Answer: The Shipstead-Luce Act, passed by Congress in 1930, requires the Commission's approval of all private construction along the length of Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House. Obviously we will continue to exercise our authority according to law. The coverage, however, only extends to the Avenue itself which leaves large parcels not owned by the government outside the Commission's jurisdiction, including the periphery of the National Portrait Gallery and the Tariff Commission at 8th and F streets. Although GSA currently has responsibility for some properties, it may dispose of or lease them to private developers. Once in the private domain there would be no design review by an agency specifically authorized to perform such functions. This is something that Congress ought to address.

Question: Your charter calls for the publication of research materials on buildings, areas, and plans in the Washington D.C. area. Please provide a list of major publications during the past two years, the cost of development and production, and a list of anticipated works for FY 1997.

Answer: Funding limitations over the past two years have curtailed the publication of new material to some extent. A popular publication on the history of The Georgetown Historic Waterfront was updated and reprinted in FY 1994, and an expanded edition of A Brief History 1910-1995 covering a detailed report of Commission activities over the last five years will be printed anew sometime this summer. The Georgetown Historic Waterfront printing cost $12,000 and A Brief History 1910-1995 is estimated to be the same. There are no plans for further publications at this time.

Question: Federal landscaping efforts play a critical role in the overall appearance and functioning of the Capital region. What expertise and role does the Commission bring to landscape architecture efforts?

Answer: The concern for landscape design has been integral to the Commission's deliberations since its inception in 1910. The McMillan Commission, or Senate Park Commission Plan of 1901 which has led to the creation of the Monumental Core as we know it today, is essentially a landscape design in the broadest sense of the word. Over the years a number of distinguished landscape architects have served on the Commission, including Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. The staff also has considerable experience in reviewing landscape proposals. The secretary of the Commission has served on a national design awards jury for the American Society of Landscape Architecture, and has also been involved informally with the designs for the proposed National Garden, as has the Chairman.

Question: The President recently provided guidelines concerning the use of native plants in Federal landscaping efforts. What was the role of the Commission in this effort? What opportunities are there in the Capital for enhancing native plantings and utilizing plantings for aesthetic as well as conservation purposes?

Answer: The Commission has long urged the use of native plant materials in the development of landscaping for the National Capital. While it has had no role in the President's recent guidelines on federal landscaping efforts, it wholeheartedly supports the initiative.

Virtually every project presents an opportunity for implementing a policy on native planting as part of an integral landscape design. The Commission has recently worked with the Department of Energy on the development of a park next to DOE headquarters on Independence Avenue that implements this policy as well as featuring up-to-date technology on energy conservation.

Question: How have the financial difficulties faced by the government of the District of Columbia affected your interactions?

Answer: There has been little direct effect on the Commission itself. Applicants from the private sector filing for building permits under the Old Georgetown Act or the Shipstead-Luce Act have reported some delays on getting paperwork processed, but these delays have not extended to the Commission. The staff has made a concerted effort to help applicants and the offices of the District government wherever possible so as to avoid delays.

Indirectly, we are saddened to see parks and landscaping under District authority suffering from inadequate maintenance, and the current condition of the District Building on Pennsylvania Avenue should be a concern to us all.

Question: What administrative costs do you cover for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs appropriation?

Answer: Both the Department of Interior, Office of Fiscal Services, and the Commission have absorbed the minimal costs that could be charged to the administration of the National Capital' Arts and Cultural Affairs program. At no time have any grant funds been diverted to cover administrative services. Because of the simplicity of the system and the limited number of applicants, the process of evaluating applicants and distributing grants is unencumbered with red tape and accomplished with relative ease.

Question: What have been the impacts of the reduction in this account from the FY 1995 level?

Answer: There are nineteen grantees, (one more than in FY 1995), with an average grant reduction of 24.3%, a substantial difference for operating a small organization.

Question: What would be the impact of an additional ten percent reduction below the FY 1996 conference action?

Answer: Grants would be reduced by more than 30 percent below the FY 1995 operating budget level of grantee organizations.

