
i
e
n
t
&
E
x
p
a
n
d
t
h
e
V
i
s
i
o
n
•
Mo
v
e
f
r
o
m
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
to
a
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
•
Be
M
o
r
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
-
Be
t
t
e
r
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
in
t
o
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
o
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
•
In
c
l
u
d
e
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
to
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
Re
t
u
r
n
o
n
i
t
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
St
e
p
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
–
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
V
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
–
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
&
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
y
p
e
s
&
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
/
C
R
A
S
t
a
f
f
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
B
o
a
r
d
,
A
r
t
i
s
t
s
–
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
/
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
–
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
–
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
–
A
r
t
i
s
t
/
A
r
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
–
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
–
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
–
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
,
L
o
a
n
s
,
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
–
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
St
e
p
3
af
t
e
r
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
&
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
fo
r
t
h
e
T
e
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
St
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
We
s
t
o
f
Swinton
Su
p
p
o
r
t
C
i
t
y
/
C
R
A
W.
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
g
o
a
l
s
We
s
t
o
f
Swinton
Bu
i
l
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
in
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
e
a
s
o
n
s
+
R
O
I
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
B
o
a
r
d
se
e
k
s
C
i
t
y
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
of
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
El
a
y
n
a
T
o
b
y
S
i
n
g
e
r
Pa
l
m
B
e
a
c
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
A
r
t
i
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
On
b
e
h
a
l
f
o
f
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
A
d
v
i
s
o
ry Board
On
b
e
h
a
l
f
o
f
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
A
d
v
i
s
o
ry Board
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
Ma
y
8
,
2
0
1
2
The State of Public Art
in Delray Beach
An Assessment
Final Report
May 1, 2012
Submitted by
Elayna Toby Singer , Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
On behalf of the City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
DEDICATION
This report is dedicate d to all who build and sustain Delray Beach’s Public Art Program.
With thanks to those who took the time to participate in this assessment process.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Why Conduct a Self Evaluation? …...…………………………………..……………………………...…….. 4
What is the State of Public Art in Cities Across the Nation with Goals Similar to
Delray Beach? ….………………………………………………………………………………………………….….….6
How Does Public Art Fit into Delray’s Plans? ………………………………………………………….9
What is the Status of Delray’s Public Art Program Today? ..............................................10
Operating Without a Public Art Program Manager
Operating Without a Road Map
Operating Without Nationally Accepted Public Art Best Practices
Operating Without Well Defined Public Art Project Scopes and Budgets
RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
APPENDIX A: LIST OF INVITED STAKEHOLDERS …………………………………………………….. A
APPENDIX B: MINUTES FROM STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ……………………………………...B
APPENDIX C: PUBLIC ART ACROSS THE NATION ...…………………………………………………C
POWER POINT PRESENTATION FROM STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
APPENDIX D: CONSULTANT PROFILE ….………………..……………………………………………..…... D
Page 4 of 19
Why Conduct a Self-Evaluation?
This Assessment of Public Art in Delray Beach was initiated by a dedicated group of
Delray Beach citizens who volunteer their time , talent and service as members of the
City’s Pu blic Art Advisory Board (PAAB). Th is Board was established in 2007 to advise
and make recommendations to City Commissioners regarding Public Art policy, funding,
selection, construction and placement.
Aware that the field of Public Art is continually advancing, and as part of their on-going
e ffort to update their knowledge regarding Public Art best practices and successful
Public Art installations, PAAB members posed the strategi c question, “What is the state
of Public Art in cities across the nation with
similar goals to Delray Beach?” Since the City
of Delray Beach does not have a Public Art
Program Manager, PAAB approached Palm
Beach County’s Art in Public Places
Administrator, Elayna Toby Singer, and asked
her to provide a presentation on the “state of
Public Art today”.
Ms. Singer’s presentation to Delray’s Public Art Board included a virtual tour of Public
Art installations around the Country with comparable scale, feel and function to the
types of projects that would positively influence community engagement, economic
development and cultural tourism in Delray. She also presented information about
current Public Art best practices, the typical steps of a Public Art project, and the roles
and responsibilities of a Public Art coordinator. As a result of Ms. Singer’s presentation
and PAAB member experience s working on Delray’s Public Art projects, PAAB members
recognized that the City’s process for Public Art, and their role in it , was “broken .”
The Public Art Advisory Board received Mayoral and City Commission approval to
pursue this assessment; demonstrating that City leadership understands the need for
Public Art strategic planning and
coordination in Delray Beach. Through an
inter-local agreement between the City of
Delray Beach (City) and Palm Beach County,
in September 2011 the County’s Public Art
Administrator, Elayna Toby Singer, was
engaged to facilitate the City of Delray Beach
in a Public Art Program Assessment.
Page 5 of 19
For sixth months, from October 2011 to March 2012, Ms. Singer facilitated strategic
discussions with stakeholder groups including:
- Mayor and City Commissioners
- City & CRA leadership staff
- Delray Non- and For- Profit Cultural Arts leaders
- Current & Past Public Art Board members
- Public Artists commissioned by both City & CRA
T he purpose of stakeholder meetings was twofold:
1) To address Public Art priorities
outlined in the City and CRA’s master,
strategic and cultural plans as well as in
the City’s P ublic Art Ordinance, and
2) To broaden stakeholder understanding and awareness about Public Art
In each meeting Ms. Singer presented images and information from dozens of Public Art
installations. She also provided an overview of Public Art best practices related to Public
Art planning and implementation; from budget allocation and scope development to
ribbon cutting and long-term maintenance.
B efore the City invested in this Public Art assessment, the majority of stakeholders and
decision-makers who participated in the process perceived Public Art as a stand-alone
s culpture, monument or mural, and had limited familiarity with the typical process and
specific steps cities need to involve artists in CIPs and other strategic initiatives . Through
this assessment, stakeholders and decision-makers
h ave a better understanding of what Public Art
involves including how functional Public Art, (e.g.,
seating, lighting, gazebos, sidewalks, windows,
floors, etc.) can be integrated in Capital
Improvement Projects to fulfill architectural and
zon ing requirements. In addition participants now
have a broader view of the potential for Public Art
to positive ly engage Delray’s diverse communities.
Minutes from stakeholder conversations
significantly informed the findings outlined in this report. S ee Appendix A for a
complete list of invited stakeholders. See Appendix B for stakeholder meetings minutes.
See Appendix C for PowerPoint slides Ms. Singer presented at Public Art Advisory Board,
Commissioner Workshop and stakeholder meetings.
Page 6 of 19
What is the State of Public Art in Cities across the Nation with
Similar Goals to Delray Beach?
Unlike in the past, today it’s too simplistic to define Public Art only as an artwork
permanently or temporarily placed indoors or outside. Today Public Art is also
integrated with architecture, landscape and infrastructure. It can be functional,
commemorative, decorative, social and/or interactive. By employing technology, text,
or sound it can uniquely showcase cutting edge digital and energy innovations.
B oth the form and role of Public Art varies from project to project
and community to community. Public Art contributes to the visual
and textural character of a community. Projects create a sense of
place and foster community unity; often by celebrating the history
of a place and its cultural heritage. Public Art seeks to inspire
relationships and communication and has the power to energize
our public spaces, arouse our thinking, and transform the places
where we live, work, and play into more welcoming and beautiful
environments that invite interaction. Memorable Public Art
experiences stimulate repeat visits by locals and tourists.
In the past ten years there’s been a trend away from artwork
placed as “plop art” in a public space to an approach that is more site-determined,
collabo rative, integrated and community driven. And increasingly, temporary Public Art
installations and interactive happenings are used by cities to generate excitement,
stimulate the local economy , advance neighborhood “green” initiatives and draw
visitors.
In Florida cities similar to Delray Beach, and in others across the nation, public
artist involvement in permanent and temporary strategic place-making efforts have
attr acted businesses, residents and tourists, resulting in higher tax receipts and
increased job opportunities.
Page 7 of 19
For example, the temporary event-oriented “Light s On Tampa ”, a biennial program of
the City of Tampa Public Art Program,
drew approximately a million people to
six artist installations over a three week
period in 2006 , the spectacle’s first year
with a $1 million budget. In 20 11 , with
a $200K budget, the one night event
drew approximately 20,000 people to
three art installations. “Lights On
Tampa ” is 25% City and 75% privately
funded.
With over 40 “P ercent for Public Art ” ordinances in cities and counties throughout
Florida, and over 400 Public Art programs across the United States, cities similar to
Delray Beach are reaping significant economic benefits from investing in Public Art.
According to the Florida Tax Watch Tourism Research Report, 74.9% of visitors to Florida
participate in cultural art activities.
Page 8 of 19
In 2008 Florida had 58-million attendees at arts and culture events of which 84% were
residents and 16% were visitors. It’s also interesting to note that non -local attendees
spent 137% more per person ($57.49 vs. $24.25).
I n the Partners for Livable Communities’ publication “How to Incorporate Arts & Culture
into Neighborhood Business Districts” it’s noted
that Public Art contributes to the mix that is a
magnet for people, businesses & tourism and that
the public image conveyed by a City can be a
critical part of spurring local economic
development. Furthermore, enhancing a city’s
identity through the arts makes the city come alive
for investors and visitors.
Similarly the University of Westminster study entitled “For Art’s Sake, Public Art,
Planning Policies & their Benefits
for Commercial Property,” investors,
developers and occupants of
commercial property conveyed that
image or attractiveness of a
development was a significant
factor for them in selecting a
building. Sixty-two percent of
occupants believe that the
contribution of Public Art to their
building was considerable and
provided a commercial advantage.
Another way Public Art projects help support
local businesses is through procurement of
local goods and services. Similar to other
capital and community projects, Public
Artists who lead such projects often hire a
diverse group of subcontractors such a s
engineers, suppliers, fabricators, accountants,
electricians, computer techs, and others to
design, fabricate and implement the ir
projects.
Page 9 of 19
How Does Public Art Fit into Delray’s Plans?
In 2004, when City of Delray Beach Commissioners first approved
a Public Art ordinance to create the City’s
Public Art Program they, along with City
Staff and citizens of Delray Beach,
recognized that:
Public Art is consistent with and
furthers the goals, objectives and
policies of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Publ ic A rt contributes to the aesthetic enhancement of Delray’s diverse
communities.
The City’s built environment is vital to the quality of the life of its citizens, the
economic success of its businesses, is an attraction for visitors, and a benefit to
tourism.
Public Art can reflect and enhance the City's diversity, character and heritage by
integrating artworks and designs by artists into Delray’s architecture, streets and
landscapes.
And, as outlined in Delray’s 2004 Public Art Ordinance , 2002
Downtown Master Plan , 2006 Cultural Plan and 2010 City
Strategic Plan, a rt s and culture have been integral to Delray
Beach ’s vision, with an emphasis on the following priorities:
Neighborhood and Facility Beautification
Arts and Cultural Vibrancy
Economic Grow th
Community Unity
Page 10 of 19
Wha t ’s the Status of Delray’s Public Art Program Today?
Priorities and goals outlined in the City’s S trategic, Master and Cultural Plans are ripe for
art ist and public art integration.
Ironically, to date, neither artists, nor th e public have
been engaged to full benefit. Despite the City of Delray ’s
deliberate capital planning and the existence of a Public
A rt ordinance which specifies using 1.5 % of Capital
Improvement Projects (CIPs ) for art/design integration,
Delray Beach has barely involved artists in the design
and development of CIP s or other strategic initiatives
aimed at shaping Delray’s physical character and
economic development.
Since the creation of its Public Art Ordinance in 2004, the City of Delray Beach has
implemented a handful of Public Art projects to a generally positive public response.
A nd yet, lacking the necessary resources and infrastructure, the Public Art ordinance has
not resulted in a Public Art program.
Since 2004 Delray has been implementing its
Public Art projects without a Public Art
Program Manager , without a Public Art
Master Plan , without policies and procedures
and without adherence to nationally accepted
Public Art Best Practices . A s successful as
P ublic Art projects appear, it became evident
through stakeholder discussions that Public
Art projects initiated by the City, CRA and
Delray nonprofit organizations have been
carried out on an ad-hoc, instead of strategic ,
basi s .
The City of Delray Beach has treated Public
Art an extra, a mere add -on, instead of the
strategic “game -changer” it can be if included
in the steps Delray takes to attain its strategic goals.
“Untitled” by artist Michiko Kurisu at Veterans Park
under Atlantic Ave Bridge
Page 11 of 19
Oper ating Without a Public Art Program Manager
The City’s need for Public Arts expertise and leadership at the staff level to ramp up,
develop and sustain the City’s Public Art Program is a lynch pin issue at the heart of
many of the challenges outlined in this report.
Without a Public Art Program Manager responsible for working with City management,
the Public Art Advisory Boa rd and strategic partners such as Delray’s CRA, non-profit
cultu ral arts organizations, businesses and community members, Delray Beach has not
yet put in place the foundations upon which a successful Public Art programs can be
established and flourish.
As stakeholder meetings minutes clearly reflect (Appendix
B), without a P ublic Art Program Manager the City lacks
coordination among the City departments involved in the
various stages of a Public Art project. In the absence of a
Public Art Program Manage r City staff assigned to deal
with individual project segments do so without being given
th e necessary tools to do so. Without a Project Manager to
coordinat e the artist’s work with the project’s other design
professionals, economies of early integration and other
synergist ic opportunities, e.g., budget and design, are missed.
Artists commissioned by the City and CRA all remarked that a project coordinator or
point person was either non -existent or ineffective ; making it very difficult for artists to
navi gate through City departments and the City’s construction process. City and CRA
staff assigned to projects often lack Public Art expertise and therefore are unable to
an swer artist ’s questions , resulting in artists being bounced around among staff when
issues arise. In addition minimal staff oversight and limited review of design, fabrication,
install ation and maintenance issues were provided.
As stakeholder meetings minutes reflect (Appendix B), City staff assigned as liaison to
the Public Art Advisory Board (PAAB) are also not given necessary resources to
effectively direct and facilitate the Board in its duties. There also appears to be a lack of
coordination between PAAB’s staff liaison and other City staff . In an effort to support
staff and public ar tists commissioned by the City , volunteer PAAB members have
stepped up to the plate to assist in project management, permitting, engineering and
other project aspects. PAAB member’s diverse expertise and desire to help the City
means they pitch where they can to assist City staff . Similarly, in an effort to help, PAAB
members have voluntarily offered professional services , free of charge, to artists.
Unintentionally, this brings up conflict of interest issues for the City and Board members.
Page 12 of 19
Lack of arts coordination and lack of a designated person to
“lead the charge” for Public Art and other cultural endeavors
the City financially supports, was a repeated theme among
stakeholders. Discussions reveal that despite recommendations
to improve City-wide arts coordination, accountability and
s tewardship of the City’s cultural arts vision, only nominal
changes have occurred since the publication of the 2006 Delray
Beach Cultural Plan. Delray n on profit leaders who participated
in this assessment acknowledged that their projects would
benefit from having an arts professional to facilitate
coordination and communication among Delray’s various
cultural arts groups. Frustration and lack of faith in the City’s
past ability to facilitate collaboration was palpable in several stakeholder discussions.
Operating Without a Road Map
Although for years the City of Delray Beach has partnered with the CRA, Delray’s
n onprofits, residents and local businesses to build Delray as an artsy cultural destination,
stakeholders who participated in this assessment are in consensus that their efforts, and
the resources allocated to arts and culture, would
benefit significantly from a more strategic and
coordinated approach.
Without a Public Art Master Plan, Public Art has not
been operat ionally integrated into Delray’s annual
strategic planning and budgeting, priority setting
and implementation. Without a Plan the following
Pu blic Art infrastructure and capacity does not yet exist for Public Art in Delray Beach:
– Program Vision and Mission
– Policies & Procedures
– Project Types & Locations
– Operational Integration: City/CRA Staff, Public Art Board, Artists
– Staffing / Program Management Strategy
– Funding Strategy
– Artist / Art selection process
– Collaboration / Strategic Partnerships
– Community Outreach and Education
– Agreements: Artist Commissions, Loans, Donations
– Documentation of Public Art
– Maintenance of Public Art
Page 13 of 19
Oper ating Without Nationally Accepted Public Art Best Practices
Without basic yet essential policies and procedures, the City’s P ublic Art program is like
a boat without a rudder. Typically, standard operating procedures and policies are
developed soon after a City establishes its Public Art ordinance. In t he past eight years
the City of Delray Beach has not developed the standard guidelines, processes and
documentation necessary to successfully integrate artists and Public A rt into the City’s
CIP development process.
Without Public Art Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), City and CRA staff and the
Pu blic Art Advisory Board have not been given the tools they need to successfully
develop and implement projects to advance City/CRA goals and to protect City interests.
Without SOPs Public Art projects have
not been implemented in accordance
with nationally recognized best
practices ; from scope development,
artist selection and contracts to
design development, construction,
and maintenance. There is consensus
among City and CRA staff, PAAB
members and Delray’s Non profit
Cultural Arts professionals that the lack of structure, process and coordination greatly
hinders managing Public Art projects effectively.
As of yet City staff and the Public Art Advisory Board have no t e stablished a n
operational blue print for PAAB. Unlike other advisory boards to the City Commission
(e.g.: Planning and Zoning, S.P.R.A.B., Finance) which are generally advising/voting only
boards, PAAB’s role is to be involved in the planning and selection of projects in
addition to recommending how Public Art funds are spent. Without defined processes
an d procedures to support its unique role as a City advisory Board, volunteer expertise
and time ha ve not been harnessed to the City’s advantage. The City, in creative
partnership with PAAB, has great potential for developing projects that support the
City’s strategic goa ls.
In addition, artist Short List and Finalist selections have not been conducted per national
standards. For example, each CIP’s architect and/or landscape architect, City staff (and
CRA staff if CRA funded) users and other project stakeholders have not been included
on selection panels as voting members, in addition to Public Art Board members.
Page 14 of 19
T o date public artists, as uniquely skilled design professionals, have had minimal to no
involvement in the design phase of Capital Improvement Project s. Instead of working
early on with the project’s architect, landscape architect, City staff and project end -users ,
public artists have more typically been
involved towards the end of a project
resulting in a “Public Art goes her e”
approach rather than integrating it
effectively within the project. This
approach limits the inclusion of art to
one specific location, often in the form of
a sculpture or mural and short circuits
the potential for broader reaching aesthetic and community benefits. Today it’s widely
accepted that Public Art elements added into capital projects as an afterthought, instead
of as part of project design and development, do not deliver the same bang for the
buck.
Operating Without Well Defined Public Art Project Scopes and Budgets
In accord ance with the City’s Public Art Ordinance, 1.5% of the total eligible construction
costs are to be appropriated by the City to a
“Public Art Fund” to pay for artist design
services and for the selection, acquisition and
display of artworks and for the administration
of the Public Art program or as otherwise
appropriated in the City budget . For C apital
Improvement Projects (CIPs) less than
$20 0,000, 1.5% of the cost of the projects can
be pooled for other art projects. Initiated by
City management, in March 2012 changes to
the Public Art ordinance, as noted above in
itali cs, were approved by City Commissioners.
Due to the lack of Public Art Program infrastructure to provide project specific
budgeting and tracking, discerning how much the City of Delray Beach spends annually
on Public Art, or on specific Public Art projects is difficult, at best. That said, based on
information provided by and discussions with City staff, it appears that Public Art
projects in Delray Beach are funded in several ways.
“Fountain” by artist Carlos Alves at Veterans Park
Atlantic Ave nue at the Intracoastal Waterway
Page 15 of 19
Pu blic Art projects that have been integrated into
City and/or CRA Capital Improvement Projects are
funded by the CIP project into which the Public Art
is integrated. However, it is unclear if the monies
spent on these particular Public Art projects equal
the 1.5% of the CIP’s total eligible construction
costs, per the Public Art Ordinance ’s goal . Also,
some of these CIP Public Art integrated projects did
not include an open RFQ-type competition and the
Pu blic Art Advisory Board (PAAB) was not involved
in artist or artwork selection. Instead, artists were
selected by City and/or CRA staff and/or a small
group of stakeholders.
In projects where CRA funded CIPs are transferred
to the City at completion of construction, the
process has not been under the aegis of the
Ordinance at all. Although the CRA does not have a
“percent for art” requirement, they understand that
artists and art are strategic tools to fulfilling their
mission to transform “blight to beauty.” In these
instances, CRA staff determines the art budget as
part of the project whole.
Public Art projects have also been funded with
pooled monies from the Public Art Fund, per the
Public Art Ordinance. Absent a coordinated
strategy between City staff and the Public Art
Advisory Board, the Board initiated the use of
pooled Public Art funds to projects they
envisioned would benefit the City and the
community. As successful as these projects are,
they also suffer from issues outlined in this report.
“Cultural Loop Streetscape”
by artist Gary Mo ore
NW 5th Avenue
between SW 1st Street and
Martin Luther King Blvd
“Ida’s Cool Spot”
by artist Lois Brezinski
NE 6th Street / NE 2nd Avenue
Page 16 of 19
T here are also nonprofit organizations such a s
Pineapple Grove Main Street Inc that procure
Public Art. Similarly to City and CRA sponsored
Public Art endeavors, these projects are often
handled without following nationally
recognized Public Art best practices and are
not part of a City-wide coordinated plan.
A s stakeholder meetings minutes clearly reflect (Appendix B), artists commissioned for
City and CRA Public Art projects report
that the projects they were selected for
were often under-budgeted, or the scope
was inadequately articulated by the City
and CRA from the project’s onset. Artists
interviewed for this report explained that
expenses, typically unforeseen for the City
and CRA, arose late in projects when
there are few options and project budgets
are already fully committed. Often artists
were inappropriately asked to shoulder
these shortfalls, causing a financial hardship for the artist.
In general, under-budgeted projects potentially reduce the pool of applicants because
e stablished artists may not apply as they know the project visio n can’t be realized for
the specified budget. Emerging artists may be more willing to take inappropriate
compensation in exchange for an opportunity to be commissioned, but they also may
be ill equipped to recognize the inherent financial risk they’re shou ldering.
Taking a more strategic approach to the use of
available Public Art funds and properly
matching those funds with realistically scoped
projects will result in better outcomes for the
City and for the artists.
“Untitled” by Tim Curtis
Pineapple Grove
Page 17 of 19
Recomm ended Next Steps
to Energize & Strengthen Delray Beach’s Public Art Program
Clearly, Delray Beach has had a longstanding commitment to Public Art, but it has not as
yet transformed the intent of the Public Art Ordinance into a full-fledged and strategic
Pu blic Art Program.
In the years since Delray Beach adopted its Public Art Ordinance, many cities have
proven how Public Art Programs can economically benefit cities and Delray Beach is
ideally situated to knock this type of program out of the park going forward. Dedicated
volunteers and City staff have done their best, with few resources, to implement projects
in the past and the question now is “How do we go forward from here?”
Step 1: Reorient and Expand the Vision
By reorienting our thinking about what Public Art is and how it integrates with capital
and infrastructure projects, we begin to move from a Public Art Ordinance to a Public
Art Program, which will better leverage the City’s investment. And, by building a Public
Art Program that includes artists in capital and community development projects,
Delray’s streetscapes, public plazas, amenities and temporary blockbuster Public Art
installations can become the economic drivers they’ve proven to be across the nation .
The result… Delray Beach residents, businesses, visitors and City coffers will benefit.
Step 2 : Public Art Master Planning
The key to transforming the City’s Public Art investment, both of time and financial
resources, is the development of a Public Art Master Plan. As a result of the tactical work
involved in creating a Public Art Master Plan, Delray Beach will have the necessary
strategic road map it needs to further advance the goals and objectives of City and CRA
annual Strategic and Capital Plans, as well as the Downtown Master Plan and Cultural
Plan. To garner the greatest benefits, it is recommended that the Public Art Master
Planning process build on the strategic work that was accomplished over the past six
months through the Public Art Assessment process and the stakeholder engagement it
generated. The continued involvement of the stakeholders who participated in the
Assessment, along with others who represent strategic alliances, is key to the success of
this planning process.
Based on where Delray is in its Public Art evolution, a Public Art Master Plan, and the
process it entails, will lay the foundation for Delray to quickly ramp up new projects as
the economy improves and new City & CRA CIP projects come on line.
Page 18 of 19
T he following essential components are recommended for inclusion in Delray‘s Public
Art Master Planning process. Descriptions provided for each component only minimally
represent the full list of issues that should be addressed in the planning process.
– Program Vision and Mission
Define strategic purpose
– Policies & Procedures
Acquisition of Public A rt : Commissions, Outright Purchase, Donations, Loans
Removal of Public Art
Support of local artists
– Project Types & Locations
Identify permanent/temporary Public Art opportunities (environmental, built, cultural)
Develop criteria to identify appropriate areas for Public Art
Extend Public Art benefits beyond the downtown area
– Operational Integration: City/CRA Staff, Public Art Board, Artists
Public Art project budgeting, scope development
Public Art Board roles and responsibilities, seat requirements, term limits
– Staffing / Program Management Strategy
Assignment of professional staff to manage the program
– Funding Strategy
Public Art Ordinance (City/CRA implications)
Leverag e public with private money (developers, corporate, donations, gr ants, etc.)
– Artist / Art selection process
Selection Methodology, RFP/RFQ/Invitational, Selection Panel requirements
– Collaboration / Strategic Partnerships
Integration of Public Art planning into other community planning efforts
Expand partnerships with local organizations, public agencies and businesses
– Community Outreach and Education
Dialogue with citizens, Strategies to increase involvement and accessibility to Public Art
– Agreements: Artist Commissions, Loans, Donations
Per Public Art national standards
– Documentation of Public Art
Curatorial, inventory, appraisal o f Public Art
– Maintenance of Public Art
Dedication of resources to ongoing maintenance
Page 19 of 19
Step 3 : Create a Temporary Public Art Program & Funding Plan
for Tennis Center
Expanding the vision and funding of Public Art to include temporary Public Art
installations and interactive community Public Art happenings is a perfect fit for Delray
Beach. And, while there are many opportunities within the City to create such
installations, one clear example is the Tennis Center on West Atlantic Avenue. This is the
City’s hidden Public Art jewel. Its architecture and multiple “rooms” are brimming with
fabulous opportunities for temporary Public Art installations. “Public Artful” activation of
the Tenn is Center is sure to improve the City’s return on its Tennis Center investment .
Temporary Public Art at the Tennis Center will also leverage this existing City resource to
support the City/CRA West Atlantic expansion goals outlined in the Downtown Master
Plan. In addition, temporary Public Art installations, and the audiences they draw, can
stimulate economic development West of Swinton Avenue and build significant
shoulder season economic activity.
Stakeholder Meetings Re: City of Delray Beach Public Art
MTG: October 14, 2011, 10:00am Delray Beach CRA Attend
Community Redevelopment Agency Diane Colona, Executive Director Y
Community Redevelopment Agency Vince Wooten, Development Manager Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Rich McGloin, Member Y
MTG: October 24, 2011, 3:00pm Involved in Public Art, Exhibitions Attend
Old School Square Joe Gillie, President/CEO Y
Delray Beach DDA Marjorie Ferrer, Executive Director Y
Delray Beach DDA Laura Simon, Associate Director N
Pineapple Grove Main Street Inc Gene Fisher, Director Y
Delray Beach Public Library Kimberley Trombly-Burmeister, Director N
MTG: October 26, 2011, 10:30am
Involved in Art Events, Festival, Exhibitions Local Art
Businesses, Issue Calls to Artists Attend
The Creative City Collaborative Alyona Aleksandra Ushe, Executive Director Y
Downtown Marketing Cooperative Sarah Martin, Executive Director Y
Downtown Marketing Cooperative Stephanie Immelman, Marketing Coordinator N
Festival Management Group Nancy Stewart, Director Y
Delray Art League Susan Sabin, Director N
Chamber of Commerce Michael Malone, Director N
Atlantic Avenue Association Mark Denkler, Co-Chair of Board of Directors N
Atlantic Avenue Association David Cook, Co-Chair of Board of Directors N
Delray Beach Art District Gallery Assoc.Mavis Benson, Co-Chair of Board of Directors N
Delray Beach Art District Gallery Assoc.Carole Lynn, Co-Chair of Board of Directors N
MTG: October 28, 2011, 10:00am
Artists who've applied to and/or have been
commissioned for CRA public art projects Attend
Gary Moore, Artist Y
Cheryl Foster, Artist Y
Michelle Newman, Artist N
MTG: October/November 2011
Artists who've applied to and/or have been
commissioned for CITY public art projects Attend
"Ida's Cool Spot" - Del Ida Park Lois Brezinski, Artist Y
"Sea Room" - Knowles Park John Clement, Artist Y
"Untitled" - Veterans Park, under bridge Michiko Kurisu, Artist Y
APPENDIX A Page 1
Stakeholder Meetings Re: City of Delray Beach Public Art
MTG: November 9, 2011, 10:30am City of Delray Beach STAFF Attend
City Manager's Office David Harden, City Manager Y
City Manager's Office Bob Barcinski, Assistant City Manager Y
City Manager's Office Douglas Smith, Assistant City Manager Y
Environmental Services Richard Hasko, Director Y
Planning & Zoning Paul Dorling, Director Y
Engineering Division Randal L. Krejcarek, City Engineer N
Construction Division Rafael C. Ballestero, Deputy Director N
Public Works Division Jim Schmitz, Deputy Director Y
Parks and Recreation Linda Karch,Director Y
Community Improvement Lula Butler, Director Y
MTG: March 2, 2012, 2:30pm City of Delray Beach STAFF Attend
Planning & Zoning Paul Dorling, Director Y
Engineering Division Randal L. Krejcarek, City Engineer Y
Construction Division Rafael C. Ballestero, Deputy Director Y
Parks and Recreation Linda Karch, Director Y
Parks and Recreation Alberta Gaum, Superintendent Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Dana Donaty, Chair Y
MTG: March 5, 2012, 6:00pm
Current and Former City of Delray Beach Public Art
Advisory Board Members Attend
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Dana Donaty, Chair Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Richard McGloin, Vice Chair Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Sandi Franciosa, Member Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Michiko Kurisu, Member Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Mary Minieka, Member Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Robert Currie, Former Member N
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Annette Gray, Former Member N
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Sharon Koskoff, Former Member N
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Patricia Trusello, Former Member Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Kevin Rouse, Former Member N
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Carolyn Pendelton-Parker, Former Member Y
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Vincent Dole, Former Member N
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Mary Smith, Former Member N
City of Delray Public Art Advisory Board Roger Hurlburt, Former Member N
APPENDIX A Page 2
A CONVERSATION WITH City of Delray Beach CRA Staff RE: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC ART PROEJCTS APPENDIX B Page 1 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach CRA Staff
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2011
Community Center, Delray Beach Parks and Recreation 50 , NW1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444
In attendance
Dian e Colonna - Executive Director, Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
Vince Wooten - Development Manager, Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
Elayna Toby Singer - Administrator, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
Alberta Gaum-Rickard - Recreation Superintendent, Delray Beach Parks & Recreation
(Staff liaison to City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board)
Rich McGloin - Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Boa rd
Laura Wiswell - Intern, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
The meeting began at 10:05 AM, with Ms. Elayna Toby Singer stating that the purpose was to solicit input and
feedback regarding what is successful and what could be improved with public art in the City of Delray Beach.
SheAthenApresentedAonAwhatApublicAartAisA(aAsenseAofAplace.AsiteAspecific.ArelatesAtoAtheAplaceAinAwhichAit’sA
located, improves design quality and public infrastructure) and an explanation of a public artist (a design
professional who is another part of a capital construction project). Ms. Singer pointed out that the
commissioning agency owns the art work, but the artist owns the copyright to the design. There are legal
implications if the art is altered in any way.
Ms. Singer continued her presentation with a description of The City of Delray Beach Public Art Ordinance. The
OrdinanceAwasAestablishedAinA2004AinArecognitionAofAitsAvalueAinAfurtheringAtheAcity’sAComprehensiveAPlanAandA
to ensure the aesthetics of the City. It stipulates that 1.5% of eligible projects is to cover the expenses for
design, selection and acquisition, installation, maintenance and administration. If a Capital Improvement
Project is less than $200,000, that money is to be pooled for other projects. Appropriations for Capital
Improvement Projects can come from bonds, grants or other sources. Ms. Singer reviewed the various types
of capital projects that are and are not eligible for public art according to the Ordinance. The Ordinance also
mandated the creation of the Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board and its responsibilities.
Ms. Singer also provided an overview of several other city plans and demonstrated how public art relates to
realizing the goals outlined in these plans. She highlighted on the Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan (2002),
Delray Beach Public Art Needs Assessment (2003), Delray Beach Public Art Master Plan (2004), the Delray
Beach Cultural Plan and Creative City Collaborative of 2006, and the City of Delray Beach Strategic Plan and
National Citizen Survey of 2010. Public art ties into these with physical improvements, beautification, park
features, designs, and cultural tourism.
A CONVERSATION WITH City of Delray Beach CRA Staff RE: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC ART PROEJCTS APPENDIX B Page 2 of 32
The public art process is similar to the processes of capital construction projects, i.e., RFQ, shortlist selection,
finalist selection, contract negotiation, design development, fabrication, installation, ribbon cutting, and long
term maintenance. Similar to other design professionals (e.g., architects, landscape architects, and engineers)
public artists play a key and unique role in interdisciplinary projects teams.
Typical questions asked and answered when developing a public art project scope are: What are the
budgetary and schedule parameters? What type of activities do you foresee happening there? How do you
wantAtoAfeelAwhenAyouAapproachAtheAspace?AIsAtheAlocationAaA‘verb’- a kinetic interactive space- orAaA‘noun’-
staticAandAdiscrete?AWhatAisAtheAarea’sAhistory?A reAthereAfutureAdevelopmentAplans?AWhatAisAtheAseasonalA
effect? What are the day and nighttime site conditions? Is there pedestrian or vehicular access?
Ms. Singer further explained that representatives from the following are typically involved in the creation of a
project’sAscope;AuserAgroupsA(commissioningAagencyArepresentative.AstaffAwhoAknow/useAtheA“facility”).AaA
Public Art Coordinator (project manager), a public art advisory board (volunteers), and community
stakeholders (neighborhood groups, local business owners). The selection panel members change per project.
Ms. Singer said that artist selections are typically qualifications based and that for shortlist selection artists are
selected based on a letter of intent, resume, and images of past work. In finalist selection artists prepare
proposals or are interviewed. Information about the project is contained in the RFQ (design team, who is
involved, broad or specific goals, location, budget, what happens at site, history, and relevance). Artist
selections can be local, statewide, or national.
Ms,ASinger’sApresentationAthenAgaveAanAovervi ew of public art nationwide. Nationally, the majority of public art
is funded by percent for art programs. There are over 40 programs in the State of Florida. National and
international studies demonstrate that developers, investors, and occupiers of commercial property value
public art and understand that public art improves their property and is a critical part of economic
development and. Sometimes it is valuable to include the neighborhood in revitalization projects.
tAtheAendAofAMs,ASinger’sApresenta tion she stated that despite the existence of the public art ordinance,
public art had not been integrated into City and CRA funded capital projects. She then opened discussion the
discussion on how could things be improved.
Ms. Diane Colonna said there is a lack of a clear process as to how public art projects are handled in the City. It
isn ’tAclearAwhichAprojectsAareArequiredAtoAbeAapprovedAbyAtheAPublicA rtABoard --some projects seem to have to
goAtoAthatAboardAasAwellAasASPR B.AandAothersAdon’tAseemAtoA go through any process. She said she felt there
was a real hunger for arts and culture in this town. There are a lot of great ideas and good intentions, but then
some aspect of the implementation does not happen, such as administration, maintenance or not being
funded or developed properly. She said the Public Art Advisory Board needed to prove itself to be a
professionally run and logic-oriented organization with a clear process and objective.