Question: Provide a list of the grant recipients for 1995, their operating income, the amount of each grant, and the grant amount as a percentage of the grantee's total income. If the awards have been made for FY 1996, please provide that information as well.

Answer: See attached lists for FY 1995 and for grants awarded in FY 1996 - three million dollars to date, half of the conference action level.

Question: What are the criteria for receiving grant funding?

Answer: Public Law 99-190 states that non-educational, nonprofit organizations which are primarily located in the District of Columbia and engaged in performing or exhibiting the arts and have an annual income, exclusive of federal funds, in excess of one million dollars for each of three years prior to the application, may be considered. Both the law and the guidelines detail these requirements and are included as a part of the application documents.

Question: Do you expect the number of grantees to increase in the near future?

Answer: Only if the present trend continues. There has been one additional organization qualified every year or two.

Question:

How is the grant amount determined for each grantee?

Answer: The grant amounts are based on a formula established by law. Seventy percent of available funds will be distributed equally among eligible organizations submitting applications, the remaining thirty percent will be distributed based on the organizations' annual income, exclusive of federal funds, compared to the combined income of all eligible organizations. No organization may receive a grant of more than $500,000 and no grant may exceed twenty-five percent of an institution's annual budget.

Question: What legislative changes would be needed to make the awards competitive? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such a change?

Answer: In a sense the awards are now competitive, based on income size. To make the awards competitive in other areas would necessitate the establishment of new criteria. This most likely would end the present program's administrative simplicity and no-cost operation.

Question: What matching funds do the grantees add to the federal contribution?

Answer: All grantees are required to raise at least one million dollars of non-federal funds to be eligible. The grants are then calculated on the basis of this income.

Question: What is the net economic benefit to the community of the programs funded through this appropriation?

Answer: The District of Columbia, with respect to support of its nationally-significant institutions that do not receive federal support for their programs, is at a particular disadvantage. There is no state arts council; the city government is in dire financial straits; and the industrial base is almost non-existent, with its overwhelmingly predominant industry being the government. Some twenty-one million visitors are estimated to come each year from all fifty states and abroad. Private institutions such as the Corcoran, the Phillips, or the National Symphony do not have the economic base found in other cities. To make up for this lack, the Congress wisely enacted this very modest program that would help compensate for the lack of local support opportunities and still leave the primary funding in the private sector. The cultural institutions of this city are an important part of the Capital's life, not only as it serves our citizens, but also the many visitors from elsewhere in the country and abroad; to diminish this most important aspect of Washington life would be unfortunate.

ARENA STAGE, WASHINGTON DRAMA SOCIETY

income: $8,529,500 grant:$500,000 = 5.8%

CAPITAL CHILDREN'S MUSEUM, NATIONAL LEARNING CENTER income: $2,687,809 grant:$363,040 = 13.5%

CORCORAN GALLERY

income: $9,168,965 grant:$500,000 = 5.4% FOLGER SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY

income: $5,487,061 grant:$437,370 = 8%

FORD'S THEATRE SOCIETY

income: $4,968,046 grant:$423,590 = 8.5% KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS income: $50,535,000 grant:$500,000 = 1%

MERIDIAN HOUSE INTERNATIONAL

income: $1,673,478 grant:$336,184 = 20%

NATIONAL BUILDING MUSEUM

income: 2,531,063 grant:$358,877 = 14% NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WOMEN IN THE ARTS income: $6,301,702 grant:$459,004 = 7.3% NATIONAL SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA

income: $6,913,115 grant:$475,240 = 6.9% PHILLIPS COLLECTION

income: $3,958,512 grant:$396,782 = 10% SHAKESPEARE THEATRE

income: $5,426,085 grant:$435,753 = 8% STUDIO THEATRE

income: $1,380,274 grant:$328,319 = 23% TEXTILE MUSEUM

income: $2,015,834 grant:$345,196 = 17.1% WASHINGTON BALLET

income: $2,213,952 grant:$350,457 = 15.8% WASHINGTON OPERA

income: $8,911,516 grant:$500,000 = 5.6% WASHINGTON PERFORMING ARTS SOCIETY income: $5,078,838 grant:$426,532 = 8.4%