Ms. Singer agreed that the organizational structure and process for both CRA and City-funded public art
projects could be improved. Mr. Vince Wooten noted there had been significant input from the neighborhood
A CONVERSATION WITH City of Delray Beach CRA Staff RE: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC ART PROEJCTS APPENDIX B Page 3 of 32
residents on the CR ’sA MLK project which had steered the design. Ms. Singer suggested that selection panels
could include representatives from the City of Delray Beach, the CRA, the facility, the neighborhood (user
groups) and project’sAa rchitect and landscape architect and artist. When Ms. Colonna brought up problems
th at had occurred in a previous project, Ms. Singer commented that it would help to have an artist as part of
the design team.
Mr. Rich McGloin noted that the Ordinance does not specify art in any project whatsoever. The Ordinance
takes a pool of money out of the City budget and puts it in the Public Art Advisory Board pool. The Public Art
Advisory Board is supposed to diligently spend it. It does not go towards the specific project the monies came
from. He also pointed out that there is nothing in the CRA contract that says anything about 1.5% set aside for
art.
Ms. Singer suggested the possibility of a Public Art Coordinator for the City being funded in part by the CRA to
do CRA projects. Ms. Colonna responded that once someone was in the City system, CRA has no control over
their performance or work product and she did not think the CRA board would support funding another
position in that manner. She said she thought a public art consultant might be a better idea to work on specific
projects.
When Ms. Singer commented that the bothAtheACityAandACR ’sApublicAartA process does not work as efficiently
or professionally as other programs around the state of FL and nationally. Ms. Alberta Gaum-Rickard
responded that we need an Art Administrator, a City employee, to integrate everyone. Mr. McGloin said the
City of Delray Beach Public Art Ordinance needed to be changed in order to function properly and be of
service to the other groups. He said it seemed as though the successful art projects were ones in which art was
included in the design specifications, and were administered by consultants.
Mr,AMcGloinAaskedAifAtheACR AwouldAgiveA1,5%AintoAtheACity’sApool,AMs,AColonnaAsaidAsheAdidAnotAthinkAtheA
board would support that, but the CRA could possibly contribute t oAartAitselfAandAscopeAofAtheAprojectAifAit’sA
located in the district. Mr. McGloin also saidAheAthoughtAit’dAbeAgoodAforAtheA City to change the Ordinance to
provide an additional funding source for maintenance as well as administration. He noted that it wa s
inefficient to use money from a project to be used only for that project, and that the concept of a pool is
better. He felt the first priority should be administration, and the second should be to integrate into the
projects. Ms. Singer said the CRA and the City could benefit from having parallel and similar policies and
procedures for public art projects, especially for CRA projects that eventually are turned over to the City.
The meeting ended at 11:50 AM.
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Non -Profit Organizations APPENDIX B Page 4 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH
Delray Beach Non-Profit Organizations involved with Public Art
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – October 26 , 2011
Community Center, Delray Beach Parks and Recreation, 50 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444
In attendance
Marjorie Ferrer - Executive Director, Delray Beach Downtown Development Authority
Gene Fisher - Director, Pineapple Grove Main Street Inc.
Joe Gillie - President/CEO, Old School Square
Elayna Toby Singer - Administrator, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
Alberta Gaum – Rickard, Recreation Superintendent, Delray Beach Parks and Recreation
(Staff liaison to City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board )
Sandi Franciosa - Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
The meeting began at 3:25PM, with Ms. Elayna Toby Singer stating that the purpose was to
solicit input and feedback regarding what is successful and what could be improved with public
art in the City of Delray Beach. She then presented on what public art is (a sense of place, site
specific.ArelatesAtoAtheAplaceAinAwhichAit’sAlocated.AimprovesAdesignAqualityAandApublicA
infrastructure) and an explanation of a public artist (a design professional who is another part
of a capital construction project). Ms. Singer pointed out that the commissioning agency owns
the art work, but the artist owns the copyright to the design. There are legal implications if the
art is altered in any way.
Ms. Singer continued her presentation with a description of The City of Delray Beach Public Art
Ordinance. The Ordinance was established in 2004 in recognition of its value in furthering the
city’sAComprehensiveAPlanAandAtoAensureAtheAaestheticsAofAtheACity,AItAstipulatesAthatA1,5%AofA
eligible projects is to cover the expenses for design, selection and acquisition, installation,
maintenance and administration. If a Capital Improvement Project is less than $200,000, that
money is to be pooled for other projects. Appropriations for Capital Improvement Projects can
come from bonds, grants or other sources. Ms. Singer reviewed the various types of capital
projects that are and are not eligible for public art according to the Ordinance. The Ordinance
also mandated the creation of the Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board and its
responsibilities, such as developing the scope of a project.
Ms. Singer also provided an overview of several other city plans and demonstrated how public
art relates to realizing the goals outlined in these plans. She highlighted on the Downtown
Delray Beach Master Plan (2002), Delray Beach Public Art Needs Assessment (2003), Delray
Beach Public Art Master Plan (2004), the Delray Beach Cultural Plan and Creative City
Collaborative of 2006, and the City of Delray Beach Strategic Plan and National Citizen Survey of
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Non -Profit Organizations APPENDIX B Page 5 of 32
2010. Public art ties into these with physical improvements, beautification, park features,
designs, and cultural tourism.
The public art process is similar to the processes of capital construction projects, i.e., RFQ,
shortlist selection, finalist selection, contract negotiation, design development, fabrication,
installation, ribbon cutting, and long term maintenance. Similar to other design professionals
(e.g., architects, landscape architects, and engineers) public artists play an important and
unique role in interdisciplinary projects teams.
Typical questions asked and answered when developing a public art project scope are: What
are the budgetary and schedule parameters? What type of activities do you foresee happening
there? How do you want to feel when you approach the spac e?AIsAtheAlocationAaA‘verb’- a kinetic
interactive space- orAaA‘noun’- staticAandAdiscrete?AWhatAisAtheAarea’sAhistory?A reAthereAfutureA
development plans? What is the seasonal effect? What are the day and nighttime site
conditions? Is there pedestrian or vehicular access?
Ms. Singer further explained that representatives from the following are typically involved in
theAcreationAofAaAproject’sAscope;AuserAgroupsA(commissioningAagencyArepresentative.AstaffAwhoA
know/useAtheA“facility”).AaAPublicA rtACoordina tor (project manager), a public art advisory board
(volunteers), and community stakeholders (neighborhood groups, local business owners). The
selection panel members change per project.
Ms. Singer said that artist selections are typically qualifications based and that for shortlist
selection artists are selected based on a letter of intent, resume, and images of past work. In
finalist selection artists prepare proposals or are interviewed. Information about the project is
contained in the RFQ (design team, who is involved, broad or specific goals, location, budget,
what happens at site, history, and relevance). Artist selections can be local, statewide, or
national.
Ms,ASinger’sApresentationAthenAgaveAanAoverviewAofApublicAartAnationwide,ANationally.AtheA
majority of public art is funded by percent for art programs. There are over 40 programs in the
State of Florida. National and international studies demonstrate that developers, investors, and
occupiers of commercial property value public art and understand that public art improves their
property and is a critical part of economic development and. Sometimes it is valuable to include
the neighborhood in revitalization projects.
Ms. Singer then opened discussion on how public art could be improved in Delray Beach.
M r. Joe Gillie asked if a nonprofit has the right to sell artwork. Ms. Singer responded that
generally, an organization or owner has the right to sell a donated artwork and that provisions
regarding sale of artwork should be in the donation agreement . Usually the donor is given right
of first refusal to remove an artwork at his or her expense before it is destroyed. Selling
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Non -Profit Organizations APPENDIX B Page 6 of 32
donated work occurs, but it is controversial. Ms. Singer reminded everyone that copyright
always belongs to the artist.
Ms. Alberta Gaum-Rickard said City Commission wants the Public Art Advisory Board, the
Community Redevelopment Agency, Old School Square, Pineapple Grove, Downtown
Development Authority to coordinate with the same common goal for art in the City. She would
like to see if pooling funds towards this end is possible. Mr. Gillie asked Ms. Gaum-Rickard if
there is going to be a Public Art Coordinator for the City. Ms. Gaum-Rickard responded that was
still to be determined. Ms. Singer pointed out that the salary for th eACityAofABoyntonABeach’sA
Public Art Administrator is a percentage of the 1.5% allocated for public art for capital
improvement projects.
Ms. Ferrer used the example of bike racks in the downtown area as a project that would benefit
from collaborative effort. She added there was no one to go to.
Ms. Singer asked the assembled group how they felt about a fee for service approach for arts
coordination. Ms. Marjorie Ferrer said the merchants needed to decide if they wanted to spend
money on a middleman in addition to an artist and materials. Mr. Gillie said if the Arts
Coordinator is not effective, they get in your way. Mr. Gillie then gave an example of a piece of
art that was dropped off at Old School Square without any prior discussion or thought as to
pl acement. Ms. Singer said that example is actually what happens when there is no one person
or entity responsible for coordinating project stakeholders. Ms. Ferrer added there had been no
marketing of this piece. Ms. Singer concurred, saying that an Art Coordinator would provide
information about a project so it could be marketed.
Mr. Gillie remarked that art is so subjective it makes it difficult for an administrator. Ms. Singer
notedAthatAyes.AartAisAsubjective.AandAthat’sAwhyAthereAneedsAtoAbeAaAsetAproc ess with a person
coordinating with all involved parties. This is not difficult for an Art Coordinator. Mr. Gillie used
theAexampleAofAtheAPublicA rtA dvisoryABoard’sArecommendationAthatAtheABoyAScoutAsculptureA
not be placed at the Boy Scout Park, and questioned the expertise of the members of the
board. Ms. Singer stated that she was under the impression that the Public Art Advisory Board
had recommended that and that the sculpture not be accepted it, but that Commission moved
it forward anyway. Regarding this and other donation scenarios, Ms. Singer pointed out that all
artists think their work is great, but just because they want to donate their work to the City that
doesn’tAmeanAtheACityAwantsAtoAacceptAit, Ms. Sandi Franciosa said the Public Art Advisory Board
was supposed to help City Commission set standards on public art. Mr. Fisher noted that the
way someone got on the board had nothing to do with expertise. Ms. Ferrer said there is no
oversight.
Ms. Singer asked the attendees what roles an Art Coordinator could fulfill to improve the public
art process. Mr. Gillie responded that it was difficult to answer this question not knowing how
effective an Art Coordinator would be until he or she is in the role and making decisions; then
it’sAtooAlate,AHeAa sked who was going to administer the public arts administrator. Ms. Singer
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Non -Profit Organizations APPENDIX B Page 7 of 32
stated that it is not yet determined what department such a function would be placed in. She
also said that this person would also serve as a liaison to the Public Art Advisory Board.
Typically, Art Coordinators are situated in departments involved in capital projects i.e. Facilities,
Engineering , Planning , Parks etc. Being placed in one of these divisions, the Art Coordinator can
be more efficient because he or she is working in departments already involved in capital
projects.
Mr. Gillie remarked that there needs to be a consensus as to how things get done. There
should be a definite structure with the Public Art Administrator at the top. There should also be
set criteria for the Public Art Advisory Board members. Mr. Gillie would want to see an
established structure before proceeding with this. Mr. Fisher agrees with Mr. Gillie regarding
there being criteria for the board. Mr. Gillie said that presently City staff is not effective in
oversight as it relates to public art. Ms. Franciosa said anyone who stays too long becomes
complacent.
Ms. Ferrer asked to get an integrated public arts map. She pointed out that visitors have no clue
as to where any art is. Not only are organizations not communicating to our visitors and end
users, they are not communicating with each other. She cited an example of how the DDA had
purchasedAaA40’AsphereAtreeAlastAyear,ATheyAdidn’tAaskAanybody:AtheyAjustAdidAit,AMr,AFisherAsaidA
that was an example of why the art board needed to be restructured. It needed flexibility and
trust. Ms. Ferrer said the board shoul dn’tAhaveAtoAapproveAtheAthingsAweAagreeAon,ASheAalsoAsaidA
if she had to go through a process, she probably could not have afforded the tree nor would she
have received it in time. Ms. Singer noted that project may not have been considered art, and it
was temporary. Mr. Fisher said right now the art board needed to go through Commission to
spend any money. He said they needed a discretionary dollar amount in order to do small
projectsAandAkeepAaAfewAironsAinAtheAfire,AMs,AFerrerAsaidAsheAdidn’tAevenAhaveAaA map until she
recently found that the Parks and Recreation Department had one. She also said the gateway
project is stuck in Engineering because of a problem with the soil. The CRA has the money
alreadyAapproved,AMs,AFranciosaAsaidAthat’sAwhereAanAadminist rator would help. It seems things
are put in abeyance indefinitely.
Mr. Fisher asked if Ms. Singer was asking the groups to contribute to a fee for the administrator
position. Ms. Singer asked what all thought regarding the non-profit groups partially fu nd ing a
coordinator from the groups that benefit from the position, but not as the main source of
funding. Mr. Gillie said the City and the CRA should fund the position, not the non-profits. Ms.
Ferrer said that the non-profitAgroups’AroleAinAthisAshouldAb e to promote, not fund. She noted
that everyone could contribute something to it by helping to promote it on the back end within
what they already have budgeted. She also asked about what would happen if the public art
coordinator does not like a project that is privately funded. Ms. Singer said the position and the
policies do not even yet exist. Ms. Ferrer said she was happy these conversations were taking
placeAbecauseAit’sAbeenAunderAtheAtableAandAbackAroomedAforAsoAlongAnobodyAknowsAwhat’sA
going on.
The meeting ended at 5:00PM
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Cultural Event and Art Exhibit Producers APPENDIX B Page 8 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH
Delray Beach Cultural Event and Art Exhibit Producers
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – October 26 , 2011
Community Center, Delray Beach Parks and Recreation, 50 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444
In attendance
Sarah Martin - Executive Director, Downtown Marketing Cooperative
Nancy Stewart - Director, Festival Management Group
Alyona Aleksandra Ushe - Executive Director, Creative City Collaborative
Elayna Toby Singer - Administrator, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places Administrator
Alberta Guam-Rickard - Recreation Superintendent, Delray Beach Parks & Recreation
(staff liaison to City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board)
Sandi Franciosa - Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
Samantha Cohen - Intern, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
The meeting began at 10:35 AM with Ms. Elayna Toby Singer posing the question: Why is everyone here
today? She then went on to explain that everyone in attendance works with artists through the art
events, festivals, and exhibitions each group organizes and prom otes,AMs,ASingerAsaidAshe’sAawareAthatA
artists are a key part of the programs, events, etc these groups provide and which attract local and out-
of -state audiences.
Ms. Elayna Toby Singer stat ed that the purpose was to solicit input and feedback regarding what is
successful and what could be improved with public art in the City of Delray Beach. She then presented
onAwhatApublicAartAisA(aAsenseAofAplace.AsiteAspecific.ArelatesAtoAtheAplaceAinAwhichAit’sAlocated.AimprovesA
design quality and public infrastructure) and an explanation of a public artist (a design professional who
is another part of a capital construction project). Ms. Singer pointed out that the commissioning agency
owns the art work, but the artist owns the copyright to the design. There are legal implications if the art
is altered in any way.
Ms. Singer continued her presentation with a description of The City of Delray Beach Public Art
Ordinance,ATheAOrdinanceAwasAestablishedAinA2004AinArecognitionAofAitsAvalueAinAfurtheringAtheAcity’sA
Comprehensive Plan and to ensure the aesthetics of the City. It stipulates that 1.5% of eligible projects is
to cover the expenses for design, selection and acquisition, installation, maintenance and
administration. If a Capital Improvement Project is less than $200,000, that money is to be pooled for
other projects. Appropriations for Capital Improvement Projects can come from bonds, grants or other
sources. Ms. Singer reviewed the various types of capital projects that are and are not eligible for public
art according to the Ordinance. The Ordinance also mandated the creation of the Delray Beach Public
Art Advisory Board and its responsibilities, such as developing the scope of a project.
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Cultural Event and Art Exhibit Producers APPENDIX B Page 9 of 32
Ms. Singer also provided an overview of several other city plans and demonstrated how public art
relates to realizing the goals outlined in these plans. She highlighted on the Downtown Delray Beach
Master Plan (2002), Delray Beach Public Art Needs Assessment (2003), Delray Beach Public Art Master
Plan (2004), the Delray Beach Cultural Plan and Creative City Collaborative of 2006, and the City of
Delray Beach Strategic Plan and National Citizen Survey of 2010. Public art ties into these with physical
improvements, beautification, park features, designs, and cultural tourism.
The public art process is similar to the processes of capital construction projects, i.e., RFQ, shortlist
selection, finalist selection, contract negotiation, design development, fabrication, installation, ribbon
cutting, and long term maintenance. Similar to other design professionals (e.g., architects, landscape
architects, and engineers) public artists play an important and unique role in interdisciplinary projects
teams.
Typical questions asked and answered when developing a public art project scope are: What are the
budgetary and schedule parameters? What type of activities do you foresee happening there? How do
youAwantAtoAfeelAwhenAyouAapproachAtheAspace?AIsAtheAlocationAaA‘verb’- a kinetic interactive space- or a
‘noun’- staticAandAdiscrete?AWhatAisAtheAarea’sAhistory?A reAthereAfutureAdevelopmentApla ns? What is the
seasonal effect? What are the day and nighttime site conditions? Is there pedestrian or vehicular
access?
Ms. Singer further explained that representatives from the following are typically involved in the
creationAofAaAproject’sAscope;Ause r groups (commissioning agency representative, staff who know/use
theA“facility”).AaAPublicA rtACoordinatorA(projectAmanager).AaApublicAartAadvisoryAboardA(volunteers).AandA
community stakeholders (neighborhood groups, local business owners). The selection panel members
change per project.
Ms. Singer said that artist selections are typically qualifications based and that for shortlist selection
artists are selected based on a letter of intent, resume, and images of past work. In finalist selection
artists prepare proposals or are interviewed. Information about the project is contained in the RFQ
(design team, who is involved, broad or specific goals, location, budget, what happens at site, history,
and relevance). Artist selections can be local, statewide, or national.
Ms,ASinger’sApresentationAthenAgaveAanAoverviewAofApublicAartAnationwide,ANationally.AtheAmajorityAofA
public art is funded by percent for art programs. There are over 40 programs in the State of Florida.
National and international studies demonstrate that developers, investors, and occupiers of commercial
property value public art and understand that public art improves their property and is a critical part of
economic development and. Sometimes it is valuable to include the neighborhood in revitalization
projects.
Ms. Singer then opened discussion on how public art could be improved in Delray Beach.
Ms. Martin asked if the 1.5% of money from a capital construction project goes directly toward that
specific project or if the Public Art Board pools it for use on other projects. Ms. Singer replied that
nationally.AdependingAonAtheAspecificsAofAeachAcity’sAordinance.ApublicAartAfundsAcanAgoAdirectlyAtoAtheA
projectAorAtheyAcanAbeApooled,A ccordingAtoADelrayABeach’sAcurrentAordinance.A1,5%AgoesAdirec tly to the
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Cultural Event and Art Exhibit Producers APPENDIX B Page 10 of 32
specifi c capital improvement project (CIP) and funds are only to be pooled if the cost of the project is
less than $200,000.
Ms,AMartinAalsoAquestionedAwhoAisAinvolvedAwithAtheAselectionAofAtheACity’sApublicAartAprojects.AaskingAifA
Pineapple Gr oveAisAinvolved,AMs,ASingerArespondedAthatAtheACityAofADelrayABeach’sAPublicA rtA dvisoryA
Board has been involved in scoping all City generated projects but they are not involved in Pineapple
Grove and other nonprofit entities who commission public art in Delray. She further explained that
nationally, the typical procedure entails creating a specific panel per project involving representatives of
a Public Art Board and user groups with an Art Coordinator facilitating the process (not voting). To date,
public art selections performed by the City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach CRA, and nonprofits in Delray
Beach have not been done in accordance with national standards.
Ms. Stewart inquired about a resource for submitting Calls to Artists. She noted that she often reaches
out to many different art colleagues to help spread the word and still comes up short. Ms. Singer stated
that currently the City of Delray Beach does not have such a resource. Typically, a City Arts Coordinator
would provide these resources to help connect local nonprofits and businesses with artists.
Ms. Stewart stated that there is no professionalism in regard to how the City handles its Calls to Artists.
There is no specific person to contact that maintains a list for the City . Ms. Martin also noted that the art
world in South Florida is very intertwined and based on connections. Events managers don’tAhaveAtheA
time to integrate themselves into arts culture. Having someone to work with them who is involved with
the arts and has these connections would be a great asset. Ms. Stewart chimed in with an example
about how participation by artists responding to Calls to Artists to create logo/poster designs for the
Delray Affair has declined. She noted that collaborating and/or partnering with a City Arts Coordinator
wouldAbeAgreatlyAbeneficialAtoAtheA“ ffair,”AMs,AMartinAcommentedAonAhowAsheAwantsAtoAmergeAwithAartA
but outreach to artists has been a challenge. Everyone concurred that an Arts Coordinator would be
helpful.
Ms. Singer then talked about the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and explained that Calls to Artists
issuedAbyADelray’sAartAeventAproducersAshouldAcomplyAinAorderAtoAattractAqualityAartistsAwhoAareAusedAtoA
working with these standards locally, statewide and across the country. Ms. Martin commented that all
this applies to a lot of what she does. Having a Coordinator who knows the process would assist her
immensely.
Ms. Singer then asked what kind of resources and coordination is needed to help everyone do their
work and meet their goals.
Ms. Ushe wanted to first say that she is very happy about the implementation of the new Public Art
Master Plan and that Delray Beach is an arts town and public art needs to showcase this. Ms. Ushe then
went on to say that she would like to see more cooperation and communication between various arts
entities. As an example she talked about how a statue appeared in front of the Arts Garage one day out
of nowhere and that there needs to be a strategic method for placing public art in public places. Ms.
Ushe suggested the implementation of a cultural affairs office as one possible solution.
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach Cultural Event and Art Exhibit Producers APPENDIX B Page 11 of 32
M s. Martin and Ms. Stewart reiterated that cooperation is needed.
Ms,AStewartAmentionedAthatAanA“artsAbootAcamp.”AsimilarAtoAtheAoneAheldArecentlyAforAnonprofits.AwouldA
beAhelpful,A AlotAofAsmallerAorganizationsAareAnotAawareAthatAtheAresourcesApresentedAtodayAexist,AIt’sA
helpfulAnotAhavingAtoAfigureAoutAeverythingAonAone’sAown,
Ms. Stewart asked how one goes about including different people, such as local children, in projects. Ms.
Singer responded that in Palm Beach County there is an Artists Registry of over 1,000 artists. If the city
had a similar resource, the announcement could be distributed for events, etc. Ms. Martin mentioned
that this would be a huge asset. She could use it for a thousand different things.
Ms. Singer asked if a City Arts Coordinator could be an asset for those in the meeting. The response was
a unanimous yes.
Ms. Singer then discussed how temporary public art is an event. These types of events attract many
people to a location for a set time and can be used as a successful destination marketing tool. Pooled
money can be used for implementing these types of projects. Ms. Martin stated that the city will not
allow off-premiseAadvertisingAwhichAisAhowAmanyAofAtheseAtemporaryApublicAartA“events”AareAfunded,A She
would like to see the city give some leeway.
Ms. Franciosa stated that there are gaps in all the different organizations involved with public art in the
City of Delray Beach and that an Art Coordinator could help. Every group can benefit from the expertise
the Coordinator would bring.
Ms. Stewart mentioned that she has participated in many city planning efforts including the original
2004 Master Plan which was never adopted. That Master Plan outlined the importance of having an Art
Coordinator to initiate public art projects in the City. She would like to go back to that plan.
The meeting ended at 11:50 AM.
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTISTS Gary L. Moore & Cheryl Foster APPENDIX B Page 12 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTISTS
RE: Delray Beach CRA Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2011
Participants
Cheryl Foster, Public Artist – West Atlantic Avenue Plaza - in progress
Gary L. Moore, Public Artist – Commissioned in 2006
Elayna Toby Singer, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places Administrator
Prior to the conference call Ms. Singer provided the questions below (in bold) t o the artists so
they could think ahead about their answers in preparation for the phone meeting.
CALL TO ARTIST (RFQ) PHASE
How did you hear about the public art project you were commissioned for? (Call to
Artists/RFQ, direct selection, other)
Cheryl ThroughAGoogleA lertsAforACallAtoA rtistsARFQ’s
Gary He was approached by the CRA project manager to provide design services for a sidewalk
capital project. His was a Direct Selection.
When you heard/read about the project (in RFQ, other documents, phone conversations) was
the information presented/handled professionally per national public art standards? Was the
project’sAscope,Abudget,Aschedule,Aetc.AclearlyAoutlined?A
Cheryl The process and requirements were spelled out sufficiently in the RFQ, but she was
su rprised that the RFQ included a request for developing a proposal as part of the short list
selection process . SheAsaidAsheAwouldn’tAnormallyArespondAtoAaARFQAthatAasksAforAaAproposalAasA
it’sAconsideredAunprofessionalAandAagainstA best practices per the Americans for the Arts Public
Art Network, etc. but she took the risk and responded by submitting only a narrative of her
project approach without an illustrated design proposal.
Cheryl / Gary Both said it is not wise for artists to apply to request for qualifications that ask
for proposals but only those that ask for project approach narrative with images from sample
past projects.
Gary The project scope was clearly defined, but the budget was not clearly outlined.
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTISTS Gary L. Moore & Cheryl Foster APPENDIX B Page 13 of 32
W asAtheAproject’sAbudgetAreasonableAforAtheArequiredAscopeAofAdeliverables?AA
Cheryl The project budget was not sufficient per the scope the artist was required to fulfill.
Material costs absorbed most of the small budget, especially since the CRA had minimum
height requirements for the sculpture. There was little to no money in the budget for the
typical 1 0%-20%A“artistAfee”,A lso.AwhileAcommunity/stakeholderAparticipationAwasAanA
important part of the project, costs for community involvement were not included in the
artist’sAprojectAbudget,A She applied because she was attracted to the theme and subject area
but knew that based on the advertised project budget it was not going to be profitable; maybe
not even a break even project for her.
Gary The fee he received for design and construction oversight was sufficient. His fee did cover
his costs related to community involvement. His budget did not include costs for materials,
engineering.Ainstallation.Aetc,AInsteadAtheAcontractor’sAbudgetAcoveredAtheseAitemsAwhichAGaryA
saidAisAnotAtypicalAofAotherApublicAartAprojectsAhe’sAworkedAon,AH is role (time) in the bidding
process for the contractor was not specified so he was not compensated specifically for this. He
participated without additional pay because it made for a more successful project.
ARTIST SELECTION PHASE
Please tell us about your positive and/or negative experiences in the artist selection process.
WereAtheAselectionsAhandledAprofessionally,AsimilarAtoAothersAyou’veAparticipatedAinAacrossAtheA
country?
Cheryl She received an email of acceptance that included the votes/scores from the selection
committee. She believes it is a good idea to know what a committee thinks and it helps on
future projects to know where you stand.
Gary Since he was invited directly, he did not go through a public/competitive selection
process.
What suggestions do you have for the CRA to improve its shortlist and finalist selection
processes?
Cheryl/Gary No suggestions.
CONTRACT PHASE
With who were you contracted for your project? Was your contractual relationship smooth or
problematic – please explain. DoAyouArecallAifAthereAwereAanyAcontractA“surprises”Ai.e.A
requirements not outlined in the Call to Artists?
Cheryl Contract was directly with the CRA. Relationship was smooth. It addressed her rights
(Visual Arts Rights Act 1990) and use of her images. No surprises. CRA was uncomfortable when
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTISTS Gary L. Moore & Cheryl Foster APPENDIX B Page 14 of 32
sh e removed 10% to 15% contingency and put it into other line items. She feels that this line
item is important in case there are changes or delays that the artist or the contracting body can
not anticipate.
Gary He was contracted by the City of Delray engineering department. He was surprised at how
loose the scope was. His contract included design services and construction oversight, but only
included one material line item (for bronze plaques). He did not have budget control on most
materialsAandAinstallationAwhichAwereAinsteadAinAtheAcontractor’sAcontractAandAbudget, Contract
did not address (VARA). His role in the bidding process was not specified within his contract, no
is budget, but he provided these services anyway.
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the design development phase.
WhatAwasAchallengingAand/orAeasyAaboutAworkingAwithAtheACR AandAtheAproject’sAdesignA
professionals?
Cheryl During this stage there were discrepancies in the foundation specifications. Foundations
were installed that were not in line with the CRA sculpture requirements. This caused delays in
permitting. The artist felt that in the future, when a sculpture of a certain height is requested,
someone should make sure that the foundation is adequate for that height. The artist also finds
that projects where the project manager follows up on all communications go more smoothly.
Gary He wants to commend the CRA for advocating for him at the community meetings
PERMIT PHASE
WhatAchallengesAdidAyouAfaceAwithAtheACityAofADelray’sApermittingA process? What, if anything,
could have made it smoother? How could the CRA and/or City staff been more helpful in the
permit phase?
Cheryl Vince Wooten is taking care of permitting and this process has been completed.
Gary Did not deal with permitting.
FABRIACTION PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the fabrication phase. What
wasAchallengingAand/orAeasyAaboutAworkingAwithAtheACR AandAtheAproject’sAdesignA
professionals?
Cheryl N/A – her project had not reached this phase yet.
INSTALLATION PHASE
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTISTS Gary L. Moore & Cheryl Foster APPENDIX B Page 15 of 32
Plea se share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the installation phase. What
wasAchallengingAand/orAeasyAaboutAworkingAwithAtheACR AandAtheAproject’sAdesignA
professionals?
Cheryl N/A – her project had not reached this phase yet.
Gary CRA was not present for site inspections of terrazzo installation although it was their
responsibility. Gary observed that code requirements of border around the terrazzo were not
followed by fabricator so he br ought this and other problems to CRA ’s attention. The CRA was
responsive but not proactive. There was also a major problem with cracks in the terrazzo
because it was not cured properly. Again, Gary took charge and brought the CRA Project
Manager in to address this issue. CRA installation oversight was lacking.
OVERALL EXPERIENCE
WhatAstandsAoutAasAmostApositiveAandAmostAnegativeAaboutAyourAexperienceAwithADelray’sA
CRA?
Cheryl In general, the selection panel had a positive attitude. The sculpture foundation
problem was the most negative.
Gary The most positive was the freedom and respect for his work and the overall experience .
One negative aspect was the issues with the terrazzo contractor and the lack of CRA oversight.
In his opinion it is not good to have engineering department have so much influence.
In terms of professionalism, how does your experience with the Delray Beach CRA compare
toAthoseAyou’veAhadAwithAotherAprogramsAinAFLAandAacrossAtheAcountry?
Cheryl From one to ten she would rate CRA with a five.
Gary From one to ten he would rate CRA with a nine
Would you encourage or dissuade your public art colleagues to respond to future Delray
Beach CRA sponsored projects? Please explain.
Cheryl I would not discourage someone from applying. Artists should protect themselves from
low budgets. If I were to recommend I would caution there is financial sacrifices involved.
Gary CRA tends to have low budgets. Gary Suggests involving an experienced artist on the CRA
Board to evaluate project budgets so they are more realistic.
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTISTS Gary L. Moore & Cheryl Foster APPENDIX B Page 16 of 32
nyAotherAcommentsAorAinsightsAyou’dAlikeAtoAshare?
Cheryl She is reminded of how important her job is when she sees passersby and children proud
of their community and of seeing an African American woman realizing this work.
Gary Very excited about what he does, and the impact it can have particularly in the African
American community. He finds the CRA supportive of such projec ts .
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Lois Brezinski APPENDIX B Page 17 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTIST Lois Brezinski
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – November 15, 2011
Participants
Lois Brezinski Clement, Public Artist – YEAR Commissioned
Elayna Toby Singer, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places Administrator
Prior to the conference call Ms. Singer provided the questions (below in bold) t o the Ms.
Brezinski who completed the questionnaire. Ms. Singer and Ms. Brezinski had a followed-up
phone conversation which elicited additional comments by Ms. Brezinski which are also
incorporated herein .
CALL TO ARTISTS PHASE
How did you hear about the public art project you were commissioned for? (Call to
Artists/RFQ, direct selection, other) Please explain.
Word of mouth.
When you heard/read about the project (in RFQ, other documents, phone conversations) was
the information presented/handled professionally per national public art standards? Was the
project’sAscope,Abudget,Aschedule,Aetc.AclearlyAoutlined?APleaseAexplain.
As best I can remember not knowing what the national standards are
WasAtheAproject’sAbudgetAreasonableAforAtheArequiredAscopeAofAdeliverables?AAPleaseAexplai n.
Looking back the budget was woefully inadequate. Considering the CRA spent 20 times as much
on a public park the same size without any features, artistic elements, etc. The $40,000 allotted
was not sufficient. The budget, ideally, could have had at least an extra $10,000 for unforeseen
costs. For example, I was not aware that I was responsible for the electrical services which easily
addedAanAextraA$4,000AtoAtheAproject’sAcost.AIAhadAtoAreallyAfightAtoAstayAonAbudgetAorAelseAIAwouldA
have wound up with nothing. Being a professional artist for 30 years I was able to do this, but
others may not have the same experience.
ARTIST SELECTION PHASE
Please tell us about your positive and/or negative experiences in the artist selection process.
Were the selections handledAprofessionally,AsimilarAtoAothersAyou’veAparticipatedAinAacrossAtheA
country? Please explain.
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Lois Brezinski APPENDIX B Page 18 of 32
T here were two applicants to the best of my knowledge. I was chosen. My first and only project.
One person on the board spoke to me about the other applicant before I was selected. Although
theAcodeAofAsilenceAwasAnotAfollowed,AIAdidn’tAhaveAaAnegativeAexperienceAwithAtheAP B.
What suggestions do you have for the City of Delray Beach to improve its shortlist and finalist
selection processes? Please explain.
None
CONTRACT PHASE
Was your contractual relationship with the City of Delray Beach smooth or problematic?
Please explain.
Fine
Did the contract include national public art standards and requirements? Please explain.
I have no idea
Was the City of Delray Beach staff helpful and knowledgeable in the contract negotiation
phase? Please explain.
Yes, although no one really was in charge or could give me much guidance.
DoAyouArecallAifAthereAwereAanyAcontractA“surprises”Ai.e.ArequirementsAnotAoutlinedAi n the Call
to Artists? Please explain.
Only one and the city rectified it. I found out after the fact that I was responsible for having
electric service installed at the site by FPL which was substantial and had to come out of my
small budget, but the city did reimburse me.
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the design development phase.
What was challenging and/or easy about working with the City of Delray Beach and/or other
design professionals assigned to the project? Please explain.
They pretty much gave me a wide berth. Lots of creative leeway
PERMIT PHASE
WhatAchallengesAdidAyouAfaceAwithAtheACityAofADelray’sApermittingAprocess?AWhat,AifAanything,A
could have made it smoother? How could the City staff been more helpful in the permit
phase? Please explain.
Don’tArememberAanyAparticularAissues
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Lois Brezinski APPENDIX B Page 19 of 32
FABRICATION PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the fabrication phase. What
was challenging and/or easy about working with the City of Delray Beach and/or other design
professionals assigned to the project? Please explain.
None
INSTALLATION PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the installation phase. What
was challenging and/or easy about working with the City andAtheAproject’sAdesignA
professionals? Please explain.
Although the staff was helpful when they could be, they were unknowledgeable. I was unclear
about who was in charge and certain things were not brought to my attention when they should
have been (lighting.) The point person from the City had no experience in public art and was
unable to answer my questions. She was not qualified to be doing this and she told me that the
city really needs a liaison.
OVERALL EXPERIENCE
What stands out as most positive and most negative about your experience with the City of
Delray’sAPublicA rtAprogram?APleaseAexplain.
I was not impressed by the lack of guidance and knowledge from the City liaison that the PAAB
had me work with to direct my questions about installation details to. She was very sweet and
very responsive, just admitted she had never administered a project before and was not sure
how to go about it.
W ith design details the PAAB Board was very engaged and helpfully so but when it came to the
details like the wattage, the size, type of light pole (i.e. what was permissible, what met code
etc) they didn't know so directed me to other City employees who might (and I mean might)
know. That's where I was met with a lot of question marks and quizzical looks. Which is why
there were light poles I designed and were approved to be in the park but the City does not want
to change the bulbs now that they've burned out because they require a bulb that is not
standard- ditto the LED's that I used in the trees. Ditto landscaping that was approved but now
the City says it can't maintain the way it should be.
In terms of professionalism, how does your experience with the City of Delray Beach Public
rtAprogramAcompareAtoAthoseAyou’veAhadAwi th other programs in FL and across the country?
Please explain.
No other experience
Would you encourage or dissuade your public art colleagues to respond to future City of
Delray Beach sponsored projects? Please explain.
With extreme reservations, depending on the project, see below
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Lois Brezinski APPENDIX B Page 20 of 32
nyAotherAcommentsAorAinsightsAyou’dAlikeAtoAshare?
My biggest gripe continues to be the maintenance of the park. The city does not landscape it
properly, if it were not for private citizens pitching in on weekends, it would be a bed of weeds
today, only 2 years later .AIt’sAheartbreakingAforAmeAtoApassAitAeveryAdayAandAseeAthatAmyAdesignAisA
not being adhered to, that lights are missing and the lovely plants that have survived are
trimmedAlikeAhedges.AI’veAcomplainedAto theACityAbutAitAdoesAnoAgood.ATheyAshouldn’tAspendA
public money on landscape that they have no knowledge or manpower to treat in a professional
manner. And they should replace light bulbs!
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist John Clement APPENDIX B Page 21 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTIST John Clement
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – November 15, 2011
Participants
John Clement, Public Artist – 2008
Elayna Toby Singer, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places Administrator
Prior to the conference call Ms. Singer provided the questions (below in bold) t o the Mr.
Clement who completed the questionnaire. Ms. Singer and Mr. Clement had a followed-up
phone conversation which elicited additional comments by Mr. Clement which are also
incorporated herein .
CALL TO ARTISTS PHASE
How did you hear about the public art project you were commissioned for? (Call to
Artists/RFQ, direct selection, other) Please explain .
Online call for artists
When you heard/read about the project (in RFQ, other documents, phone conversations) was
the information presented/handled professionally per national public art standards? Was the
project’sAscope,Abudget,Aschedule,Aetc.AclearlyAoutlined?APleaseAexplain.
The scope was not fully articulated in the RFQ. The work requested was to be site specific but
the site was not specified in RFQ. There were two possible site locations.
WasAtheAproject’sAbudgetAreasonableAforAtheArequiredAscopeAofAdeliverables?AAPleaseAexplain.
The budget was insufficient. The scale of the work required for the site was much larger than
the budget. A work th eAscaleAofA“SeaARoom”AshouldAhaveArequiredAaAbudgetAofA$125,000.00
instead of $50,000.00. In good faith I completed the project despite taking a loss on the project.
After this experience, I no longer apply for projects under $90,000 to cover all costs (fabrication,
installation, permits, transportation/shipping, insurance, etc.)
ARTIST SELECTION PHASE
Please tell us about your positive and/or negative experiences in the artist selection process.
Were the selections handled professionally, similar to othe rsAyou’veAparticipatedAinAacrossAtheA
country? Please explain.
Overall the project was great. Unfortunately it was not financially profitable for me .
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist John Clement APPENDIX B Page 22 of 32
What suggestions do you have for the City of Delray Beach to improve its shortlist and finalist
selection processes? Please explain.
For larger scale works, be sure to have the proper budget in place.
CONTRACT PHASE
Was your contractual relationship with the City of Delray Beach smooth or problematic?
Please explain.
No problems
Did the contract include national public art standards and requirements? Please explain.
Yes.
Was the City of Delray Beach staff helpful and knowledgeable in the contract negotiation
phase? Please explain.
Very helpful
DoAyouArecallAifAthereAwereAanyAcontractA“surprises”Ai.e.A requirements not outlined in the Call
to Artists? Please explain. n/a
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the design development phase.
What was challenging and/or easy about working with the City of Delray Beach and/or other
design professionals assigned to the project? Please explain.
The design development phase was fairly smooth. The only problem was that the site called for
a work of a more dynamic scale than first anticipated. Also, one of the Public Art Board
members, an architect, provided drawings for the footers.
PERMIT PHASE
WhatAchallengesAdidAyouAfaceAwithAtheACityAofADelray’sApermittingAprocess?AWhat,AifAanything,A
could have made it smoother? How could the City staff been more helpful in the permit
phase? Please explain.
Staff was very helpful. I did not submit for permit and never saw engineering plans that were
submitted.
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist John Clement APPENDIX B Page 23 of 32
FABRICATION PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the fabrication phase. What
was challenging and/or easy about working with the City of Delray Beach and/or other design
professionals assigned to the project? Please explain.
No problems. Very easy
INSTALLATION PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the installation phase. What
wasAchallengingAand/orAeasyAaboutAworkingAwithAtheACR AandAtheAproject’sAdesignA
professionals? Please explain.
None. It was very easy
OVERALL EXPERIENCE
What stands out as most positive and most negative about your experience with the City of
Delray’sAPublicA rtAprogram?APleaseAexplain.
All positive. I greatly appreciate the city taking a chance and commissioning a very ambitious
piece of abstract work.
In terms of professionalism, how does your experience with the City of Delray Beach Public
rtAprogramAcompareAtoAthoseAyou’veAhadAwithAotherAprogramsAinAFLAandAacrossAtheAcountry?A
Please explain.
Very professional, on par with all the top organizations
Would you encourage or dissuade your public art colleagues to respond to future City of
Delray Beach sponsored projects? Please explain.
I’dA encourage others to apply.
nyAotherAcommentsAorAinsightsAyou’dAlikeAtoAshare?A
Thank you for the opportunity. The maintenance for this project has never been followed
through despite the providing instructions and materials for the city. This piece needs to be
p ainted ever 3-5 years yet never has been. I offered to come down to repaint but did not get a
reply from the city.
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Michiko Kurisu APPENDIX B Page 24 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH ARTIST
Michiko Kurisu
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – November 15, 2011
Participants
Michiko Kurisu, Public Artist – 2008
Elayna Toby Singer, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places Administrator
Prior to the conference call Ms. Singer provided the questions (below in bold) t o the Ms. Kurisu
who completed the questionnaire. Ms. Singer and Ms. Kurisu had a followed-up phone
conversation which elicited additional comments by Ms. Kurisu which are also incorporated
herein .
CALL TO ARTISTS PHASE
How did you hear about the public art project you were commissioned for? (Call to
Artists/RFQ, direct selection, other) Please explain.
Call to Artists
When you heard/read about the project (in RFQ, other documents, phone conversations) was
the information presented/handled professionally per national public art standards? Was the
project’sAscope,Abudget,Aschedule,Aetc.AclearlyAoutlined?A Please explain.
Yes.
WasAtheAproject’sAbudgetAreasonableAforAtheArequiredAscopeAofAdeliverables?AAPleaseAexplain.
Yes.
ARTIST SELECTION PHASE
Please tell us about your positive and/or negative experiences in the artist selection process.
Were the selecti onsAhandledAprofessionally,AsimilarAtoAothersAyou’veAparticipatedAinAacrossAtheA
country? Please explain.
The selection process was a positive experience, and the PAAB board at that time were very
professional.
What suggestions do you have for the City of Delray Beach to improve its shortlist and finalist
selection processes? Please explain.
Please see my comments under #13.
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Michiko Kurisu APPENDIX B Page 25 of 32
CONTRACT PHASE
Was your contractual relationship with the City of Delray Beach smooth or problematic?
Please explain.
Smooth.
Did the contract include national public art standards and requirements? Please explain.
I believe so.
Was the City of Delray Beach staff helpful and knowledgeable in the contract negotiation
phase? Please explain.
Yes. The staff was very helpful in this phase.
DoAyouArecallAifAthereAwereAanyAcontractA“surprises”Ai.e.ArequirementsAnotAoutlinedAinAtheACallA
to Artists? Please explain.
Please see my comments under #13.
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the design development phase.
What was challenging and/or easy about working with the City of Delray Beach and/or other
design professionals assigned to the project? Please explain.
PERMIT PHASE
WhatAchallengesAdidAyouAfaceAwithAtheACityAofADelray’sAper mitting process? What, if anything,
could have made it smoother? How could the City staff been more helpful in the permit
phase? Please explain.
This phase was an enormous, unanticipated challenge. It took two years to permit after
contracting with the City. Because the project site is owned by FDOT, there was a tremendous
amount of administrative issues and communication to coordinate between FDOT and the City.
NegotiatingAtheAmysteriesAofAFDOT’sAadministrativeAworkingsAwithAnoApriorAexperienceAisAaA
Herculean feat. FDOT lacked any staff familiar with the concept of public art or coordinating
permitting public art. The City of Delray Beach also lacked any staff dedicated to supporting an
artist in this process.
A public art administrator from the City of Delray Beach would have been invaluable during this
phase of the project.
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Michiko Kurisu APPENDIX B Page 26 of 32
FABRICATION PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the fabrication phase. What
was challenging and/or easy about working with the City of Delray Beach and/or other design
professionals assigned to the project? Please explain.
There was no City staff assigned to the design phase of this project, so to speak. I handled all the
actualAfabricationAmyself.AIAdeliveredAengineeredAplansAtoAtheACity’sAengineering department for
approval. As per comments in #11, a City of Delray Beach public art administrator would have
been helpful in this phase, too.
INSTALLATION PHASE
Please share positive and/or negative experiences you had in the installation phase. What
w asAchallengingAand/orAeasyAaboutAworkingAwithAtheACR AandAtheAproject’sAdesignA
professionals? Please explain.
I managed the installation myself. As per comments in Permit Phase response, a City of Delray
Beach public art administrator would have been helpful in this phase, too.
Additional Comments Based on Phone Conversation:
There was no overall accountability on this project; no stewardship from the City. I had to act as
my own project manager, but I was not informed about any of the C ity’sAprocess es and had to
figure everything out on my own. I had to constantly follow-up with C ity employees in order to
get any information.
OVERALL EXPERIENCE
What stands out as most positive and most negative about your experience with the City of
Delray’sAPublic Art program? Please explain.
Most positive: the desire to support & nurture the arts
Most negative: lack of knowledgeable, full-time public arts administrator to support artists, and
the envisioning, creation, installation, and maintenance of public art.
In terms of professionalism, how does your experience with the City of Delray Beach Public
rtAprogramAcompareAtoAthoseAyou’veAhadAwithAotherAprogramsAinAFLAandAacrossAtheAcountry?A
Please explain.
N/A
A CONVERSATION WITH Artist Michiko Kurisu APPENDIX B Page 27 of 32
Would you encourage or dissuade your public art colleagues to respond to future City of
Delray Beach sponsored projects? Please explain.
I would encourage them.
nyAotherAcommentsAorAinsightsAyou’dAlikeAtoAshare?A
As comments above suggest, the biggest challenge I experienced in the process of implementing
a City commissioned public artwork, was the lack of a knowledgeable public arts City staff
person. Such a person who could have helped to coordinate between the many departments
and people that had to be consulted or involved in other ways in the process would have no
doubt made the process much more efficient and smooth. I had no idea what a challenge it
would be to work with FDOT. I essentially became a project manager with no support staff. The
City staff that I contacted was very helpful, but with no one dedicated to overseeing the art
installation, it became the challenge of connecting the dots to reveal the picture of who needed
to be involved when and where. Quite frankly, project manager at that level is a role that I
imagine few full time artists either desire, or are even capable of fulfilling. It certainly made me
crazy, and cost significant sacrifices of time and personal resources.
Additional Comments Based on Phone Conversation :
There were many problems relating to the maintenance of thi sAproject.AThere’sAaAdefiniteAlackAofA
communication and the city actually damaged the project because they did not follow the
instructions left by the artist. Also, the artist herself, on her own dime, had to replant plants that
were vandalized. Volunteers are donating their time to follow-up on these projects instead of
actual paid officials.
A CONVERSATION WITH City of Delray Beach City Staff APPENDIX B Page 28 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH Delray Beach City Staff
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – March 2, 2012
Environmental Services Division , 434 South Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
In attendance
Alberta Gaum-Rickard - Recreation Superintendent, Parks & Recreation
(Staff liaison to City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board)
Linda Karch-Director, Parks and Recreation
Paul Dorling- Director, Planning and Zoning (present only for the first ten minutes of the meeting)
Rafael Ballestero- Deputy Director of Construction
Randal Krejcarek - City Engineer
Dana Donaty - Chair, Public Art Advisory Board
Elayna Toby Singer - Administrator, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
Laura Wiswell - Intern, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
The meeting began at 2:30 PM , with Ms. Singer referencing the 2004 Public Art Ordinance which mandates
1.5% budget allocation to integration of art into Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). If the Capital Project has a
budget of $200,000 or below, the 1.5% can be pooled for other public art projects. Elayna explained that,
despiteAtheAordinance.ApublicAartAhasAnotAbeenAintegratedAintoACityACIP’sAaccordingly,
Elayna then explained the typical national process for integrating public art into CIPs. The process includes:
Budget Allocation, Scope Development, RFQ/Call to Artists, Short List Selection, Finalist Selection, Contract
Negotiation, Design Development, Fabrication, Installation, and Maintenance. She further explained how this
process is geared towards improving the quality and design of a CIP.
ElaynaAfurtherAexplainedAthatAinAcontrastAtoAanAintegratedAapproach.AtoAdateAseveralAofADelray’sAartAprojectsA
haveAtakenAaA“plopAart”AapproachAwhereAtheAproject’sAarchitectAdesignatesAaAplaceAforAaAsculpture,AARandalA
agreed that art integrate dAintoAcapitalAprojectsAcouldAbeAmoreAfunctionalAthanAaAstandAaloneA“plopAart”A
sculpture. Rafael stated that this view is more integrated than his original concept of public art. Linda remarked
that the images Ms. Singer presented in stakeholder meetings made it evident that having the art integrated from
the beginning of a CIP is the way to go and made a positive impact in the example projects she presented.
Elayna started a conversation with participants regarding public art projects implemented in the past and
asked what was positive and negative about the process. Paul stated that what he has seen so far is that public
art funds have been pooled, accumulated and used for non CIP Integrated projects, i.e. for projects that the
Public art Advisory Board (PAAB) suggested. Randal shared that shortly after the ordinance was established, City
Staff presented various bond projects to the PAAB for their consideration to integrate art into a project, and
because 1.5% of CIP was perceived by PAAB as insufficient to positively impact each CIP individually, they
recommended not integrating it into each specific CIP, but instead pooling the funds. As a result of Staff receiving
A CONVERSATION WITH City of Delray Beach City Staff APPENDIX B Page 29 of 32
c onsistent recommendations from PAAB to not integrate art into CIPs, Staff discontinued presenting projects to
PAAB for consideration. Therefore the 1.5% was not applied directly to the CIP from which it came. Pooled funds
were used for PAAB initiated projects instead of following the capital budgeting process and annual capital
priorities. In addition, when the Staff saw an opportunity to integrate art into City/CRA funded projects, they did so
without Public Art Board involvement in project scope development and artist/artwork selection.
Elayna went on to explain that in other stakeholder meet ingsAthereAwasAaAconsensusAthatAtheACity’sAlackAofAaApublicA
artACoordinatorAcausesAdisorganizationAandAinefficiency,ARandalArespondedAthatAinAtheACity’sAcurrentAfinancialAcrunchA
there is little hope for a public art Administrator position being established which would make a big difference in
improving art integration into CIPs. Linda also felt that it was the wrong economic time to have an art
Administrator on staff.
Randal asked Elayna that if the 1.5% of a CIP co uld be spent towards funding a public artist to provide design
services for the CIP. Elayna responded that the City could use the 1.5% to include an artist in the design team to
integrateAartAandAfulfillAtheAfacility’sAarchitecturalAprogramArequirementsAsuchAasAflooring.Aseating.Awindows.A
sidewalks, streetlights, landscape, etc. Dana commented that she was aware that a public art Consultant was hired
on the a rchitect’sAteamA for the Worthing park project and questioned why fundsAweren’tAspentAinsteadAo n bringing
an artist into the project. Randal said that in the end the public art Consultant did not provide services and was
removedAfromAtheAarchitect’sAcontract,A
Regarding CRA funded projects Elayna asked for clarification regarding if the City knows up front, at
budgeting/project scope phase, that the CRA will transfer the project to City at completion of Construction. Randal
explained that it depends as s omeAprojectsAareAinAtheACity’sACIPAandAothersAareAinAtheACR ’sACIP, The projects in the
City’sAC IP the City know s about. TheAprojectsAinAtheACR ’sACIPA the City may or may not know about. Also, in some
cases ownership transfers from CRA to City in which case the property and maintenance responsibility is
transferred to the City.
A CONVERSATION WITH Former and Current PAAB Members APPENDIX B Page 30 of 32
A CONVERSATION WITH Former and Current PAAB Members
RE: City of Delray Beach Public Art Projects
Meeting Minutes – March 5, 2012
Environmental Services Division , 434 South Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
In attendance
Dana Donaty – Chair, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
Sandi Franciosa – Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
Michiko Kurisu – Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
Rich McGloin – Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
Mary Minieka – Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Bo ard
Carolyn Pendelton-Parker – Former Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
Patricia Tru sc ello – Former Member, City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
Alberta Gaum-Rickard - Recreation Superintendent, Delray Beach Parks & Recreation
(Staff liaison to City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board)
Terrill Pyburn – Attorney, City of Delray Beach
Betty Jo Wigderson – Administrative Assistant, City of Delray Beach
Elayna Toby Singer – Administrator, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
Samantha Cohen – Intern, Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
The meetingAbeganAatA6;00APM,AMs,ASingerAinitiatedAtheAdiscussionAbyAasking.A“WhatAhasAbeenApositiveAandA
negativeAaboutAyourAexperienceAservingAonADelray’sAPublicA rtA dvisoryABoard,A nd.AwhatAwouldAimproveAyourA
experience as well as the function of the Board in the future? The following conversation ensued.
What’sA been positive about serving on the City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board?
Michiko Kurisu said that hiring Elayna Toby Singer as a consultant has brought light upon the current state of
Pu blic Art in the City of Delray Beach and the PAAB now understands its weakness and can work on it. Sandy
Franciosa, Dana Donaty and Alberta Gaum-RickardAallAsaidAit’sAbeenAhelpfulAtoAattendAtheA Florida Association of
Public Art Professionals conference where they learned more about the public art process and how other
public art programs around Florida function. Alberta Gaum-Rickard said that through the presentations given
by Ms. Singer, more and more individuals and department heads are starting to have a n understanding of the
public art process. Mary Minieka said she enjoys and learns from seeing each step of a projects process-both
successes and mistakes to improve from next time. Rich McGloin said the best thing about the Board is that
it’sAhere.AthatAi t exists. Pat Trusello added that seeing projects be completed and installed is a rewarding, and
the way they involve and give back to the community is positive.
What’sA been negative about serving on the City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board?
City staff and PAAB never established a blue print for itself as to how to operate particularly because PAAB is
different than other City boards. Unlike other advisory boards to the Commission (e.g.: Planning and Zoning,
A CONVERSATION WITH Former and Current PAAB Members APPENDIX B Page 31 of 32
S.P.R.A.B.) which are generally advising/voting only boards .AP B’sAroleAisAtoAbeAinvolvedAinA the planning and
selection of projects in addition to recommending how public art funds are spent.
As a result of the City not giving priority to funding a person to coordinate City public art projects, either artists
commissioned by the City or volunteer PAAB members try to work as administrators on projects. There also
seemsAtoAbeAlackAofAcoordinationAbetweenAP B’sAstaffAliaisonAandAotherACityAstaffAandAprojectsAareAnotAbroughtA
to the Board for their involvement. Also, no notice is provided from City staff to PAAB when public art policies
are being addressed among Staff and Commissioners. Despite generating many creative ideas for public art ,
PAAB has had difficulty implementing projects.
Board members often resign from the frustration of getting nothing done. Volunteer members say they want
to be useful and have their time spent productively. There is presently a lack of orientation and training for
new PAAB members. Board members learn their roles over time. With short term limits there is a lack of
consistency and loss of knowledge on the Board at any one time. Similarly, with each election cycle City
Commissioners engaged in public art may no longer be involved.
With public art funds constantly under threat for elimination, i t’sA been hard to build the public art program,
making it difficult to implement sustainable ideas. For projects that have been completed, the City hasn’tA
budget ed for maintenance ,ATheACity’sAwebsiteAisAunderutilize d for showcasing public art projects that have
been implemented.
What recommendations do you have to improve the function of the City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory
Board in the future?
Broaden the definition of public art so it does not always have to be permanent and static; public art can be
temporary, an interactive community involved event, and/or an art happening including performance. These
art events are perfect opportunities for marketing Delray Beach.
IfAsuccessfullyAutilized.AP B’sAwebsit e could be a powerful tool to promote public art and support the arts in
Delray Beach. It should be current, functional, and include the ability to apply for projects.
PAAB members need to be familiar with public art from across the nation and use their knowledge to inspire
City staff and engage the community. The board could host community outreach workshops where artists
work with residents and provide an interactive artistic experience. Bringing in an artist from a different area
can also bring a new perspective and make a positive influence on artwork as well as community engagement.
In order to successfully implement and maintain quality public art in the City of Delray Beach, t he Public Art
Advisory Board and City staff need to coordinate efforts. Members of the Art Board come from a diverse
background of arts related professions and could use their talents to generate innovative ideas and inspire
artistic endeavors. These ideas, however, cannot be actualized without the approval of City Commissioners
and cooperation of involved City staff. A Public Art Coordinator could facilitate coordination between the
Board and staff.
A CONVERSATION WITH Former and Current PAAB Members APPENDIX B Page 32 of 32
Alo ng with an Art Coordinator to work with staff and PAAB, amalgamating the Art Board with a department in
the City would also not only ease the process of installing art, but help to integrate public art projects in CIPs.
The Board needs to familiarize itself with the process and learn the role of an Art Advisory Board, generally in
regard to the selection process, along with how PAAB fits into City structure and the roles of other players.
The structure currently in place within the City must be improved to fulfill the functions listed in the Public Art
Ordinance in relation to budget allocation, scope, and, etc. Currently it seems that PAAB is being
systematically uninvolved in the public art process within the City.
To prevent the loss of knowledge that comes with changing members and to keep the momentum going on
long term projects, Board members should have longer terms. Training/orientation should be given to new
Board and they should take more responsibility to self educate about the public art process in the City and
national best standards. Due to Commission terms limits too, and the lack of common knowledge about public
art procedures, there could be workshops with PAAB and Commission er to educate them about the process.
After the conversation, Ms. Singer then gave a brief overview of some of the key findings and
recommendationsAshe’sAbeenAgatheringAinAherAreportAthusAfar,ASheAannouncedAthatAsheAwillAbeA reviewing the
full report on March 26, 2012 at the next PAAB meeting.
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 1
Public Art 101
What is Public Art
•Art that is accessible to the public
•Art that creates a sense of place and enhances
community identity
•Art that is site ‐specific and relates to the place in Art that is site ‐specific and relates to the place in
which it is located
•Art that improves the design quality of public
infrastructure
Studio Artist t o Public Artist
“Public & Studio Art are differe nt disciplines. The Public Art
arena forces an artist to lear n how to become an aesthetic
samurai–someone who is visually literate, streetwise & fluent
in both interdisciplinary co mmunication and cross-cultural
understanding. Public art is a proc ess that embraces both THE
PUBLIC & THE ART as equal si des of the same equation.”
Richard Posner
STUDIOARTIST PUBLICARTIST
A solo creator. Makes all decisions.
Internal desire drives the creation.
Creates art in conjunction with project’s
community, function, site, other designers
and/or artists.Opportunity is external.
Artwork focuses on Artist’s ideas and point of
view, comes from an interiorplace.
Artist’s interestsand project interest are
partners in the concept development. The
artwork is broader th an wh at the artist
personally thinks. Concepts are developed
from project/community.
Individualexpression and artist’s “hand” are
considered most important.
Artist’s “hand” has value, but is not the only
factor.
Not necessarily tiedto a specific space.
Artwork can move from place to place.
Tied to a specific location (except portable
works).
Materials selected by artist are to further the
artistic expression.
Materials are limited by functional
requirements,location, etc.
Scale of work is whatever makes sense.Scale of work is dependent upon location,
functions, how lo ng it will be v iewed, etc.
Time for making work is based on artist’s own
timetable.
Time between concept and completion can be
very long OR VERY SHORT.
Artwork is madedirectly from an idea to its
final form. Success is based on the resultant
artwork.
Artist makes a facsimile of the artworkto
present and se le ction happens on the basis of
the facsimile.
Public Artists are DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
A few UNIQUE National Standards to be aware of
when commissioning Public Art
1)Honoraria are paid to Artists for their designs
during the selection phase
2) Although Commissioning Agencies ultimately owns
the final artwork and work products created in
the design process, the ARTIST owns the
copyright
3) There are legal implications to consider if
artwork is altered by Commissioning Agency
Delray Beach Public Art Ordinance
•Recognizes that Public Art is consistent with and furthers the goals ,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
•Recognizes that Public Art contributes to the aesthetic enhancement of
the community
•Recognizes that a superior and diverse aesthetic character of the city's
built environment is vital to the quality of the life of its citizens, economic
success of its businesses, an attraction for visitors, and a benefit to tourism
•Recognizes that Public Art will reflect and enhance the City's diversity,
character and heritag e th rough the artworks and designs by artists
integrated in the architecture, streets and landscape
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 2
Delray Beach Public Art Ordinance
The City appropriates 1.5% of the total eligible
construction costs for:
•artist design services
•artwork selection and acquisition
•installation exhibition maintenance of artworks •installation , exhibition , maintenance of artworks
•administration of the public art program
Appropriation optional for CIPs less than $200,000
•However, 1.5% of the cost of the projects will be
retained for public art and these funds will be pooled
for other art projects.
Delray Beach Public Art Ordinance
Appropriations for CIPs include:
•eligible bond projects
•eligible grant ‐funded projects
•eligible capital projects funded from other sources
3 types of CIPs in Delray:
Public Improvement Projects
Private Property re-development
“Hybrid” –CRA does project then “gives” to City
Appropriations Exclude:
underground infrastructure improvements i.e. water and sewer
mains, storm drainage, wastewater or other underground
utilities
Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board
For all eligible CIP / Public Improvement Projects PAAB shall advise the City
Commission regarding:
1) The suitability of the construction project as a location for works of art
2) The types of which are most appropriate for the construction project
3) The best methods for securing the recommended works of art
When mak i ng its recommendation, PAAB shall consider whether the proposed
public art :
1) Conforms to the definition of public art
2) Is compatible with the neighborhood and not injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public
3) Presents a safety hazard to the public
4) Is of exceptional quality and enduring value
5) Serves to further the City‘s goal of promoting cultural diversity
6) Is appropriate to the site
7) Shoul d be ins talled at the proposed location or at a different location
8) Requires extraordinary maintenance, such as any special servicing due to
periodic adjustment, repairing, or repair or replacement of moving parts
2002 March Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan
2003 NovemberDelray Beach Public Art Needs Assessment
2004 July Delray Beach Public Art Master Plan (not adopted)
HOW DOES PUBLIC ART FIT IN DELRAY’S PLANS?
2006 February Delray Beach Cultural Plan
2006 Creative City Collaborative Established
2010 April City of Delray Beach Strategic Plan 2010-2015-2025
2010 City of Delray Beach National Citizen Survey
The plan
outlines
physical
improvements
such as
beautification ,
traffic calming,
a si g nificant
2002 March -Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan
(City / CRA funded)
g
gateway
feature off of I-
95, the
placement of
parks and
plazas , and the
adoption of
design
guidelines .
From
introduction…
This
2003 November -Delray Beach Public Art Needs Assessment
(City Funded / Public Art Implementation Committee)
This
document
demonstrates
the existing
high value and
investment the
city has
placed in art,
culture and
heritage –the
backbone of
public art.
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 3
Based on comments from
the City Commission , the
Committee strove to create
a plan with the following
objectives:
•Satisfy the requests of the
citizens for civic
enhancement provided by
p ublic art
2004 July -Delray Beach Public Art Master Plan
(City Funded / Public Art Implementation Committee)
p
•Create a program with low
administrative costs
•Utilize a non-profit
organization with the ability
to raise funds
•Encourage, but not
require, public art on private
property
CCC is a nonprofit organization created to build
the cultural infrastructure that celebrates Delray
Beach as a creative, authentic, and intimate City,
is tasked with implementing the City’s cultural
plan,adopted by the City Commission in 2006
dCRAPl’AtBdEi
2006 February -Delray Beach Cultural Plan
(City / CRA funded -Coletta & Company)
2006 -Creative City Collaborative
(CRA funded)
an d CRA Pl an ’s A r t s B ase d E conom i c
Development Program.
The Arts Garage is a multi-disciplinary cultural
hub for visual artists , musicians, performers, film
presenters and arts educators. The mission of
the Arts Garage is to collaborate with emerging
artists and cultural innovators to facilitate an
exchange of art and ideas and to present cutting-
edge, interdisciplinary performances and
exhibitions . We are committed to making Delray
Beach an international destination for artists and
patrons.
2010 April -Strategic Plan 2010-2015-2025
(City funded)
HOW WILL PUBLIC ART
help the City of Delray Beach meet its Strategic Plan’s Guiding Principles???
1.Budget Allocation –1.5% CIPs
2.Scope Development
3.Call to Artists / RFQ
4.Shortlist Selection
5.Finalist Selection
Public Art Process
6.Contract Negotiations
7.Design Development
8.Fabrication
9.Installation
10.Ribbon Cutting
11.Long ‐term Maintenance
Important Questions
to consider when developing a project’s scope
1.What type of activities do you foresee happening there?
2.How do you want to feel when you approach the space?
3.Is the location a ‘verb’‐a kinetic interactive space ‐
or a ‘noun’‐static and discrete?
4.What is the area ’s history?4.What is the areas history?
5.Are there future development plans?
6.What is the seasonal effect?
7.What are the day and nighttime site conditions?
8.Is there pedestrian or vehicular access?
9.What are the budgetary and schedule parameters?
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 4
Who’s Involved in
Developing a Project’s Scope?
User Groups
‐Commissioning Agency Rep. , Staff and Public who know/use the “facility”
Public Art Administrator
Public Art Advisory Board
Community Stakeholders
‐Neighborhood Groups
‐Local Business Owners
The Public Art Selection Panel
per project the people change
Commissioning Agency Representatives
Community Representatives
Public Art Advisory Board Members
-Design Professionals (i.e. Architect, Landscape Architects)
-Artists / Arts Professionals
Public Art Administrator (typically non-voting)
Calls to Artists
RFQ asks artists to send in their qualifications
for review by the selection panel.
Does not ask for a specific proposal in initial submittal
Short List Selection based on letter of intent, images of past
work, resume
Finalist Selection based on specific proposal OR interview
Project Description
Overview of the artist’s scope of services
Commission
Design ‐team project Design team project
Describes the organizations involved
Artwork Goals
BROAD
Create a sense of place within the community
SPECIFIC
Design streetscape elements –seating, shade
structures, walkways –that reflect the
cultural heritage of the neighborhood
Location Description
Highly detailed description of where the
artwork will be located within the site.
If location is not predetermined it states i f the
artist can participate in selecting the artwork
location
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 5
Location Plans
If available, include:
Site Plans
Photographs Photographs
News articles or other publications
Site Description
Function
History
Community relevance
Surrounding context / neighborhood
Additional resources for artists to research
the community
Budget
Funding allocated for the project.
Artist’s fee
Travel
Design (engineering, permitting)
Fabrication
Installation
Documentation
Signage
Insurance
Artist Eligibility
Specific geographic area?
Professional artist, emerging artist?
Idiidl tit t?I n di v id ua l ar ti s t or t eam ?
Completion of projects similar in budget,
scale or scope?
Application Requirements
Typical application requirements include:
Images of past work
Annotated image list
Letter of intent
Resume
References
Deadline
The Date by which an application must be
Received / Post Marked
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 6
Selection Process
Describes how applications will be reviewed
and an artist selected.
Type of people on the selection panel Type of people on the selection panel
Number of finalists selected
What is expected of the Finalists
Fee finalists will be paid
Selection Criteria
Priorities of the selection panel.
Artist’s years of experience with media / project
re q uirements q
Previous work with government agency
Local preference
Project Timeline
Highlights important milestone dates.
Submission Deadline
Panel Review
Finalist Notification
Contract Negotiation
Design Development
Fabrication
Installation
Completion
Artist Selection Methods
Geographic Eligibility (Budget, Project Location, Prominence)
Open Competition (RFQ, RFP)
Limited Competition (List of Artists suggested by Selection Panel)
Direct Selection (Hire an Artist, Purchase existing Art, Curatorial)
Slide Registry (Pool of Artists from which Finalists are chosen)
Aerial Site View -WPB Intermodal Facility Public Art Project Area = 2700 sq. ft., 100 ft. length
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 7
Proposal #1
Proposal #2
Proposal #3
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 8
Contract Components
Project Description
Budget
Construction Schedule
Subcontractors (Fabricators, Engineer, Contractor)
PdMil P ropose d M ater i a l s
Design Milestones and Reviews
Insurance Certificates
Final Waiver & Release of Claim
Warranty of Title
Curatorial / Maintenance Documentation
Construction Complete
Name:Consulting Artist ‐Integrated Public Art Design Services
Budget:$13,100 design ($51,634 fabrication/installation)
Location: Gardens Branch Library (Expansion Project)
Public Art Project Description
Palm Beach County's Art in Public Places Program is seeking to hire an artist
(artist team) to assist in the design of site specific integrated, functio nal artwork
for the North County Regional Library Expansion project.The selected artist(s)
will collaborate with the project design team to identify and design specific
bli t titi i th id hild'jil d fil itd pu bli c ar t oppor t un iti es i n th e i n d oor c hild ren 's, j uven il e an d f am il y ‐or i en t e d
spaces of the Library expansion area . Preliminarily, the project team has
identified the entrance / transitional space to the new children's area as a desired
location for public art integration. Artwork(s)must be durable, permanent, low
maintenance and in compliance with ADA guidelines.
The project design team includes PGAL (architect), in.designinc. (interior design),
Catafulmo(contractor) and County staff (Libraries and Facilities Development &
Operations Department which includes Art in Public Places Program staff).
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 9
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 10
55 56
57 58
Gardens Library
Artist –Garth Edwards
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 11
Name:Four Points Office Building Renovation
Budget:Design $23,000 (Fabrication/Installation $205,800)
Location: 50 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach, FL 33415
Deadline:October 10, 2008 -Applications must be received by 5:00
p.m. (EST)
Artwork Scope
Palm Beach County's Art in Public Places Program is seeking to hire an artist
(artist team) to design site specific integrated artwork(s) for the Four Points
Office Building Renovation. It is intended that the artwork will help to create a
sense of p lace and unif y the three g overnmental buildin g s on the Four Points pygg
Office Campus. Artwork(s) shall be integrated into renovation areas including,
but not limited to, the building’s entry vestibule, windows, balcony railings,
courtyards, interior floors and walls. Artwork(s)must be durable, permanent,
low maintenance and in compliance with ADA guidelines.
The selected artist(s) will collaborate with the project’s design team which
includes Saltz Michelson Architects, Hedrick Brothers Construction
(construction manger) and County Facilities Development & Operations
Department which includes Art in Public Places Program staff.
Four Points
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 12
Public Art
Across
the Nation
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 13
2.05%
13.33%
1179%
1.54%
2.56%
Neighborhood
Cultural District
City or Town ONLY
Unified Cit y /Count y
Public art program distribution:
5.10%
10.26%
11 .79%
4.26%48.72%
yy
County ONLY
Multi ‐country Region
State
Multi ‐State region
Other
0%
6%26%
12%
> 2%
2%
Percentage required by ordinance or policy
66%
1% to 2%
1%
Other
Tallahassee/Leon Count y
Jacksonville
Jacksonville Airport
V olusia Count y
Brevard Count y
St. Lucie Count y
FtPierce
Monroe County
Key West
Naples
Fort Myers
Charlotte County
Sarasota
PinellasCounty
Public Art Programs in Florida
Ft . Pierce
Martin Count y
Palm Beach Count y
West Palm Beach
Boynton Beach
Delray Beach
Broward Count y
Coral Springs
Miami-Dade County
Miami Beach
Pinellas County
St. Petersburg
Clearwater
Hillsborough County
Tampa
Tampa Airport
Orange County
Orlando
Orlando Airport
Gainesville
Art in State Buildings
Program
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 14
Commercial Development Attitudes re: Public Art
Univ. of Westminster study -“For Art’s Sake, Public Art, Planning
Policies & their Benefits for Commercial Property”
Assessed attitudes of Investors, Developers, Occupiers of Commercial
Property re: public art in private development:
Image or attractiveness of a dev. was a significant factor in occupiers
selection of bldg. choice
62% occupiers believe that contribution of public art to their bldg. was
considerableandprovidedacommercialadvantage considerable and provided a commercial advantage
Partners for Livable Communities, Wash. D.C.
“How to Incorporate Arts & Culture into Neighborhood Business Districts”
Public art contributes to the mix that is a magnet for people, businesses &
tourism –public image conveyed by a County/City can be a critical part of
spurring local economic development
Enhancing a city’s /county’s identity through the arts make the
County/City come alive for investors and visitors.
Gateways Gateways
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 15
Parks/Plazas Parks/Plazas
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 16
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 17
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 18
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 19
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 20
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 21
Building Facades
2006 Year In Review 073
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 22
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 23
Fences / Gates
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 24
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 25
Public Art Across the Nation, Appendix C 26
Presented by ElaynaToby Singer
APPENDIX D
CONSULTANT PROFILE
Elayna Toby Singer’s professional endeavors reflect an interdisciplinary approach to the
Arts, Culture and the Environment. Since 2004, as Palm Beach County’s first full -time Art
in Public Places Administrator, Elayna has work ed with artists, County staff, the County’s
Public Art Committee and community members to integrat e architectural scale artworks
into County buildings, parks and plazas. In addition, she manages and curates the
permanent and changing art exhibitions at Palm Beach International Airport.
Prior to her current position Ms. Singer had the pleasure of working in foremost public
garden museums in San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and Naples, Florida where she
led strategic and master planning for 340+ acres of gardens and visitor amenities,
curated permanent and temporary exhibitions, directed multicultural festivals and
educational programs, and led marketing efforts that regularly increased attendan ce .
Elayna has consulted for the Smithsonian Institution and was an Associate Producer of
“Untold Stories,” a P BS television series that portrayed the history of Southwest Florida’s
diverse communities.
As a Longwood Fellow, Ms. Singer received her Master’s degree in Public Horticulture
Administration and Nonprofit Museum Management. Her undergraduate degree is in
Cultural Anthropology and Elementary Education.
Elayna Toby Singer is a gardener, jeweler and kinetic sculptor. Her mixed media works
incorporate found objects, natural materials, vintage tools and beads.
Elayna Toby Singer
Palm Beach County Art in Public Places
Ph (561) 233-0235, Fax (561) 233-0206
263 3 Vista Parkway, West Palm Beach, FL 33411
http://www.pbcgov.com/fdo/ART
esinger@pbcgov.org
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:May 1, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.2 - WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 8, 2012
CONSIDER BID PROPOSAL FOR THE DAVIS CUP FINALS
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Commission is requested to authorize staff to devel op a bid proposal to the USTA for the Davis Cup
Finals, which will be held in the United States Nov ember 16-18, 2012, provided that the US team beats
Spain and the Czech Republic team beats Argentina.
BACKGROUND
Commission has previously expressed a desire to pur sue another Davis Cup or FED Cup
Tournament. The USTA has just put out an email anno uncing that it will be accepting bids for the Davis
Cup finals in November.
Target dates are as follows:
Letter of Intent due July 2, 2012
Final Bid due August 6, 2012
Final Site Section about September 24, 2012
Advantages to our Site/City:
Our previous experience with the USTA for Fed Cup a nd Davis Cup ties.
Our staff support that we have provided for previou sly held FED Cup and Davis Cup matches.
Our City, downtown, beaches, restaurants and walkin g distance to the stadium from hotels.
Disadvantage:
Small size of our stadium of about 8,100 seats. The last FED finals held in the US was in
Portland, which had an 18,000 seat stadium. However , our advantages and the fact that the USTA
can set ticket prices according to the stadium size will help to overcome this disadvantage.
Requirements for our bid:
Cash contribution of $400,000 to the USTA.
Provide City staff support at no cost as we have do ne in the past, which includes security, EMS
assistance, site set up assistance, electrician, si te cleanup and equipment use.
Be able to secure and block approximately 350-400 rooms locally before, during and after
tournament. Total room days about 5-7 days.
Strategies for Funding/Options to pursue to offset costs:
Try to obtain grants from the Palm Beach County Spo rts Commission and TDC.
Write into the bid a revenue sharing proposal with USTA at $1 million ticket sales, $1.5 million
ticket sales and $2 million ticket sales.
Sell local sponsorships and include value added spo nsorship with possible sponsors for ITC.
Possible use of local economic impact dollars for promoting business relocation and or other new
business locating in Delray Beach.
Request sponsorship from the CRA.
Strategy for Bid Package:
In addition to including financial, staff support a nd hotel commitments we would:
Submit a final bid with the letter of intent and as k for an early notification based on compelling
reasons. We would request notification be given at the end of August or first week of
September. These reasons would be:
Need to know for grant programs
Sponsors need to know for their budget decisions
Hotels need lead time to block rooms
City needs to know to finalize our budget
We have it from good sources the USTA has done earl y notification in the past based on compelling
reasons.
We are requesting authorization for staff to procee d since we need to begin discussions with the Sport s
Commission and TDC, potential sponsors, hotels and Vin Nolan. We also need to start developing
sponsor funding scenarios.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above strategies, we recommend authori zation to develop a bid package with the USTA
for the Davis Cup finals.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:May 4, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.3 - WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 8, 2012
DISCUSSION REGARDING SCRTWDB
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Discussion regarding South Central Regional Waste W ater Treatment and Disposal Board (SCRTWDB)
AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BE ACH
DATED DECEMBER 26, 1974
THIS AMENDMENT to the Interlocal Agreement is made this _______ day o f
__________________, 2012, by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH , a Florida
municipal corporation (“Delray”), and the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, a Florida
municipal corporation (“Boynton”).
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS , Delray and Boynton are desirous of amending the Interlocal
Agreement to change the makeup of the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal Board.
NOW, THEREFORE , for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties he reby agree as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals . The parties hereby represent that the above
recitals are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2. Revision . Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to provide t hat the
South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Dispo sal Board shall be comprised
of the Finance Director, Utilities Director and City Ma nager or Assistant City Manager of
each City for a total of six board members. The membe rs of the City
Commissions/Councils for each City shall no longer be the board members, however,
all actions of the board shall be approved by a majorit y vote of the separate City
Commissions.
2
Section 3(A)(3) of the Agreement is amended to provi de that a quorum shall
consist of not less than four members, comprised of not less than two members from
each City.
Section 3(A)(4) of the Agreement is amended to provi de that the concurring vote
of four of the members present, including the concurrin g vote of at least two members
from each City shall be necessary to decide any question.
3. Full Force and Effect . All other terms and conditions of the Interlocal
Agreement not expressly modified by this Amendment her eto remain in full force and
effect.
4. Effective Date of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement . This
Amendment shall not be effective until it is signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed this _____ day of _______________, 2012 .
ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
______________________________ By: _____________________________
City Clerk Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
______________________________
City Attorney
ATTEST: CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA
______________________________ By: _____________________________
City Clerk , Mayor
Approved as to Form:
3
______________________________
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:May 3, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.4 - WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 8, 2012
FY 2013 DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET PRESENTATIONS
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before the Commission is the first group o f Departmental Budget Presentations as part of the
FY 2013 budget review process.
BACKGROUND
At the May 1, 2012 Regular Meeting, the Commission decided to include budget presentations from
City Departments as part of the FY 2013 budget revi ew process. This process will allow the
Commission to become more familiar with each organi zational unit (departments/divisions) in the
General Fund budget. The presentations to Commissi on will be completed before the end of July.
The following presentations are scheduled for the M ay 8 workshop meeting:
-Administrative Services
-Clean & Safe
-Tennis (two divisions - Tennis Stadium and Tennis Centers)
-Human Resources
-City Attorney
Presentations are attached for your review along wi th more detailed budget worksheets for each of thes e
organizational units.
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
E
L
R
A
Y
B
E
A
C
H
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
FY
2
0
1
2
–
2
0
1
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
CI
T
Y
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
W
O
R
K
S
H
O
P
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
Ma
y
8
,
2
0
1
2
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ch
a
r
t
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
•
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
/
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
v
e
n
t
s
•
C
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
•
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
f
o
r
G
o
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
s
,
T
e
n
n
i
s
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
T
e
n
n
i
s
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
•
B
o
a
r
d
L
i
a
i
s
o
n
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
(S
i
s
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
,
O
l
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
q
u
a
r
e
,
Fr
i
e
n
d
s
o
f
S
a
n
d
o
w
a
y
H
o
u
s
e
,
D
B
M
C
)
•
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
•
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
f
r
o
n
t
l
o
b
b
y
•
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Su
m
m
a
r
y
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Le
v
e
l
s
1
0
‐11
1
1
‐12
1
2
‐13
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
C
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
1
1
1
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
1
1
1
Te
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
1
1
1
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
0
1
1
FT
E
s
1
.
2
5
.1
7
.13
4.
2
5
4
.
1
7
4
.
1
3
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
20
1
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
2
Re
v
i
s
e
d
20
1
3
De
p
t
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
%
Change
20
1
2
vs. 2013
re
q
u
e
s
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
Co
s
t
s
42
2
,
0
1
6
3
6
3
,
6
6
2
3
8
7
,
9
9
0
3
8
7
,
6
8
0
‐.08%
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
25
9
,
7
7
7
2
5
7
,
1
4
7
2
5
0
,
1
5
0
2
6
7
,
3
0
0
6
.
8
6
%
TO
T
A
L
$
6
8
1
,
7
9
3
$
6
2
0
,
8
0
9
$
6
3
8
,
1
4
0
$
6
5
4
,
9
8
0
2
.
6
4
%
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Bu
d
g
e
t
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•
N
o
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
r
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
•
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
p
a
r
t
t
i
m
e
h
o
u
r
s
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
l
o
b
b
y
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
d
u
e
t
o
b
u
d
g
e
t
m
a
n
u
a
l
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
,
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
s
e
w
e
r
,
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
i
t
e
m
s
/
j
a
n
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
p
e
s
t
co
n
t
r
o
l
,
c
h
i
l
l
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
p
o
s
t
a
g
e
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
,
r
a
d
i
o
s
,
an
d
p
h
o
n
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
r
a
v
e
l
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
C
M
t
o
at
t
e
n
d
t
h
e
I
C
M
A
c
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
($1,010)$9,620 $5,430 $1,350
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
FY
11
‐12
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
FY
12
‐13
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Ev
e
n
t
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
52
,
0
0
0
5
3
,
0
0
0
Fo
r
al
l
ev
e
n
t
s
ex
c
e
p
t
t
e
n
n
i
s
tournaments
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
E
v
e
n
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
Fe
e
3,
8
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
fo
r
ev
e
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
35
,
4
0
0
3
4
,
2
9
0
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
So
l
i
d
W
a
s
t
e
for groups
le
a
s
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
‐ow
n
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
(see Note 1
be
l
o
w
fo
r
li
s
t
i
n
g
of
gr
o
u
p
s
)
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
12
0
1
2
0
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
for groups
le
a
s
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
‐ow
n
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
(see Note 2
be
l
o
w
fo
r
li
s
t
i
n
g
of
gr
o
u
p
s
)
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
1,
6
8
0
1
,
7
0
0
DD
A
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
Wa
t
e
r
& Electric at
Vi
s
i
t
o
r
’
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
TO
T
A
L
S
$
9
3
,
0
0
0
$
9
3
,
1
1
0
No
t
e
1–
C
a
s
o
n
Co
t
t
a
g
e
,
Ol
d
Sc
h
o
o
l
Sq
u
a
r
e
,
Li
b
r
a
r
y
,
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
of
Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
,
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Legion/
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Pa
n
t
r
y
,
Sp
a
d
y
Ho
u
s
e
Mu
s
e
u
m
,
Ca
t
h
e
r
i
n
e
St
r
o
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
(H
e
a
d
St
a
r
t
/
B
o
y
s
& Girls Club)
No
t
e
2
–
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
Bo
y
s
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
/
B
o
y
Sc
o
u
t
Hu
t
,
Sa
n
d
o
w
a
y
Ho
u
s
e
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
E
L
R
A
Y
B
E
A
C
H
Cl
e
a
n
&
S
a
f
e
FY
2
0
1
2
–
2
0
1
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
CI
T
Y
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
W
O
R
K
S
H
O
P
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
Ma
y
8
,
2
0
1
2
Cl
e
a
n
& Sa
f
e
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ch
a
r
t
Cl
e
a
n
& Sa
f
e
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
Li
t
t
e
r
P
i
c
k
u
p
/
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
•
C
l
e
a
n
u
p
o
f
t
r
a
s
h
a
n
d
d
e
b
r
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
Sa
f
e
a
r
e
a
f
r
o
m
I
-
9
5
t
o
A
-
1
-
A
o
n
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
,
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
n
o
d
e
s
,
2
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
g
a
r
a
g
e
s
a
n
d
s
i
x
su
r
f
a
c
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
.
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
•
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
w
o
r
k
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
e
e
d
i
n
g
,
mu
l
c
h
i
n
g
,
h
e
r
b
i
c
i
d
e
a
n
d
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
fl
o
w
e
r
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
,
h
e
d
g
e
t
r
i
m
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
fe
n
c
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
Ma
p
of
th
e
Cl
e
a
n
an
d
Sa
f
e
Ar
e
a
Cl
e
a
n
& Sa
f
e
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Su
m
m
a
r
y
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Le
v
e
l
s
1
0
‐11
1
1
‐12
1
2
‐13
St
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
1
1
1
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
I
2
2
2
FT
E
s
3
3
3
Cl
e
a
n
& Sa
f
e
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
20
1
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
2
Re
v
i
s
e
d
20
1
3
De
p
t
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
%
Change
20
1
2
vs. 2013
re
q
u
e
s
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
Co
s
t
s
$1
4
4
,
9
0
3
$
1
3
8
,
6
9
7
$
1
4
8
,
8
3
0
$
1
4
9
,
5
6
0
.
4
9
%
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
$6
1
,
5
5
7
$
6
2
,
3
5
9
$
4
9
,
4
1
0
$
6
6
,
2
0
0
3
3
.
9
8
%
TO
T
A
L
$
2
0
6
,
4
6
0
$
2
0
1
,
0
5
6
$
1
9
8
,
2
4
0
$
2
1
5
,
7
6
0
8
.
8
4
%
Cl
e
a
n
& Sa
f
e
Bu
d
g
e
t
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•
N
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
o
r
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
p
e
s
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
$
1
,
3
2
0
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
$
5
,
0
0
0
cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
g
u
m
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
(
2
-
3
b
l
o
c
k
s
)
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
b
u
d
g
e
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
$
1
,
2
9
0
fu
e
l
c
o
s
t
s
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
i
n
g
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
f
o
r
s
p
r
a
y
i
n
g
f
o
r
w
h
i
t
e
$
9
,
6
2
0
fl
y
i
n
f
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
c
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
f
e
n
c
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Cl
e
a
n
& Sa
f
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
FY
11
‐12
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
FY
12
‐13
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Cl
e
a
n
&S
a
f
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
S1
,
1
4
4
,
7
9
5
$
1
,
1
7
0
,
0
0
0
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
the
CR
A
f
o
r
co
s
t
s
fo
r
al
l
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
th
e
Clean &
Sa
f
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(P
o
l
i
c
e
,
Code
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
Pa
r
k
s
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Works
an
d
Ga
r
a
g
e
s
)
.
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
a
b
l
e
Ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
/
E
v
e
n
t
s
‐
$1
,
5
0
0
Ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
d
for
ev
e
n
t
s
at
10
0
%
of
co
s
t
s
.
TO
T
A
L
S
$
1
,
1
4
4
,
7
9
5
$
1
,
1
7
1
,
5
0
0
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
E
L
R
A
Y
B
E
A
C
H
Te
n
n
i
s
S
t
a
d
i
u
m
FY
2
0
1
2
–
2
0
1
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
CI
T
Y
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
W
O
R
K
S
H
O
P
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
MA
Y
8
,
2
0
1
2
Te
n
n
i
s
S
t
a
d
i
u
m
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
t
h
e
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
a
s
a
m
u
l
t
if
a
c
e
t
e
d
v
e
n
u
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
an
d
a
m
a
t
e
u
r
t
e
n
n
i
s
,
v
a
r
i
ous sports events,
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
h
a
r
i
t
y
e
v
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
r
t
s
.
As
s
i
s
t
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
r
s
i
n
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
su
c
h
a
s
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
,
c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
i
r
e
s
,
l
i
gh
t
i
n
g
,
c
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
T
i
c
k
e
t
m
a
s
t
e
r
a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
h
e
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
St
a
d
i
u
m
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
a
n
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
Te
n
n
i
s
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
Ho
s
t
e
v
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
w
h
i
c
h
w
i
l
l
pr
o
m
o
t
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
ay
B
e
a
c
h
t
h
o
u
g
h
l
o
c
a
l
,
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
te
l
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
a
f
f
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
Te
n
n
i
s
S
t
a
d
i
u
m
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
20
1
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
2
0
1
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
2
0
1
2
Re
v
i
s
e
d
20
1
3
De
p
t
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
% Ch
a
n
g
e
2012 vs.
20
1
3
Request
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
Co
s
t
s
(c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
)
5
0
,
2
3
6
52
,
0
4
4
73
,
1
5
0
73
,
1
5
0
0%
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
1
,
5
3
5
,
6
5
7
2,
0
3
9
,
0
5
4
2,
0
9
1
,
3
3
0
2,
2
1
0
,
9
1
0
6%
TO
T
A
L
$
1
,
5
8
5
,
8
9
3
$2
,
0
9
1
,
0
9
8
$2
,
1
6
4
,
4
8
0
$2
,
2
8
4
,
0
6
0
6%
Te
n
n
i
s
S
t
a
d
i
u
m
Bu
d
g
e
t
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
No
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
o
r
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
Al
l
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
r
e
r
e
l
at
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
t
e
n
n
i
s
t
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
o
r
a
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
f
or
a
n
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
of
t
h
e
C
h
a
m
p
i
o
n
s
/
W
o
r
l
d
T
o
u
r
To
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
.
L
a
s
t
d
o
n
e
b
y
p
r
i
v
a
te
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
i
n
2
0
0
1
(
n
e
w
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
o
s
t
i
s
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
)
.
+
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
u
e
t
o
b
u
d
g
e
t
m
an
u
a
l
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
f
o
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
+
$
9
,
8
9
0
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
w
i
n
d
s
c
r
e
e
n
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
(
$
4
,
0
0
0
)
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
f
o
r
T
e
n
n
i
s
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
+
$
8
5
,
0
9
0
Ch
a
m
p
i
o
n
s
(
$
1
0
,
5
0
0
)
Wo
r
l
d
T
o
u
r
(
$
6
2
,
7
2
0
)
PI
M
Y
o
u
t
h
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
(
$
1
0
,
2
7
0
)
Ch
r
i
s
E
v
e
r
t
C
h
a
r
i
t
y
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
(
$
1
,
6
0
0
)
Ha
r
d
c
o
u
r
t
r
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
ed
f
o
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
f
o
r
W
o
r
l
d
T
o
u
r
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
+
$
1
4
,
0
0
0
(p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
b
u
d
g
e
t
e
d
i
n
T
e
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
Te
n
n
i
s
S
t
a
d
i
u
m
Re
v
e
n
u
e
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
/
2
0
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
2
/
2
0
1
3
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
No
t
e
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
E
v
e
n
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
Re
v
e
n
u
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
o
r
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
f
l
o
o
r
i
n
g
re
n
t
a
l
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
s
f
o
r
Ch
a
m
p
i
o
n
s
/
W
o
r
l
d
T
o
u
r
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
Mi
s
c
/
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
$
2
9
,
6
1
5
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
e
n
n
i
s
to
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
St
a
d
i
u
m
R
e
n
t
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
Re
n
t
s
f
o
r
u
s
e
o
f
st
a
d
i
u
m
s
u
c
h
a
s
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
Gr
a
n
t
s
(
C
R
A
)
$
5
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
3
5
,
0
0
0
CR
A
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
C
h
a
m
p
i
o
n
s
/
W
o
r
l
d
To
u
r
t
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
s
$5
9
2
,
1
1
5
$
6
1
6
,
5
0
0
Te
n
n
i
s
S
t
a
d
i
u
m
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
We
a
r
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
i
n
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
:
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
-
O
u
r
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
b
u
d
g
e
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
fo
r
1
1
-
1
2
d
i
d
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
y
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
li
n
e
i
t
e
m
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
w
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
We
a
r
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
i
n
g
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
f
o
r
1
2
-
1
3
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
ba
s
e
d
o
n
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
Cl
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
C
l
i
n
i
c
.
We
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
u
r
s
ue
e
v
e
n
t
s
w
h
i
c
h
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
th
e
S
t
a
d
i
u
m
.
T
h
i
s
y
e
a
r
w
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
re
v
e
n
u
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
a
s
a
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
v
e
n
u
e
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
E
L
R
A
Y
B
E
A
C
H
Te
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
FY
2
0
1
2
–
2
0
1
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
CI
T
Y
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
W
O
R
K
S
H
O
P
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
MA
Y
8
,
2
0
1
2
Te
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Su
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
y
a
n
d
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
o
v
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
l
e
a
g
u
e
s
a
n
d
c
l
u
b
t
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
Ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Le
s
s
o
n
s
Te
n
n
i
s
l
e
s
s
o
n
s
f
o
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
l
a
y
e
r
s
b
o
t
h
a
d
u
l
t
a
n
d
y
o
u
t
h
,
f
o
r
l
e
a
g
u
e
s
a
n
d
c
l
u
b
me
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
c
l
i
n
i
c
s
Pr
o
S
h
o
p
Pr
o
s
h
o
p
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
si
o
n
,
c
o
u
r
t
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
,
c
a
s
h
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
p
r
o
sh
o
p
s
a
l
e
s
o
f
m
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
Co
u
r
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Al
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
a
s
k
s
f
o
r
3
8
c
l
a
y
c
o
u
r
t
s
a
n
d
7
h
a
r
d
c
o
u
r
t
s
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
u
r
t
fi
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
,
l
i
n
i
n
g
,
n
e
t
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
l
i
t
t
e
r
a
n
d
t
r
a
s
h
p
i
c
k
u
p
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Th
i
s
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
u
t
il
i
t
i
e
s
,
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
A
/
C
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
e
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
a
n
d
l
o
c
k
e
r
r
o
o
m
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Te
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
20
1
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
2
0
1
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
2
0
1
2
Re
v
i
s
e
d
2
0
1
3
De
p
t
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
% Change 2012 vs. 2013 Request
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
Co
s
t
s
(c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
)
3
7
1
,
5
1
1
36
1
,
0
1
1
39
5
,
0
3
0
38
2
,
1
0
0
‐3.27%
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
7
5
5
,
6
4
8
78
9
,
9
1
4
80
9
,
4
5
0
81
9
,
4
1
0
1.23%
TO
T
A
L
$
1
,
1
2
7
,
1
5
9
$1
,
1
5
0
,
9
2
5
$1
,
2
0
4
,
4
8
0
$1
,
2
0
1
,
5
1
0
‐0.25%
Te
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
Bu
d
g
e
t
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
p
a
r
t
t
i
m
e
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
($12,930)
De
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
%
p
a
i
d
t
o
p
r
o
’
s
f
o
r
le
s
s
o
n
s
t
o
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
7
0
%
v
e
r
s
u
s
8
0
%
(
$
5
,
4
0
0
)
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
su
r
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
p
e
r
b
u
d
g
e
t
m
a
n
u
a
l
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
$
9
,
5
9
0
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
fo
r
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
r
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
2
,
5
0
0
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
p
r
e
m
i
u
m
s
d
u
e
t
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
al
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
$
4
,
9
0
0
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
fo
r
n
e
w
c
o
p
i
e
r
t
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
10
y
e
a
r
o
l
d
c
o
p
i
e
r
$
1
,
0
4
0
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
o
u
r
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
r
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
ha
r
d
c
o
u
r
t
s
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
mo
v
e
d
t
o
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
(
$
1
4
,
0
0
0
)
to
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
Co
s
t
t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
a
g
o
l
f
c
o
u
r
t
/
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
1
0
y
e
a
r
o
l
d
c
a
r
t
$
5
,
0
0
0
To
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
f
o
r
r
o
u
n
d
r
o
b
i
n
c
l
u
b
a
n
d
l
e
a
g
u
e
t
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
s
t
s
ba
s
e
d
o
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
$5,250
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
Te
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
/
2
0
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
2
/
2
0
1
3
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Te
n
n
i
s
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
$
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
E
x
t
r
a
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
t
o
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
e
v
e
l
Te
n
n
i
s
L
e
s
s
o
n
s
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
4
0
,
0
0
0
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
n
t
e
n
n
i
s
l
e
s
s
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Te
n
n
i
s
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
n
t
a
l
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
R
a
c
q
u
e
t
s
Le
a
g
u
e
s
&
T
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
F
e
e
s
$
4
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
7
,
5
0
0
F
o
r
w
e
e
k
l
y
r
o
u
n
d
r
o
b
i
n
c
l
u
b
a
n
d
le
a
g
u
e
t
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
A
d
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
$
9
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
3
,
0
0
0
1
2
%
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
a
i
l
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
u
s
e
Te
n
n
i
s
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
S
a
l
e
s
b
a
l
l
s
,
c
l
o
t
h
i
n
g
,
o
t
h
e
r
Te
n
n
i
s
M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
(T
a
x
a
b
l
e
)
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
Te
n
n
i
s
V
e
n
d
i
n
g
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
S
a
l
e
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
v
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
s
To
t
a
l
s
$8
0
4
,
5
0
0
$
8
6
4
,
0
0
0
Te
n
n
i
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
/
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
Ac
t
u
a
l
20
1
0
A
c
t
u
a
l
20
1
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
20
1
2
D
e
p
t
.
Request 2013
Re
v
e
n
u
e
74
4
,
1
4
6
.
5
6
80
8
,
2
5
5
.
3
4
84
3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
864,000.00
% in
c
r
e
a
s
e
ov
e
r
pr
i
o
r
ye
a
r
9
%
4
%
2
%
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
1,
1
2
7
,
1
5
6
.
6
5
1,
1
5
0
,
9
2
2
.
3
4
1,
2
0
4
,
4
8
0
.
0
0
1,201,510.00
% in
c
r
e
a
s
e
ov
e
r
pr
i
o
r
ye
a
r
2
%
5
%
‐.0.25%
Ne
t
C
o
s
t
(
$
3
8
3
,
0
1
0
.
0
9
)
(
$
3
4
2
,
6
6
7
.
00
)
(
$
3
6
0
,
9
8
0
.
0
0
)
(
$
3
3
7
,
4
3
0
.
0
0
)
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
Bu
d
g
e
t
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
CI
T
Y
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
W
O
R
K
S
H
O
P
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
Ma
y
8
,
2
0
1
2
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
*
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
HR
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
*
Ri
s
k
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Sa
f
e
t
y
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
Sr
.
C
l
a
i
m
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
HR
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
**
*
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
F
u
n
d
;
n
o
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
Co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
Sa
l
a
r
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
P
o
l
i
c
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
J
o
b
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
&
J
o
b
L
e
v
e
l
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Al
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
P
l
a
n
s
-
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
,
D
e
n
t
a
l
,
V
i
s
i
o
n
,
L
i
f
e
,
A
D
&
D
,
L
T
D
,
F
S
A
,
E
A
P
,
(I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
F
u
n
d
–
n
o
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
)
Ri
s
k
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
C
a
s
u
a
l
t
y
,
L
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
C
o
m
p
(
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
F
u
n
d
)
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/
S
t
a
t
e
L
a
w
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
,
P
o
l
i
c
y
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
,
E
E
O
,
F
L
S
A
,
F
M
L
A
,
e
t
c
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
n
’
t
La
b
o
r
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fo
u
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
B
a
r
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
i
n
g
,
C
o
a
c
h
i
n
g
,
G
r
i
e
v
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
c
r
u
i
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
&
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Su
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
W
e
l
l
n
e
s
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
s
1
0
-
1
1
1
1
-
1
2
1
2
-
1
3
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
1
1
1
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
H
u
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
1
1
1
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
1
1
1
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
1
1
1
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
&
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
1
1
1
FT
E
s
5
5
5
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ma
j
o
r
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
3-
y
e
a
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
B
a
r
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
s
a
v
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
$
1
.
5
M
+
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
h
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
i
n
g
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
,
I
M
P
A
C
T
D
e
l
r
a
y
.
Re
d
u
c
e
d
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
c
a
s
u
a
l
t
y
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
:
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
r
e
b
a
t
e
c
h
e
c
k
f
o
r
$2
6
7
,
0
0
0
.
Re
c
e
i
v
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
2
,
3
6
9
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
a
l
l
p
a
p
e
r
l
e
s
s
)
.
Re
c
r
u
i
t
e
d
5
8
n
e
w
h
i
r
e
s
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
a
f
e
t
y
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d
i
n
s
a
v
i
n
g
s
i
n
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
C
o
m
p
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
o
f
o
v
e
r
$
1
0
7
,
0
0
0
(
y
e
a
r
o
v
e
r
y
e
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
)
.
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
S
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
:
$
5
4
0
,
2
7
9
i
n
c
o
s
t
s
a
v
i
n
g
s
(
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
a
l
)
.
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
U
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
Co
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
–
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
&
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
a
m
Le
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
S
k
i
l
l
s
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
W
e
l
l
n
e
s
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
In
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
W
e
l
l
n
e
s
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
Su
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
IM
P
A
C
T
D
e
l
r
a
y
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
20
1
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
2
Re
v
i
s
e
d
20
1
3
De
p
t
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
% Change
20
1
2
v
s
2
0
1
3
Request
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
Co
s
t
s
$4
4
6
,
9
9
8
$
4
3
8
,
4
1
5
$
4
4
0
,
9
1
0
$
4
4
3
,
9
8
0
0
.
7
0
%
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
$8
3
,
0
2
1
$
8
0
,
1
3
3
$
7
6
,
4
5
0
$
7
9
,
3
9
0
3
.
8
5
%
TO
T
A
L
$5
3
0
,
0
1
9
$
5
1
8
,
5
4
8
$
5
1
7
,
3
6
0
$
5
2
3
,
3
7
0
1
.
1
6
%
Hu
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Bu
d
g
e
t
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
Sa
l
a
r
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
o
r
r
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
H
u
m
a
n
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
T
r
a
v
e
l
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
H
R
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
,
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
s
,
a
n
d
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
:
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
l
i
c
k
2G
o
v
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
S
e
l
f
S
e
r
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
A
w
a
r
d
s
:
l
o
w
e
r
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
n
o
3
5
y
e
a
r
a
w
a
r
d
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
d
u
e
t
o
IM
P
A
C
T
M
e
n
t
o
r
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
f
f
s
e
t
)
a
n
d
Di
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
$2
,
1
2
0
$1
,
2
7
0
($
3
,
8
4
0
)
($
5
,
7
2
0
)
$7
,
6
0
0
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
E
L
R
A
Y
B
E
A
C
H
Ci
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
FY
2
0
1
2
–
2
0
1
3
B
u
d
g
e
t
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
CI
T
Y
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
W
O
R
K
S
H
O
P
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
Ma
y
8
,
2
0
1
2
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ch
a
r
t
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
Su
m
m
a
r
y
*T
h
e
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
I po
s
i
t
i
o
n
ha
s
be
e
n
un
f
i
l
l
e
d
si
n
c
e
Ju
n
e
of
2009;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
it
is
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
th
a
t
th
i
s
po
s
i
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
fi
l
l
e
d
in
Ju
n
e
of
20
1
2
.
*
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Tr
e
n
d
s
/
W
o
r
k
l
o
a
d
•
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
a
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
1
7
n
e
w
l
a
w
s
u
i
t
s
a
n
d
2
1
n
e
w
cl
a
i
m
s
s
i
n
c
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
1
.
A
l
s
o
,
a
s
o
f
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
,
20
1
1
,
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y
c
a
p
w
a
s
r
a
i
s
e
d
f
r
o
m
$
1
0
0
/
$
2
0
0
k
t
o
$2
0
0
/
$
3
0
0
k
p
e
r
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
.
•
C
i
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
s
t
a
f
f
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
9
7
.
3
%
o
f
t
h
e
1
8
3
ca
s
e
s
a
n
d
c
l
a
i
m
s
i
n
c
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
y
e
a
r
2
0
1
1
i
n
-
h
o
u
s
e
.
•
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
l
e
g
a
l
a
d
v
i
c
e
t
o
9
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
b
o
a
r
d
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
w
h
i
c
h
t
o
t
a
l
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
4
2
b
o
a
r
d
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
,
i
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
at
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
t
h
e
r
a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
b
o
a
r
d
s
o
n
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
.
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
20
0
9
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
*
20
1
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
20
1
2
Re
v
i
s
e
d
20
1
3
De
p
t
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
% Change 2012 vs. 2013 request
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
Co
s
t
s
67
0
,
3
9
3
5
3
3
,
9
5
7
5
0
5
,
0
6
2
5
5
2
,
3
5
0
6
0
6
,
5
3
0
9
.
8
1
%
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
35
9
,
5
8
6
3
5
8
,
6
8
8
3
2
6
,
9
4
1
3
4
3
,
2
3
0
2
8
1
,
0
2
0
‐18.12%
TO
T
A
L
1
,
0
2
9
,
9
7
9
$
8
9
2
,
6
4
5
$
8
3
2
,
0
0
3
$
8
9
5
,
5
8
0
$
8
8
7
,
5
5
1
‐0.90%
*I
n
20
0
9
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
wa
s
fu
l
l
y
st
a
f
f
e
d
.
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
Of
f
i
c
e
Bu
d
g
e
t
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
:
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Ci
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
I
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
b
u
d
g
e
t
e
d
f
o
r
e
n
t
i
r
e
f
i
s
c
a
l
ye
a
r
(
p
l
u
s
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
/
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
fo
r
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
•
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
L
e
g
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
l
i
n
e
o
FY
1
0
-
1
1
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
e
d
a
m
o
u
n
t
:
$
2
6
5
,
0
0
0
o
5
y
e
a
r
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
f
o
r
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
l
e
g
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
:
$
2
8
8
,
7
2
9
o
An
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
t
o
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
i
n
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
f
i
s
c
a
l
ye
a
r
.
$61,410 ($65,000)