INC NEWS - any cuts just has to hurt somewhere...

Sat Jun 7 05:54:45 EDT 2008

Here is a perspective from California, 
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=672865.

I haven't had much time to jump into the debate, but I also believe that 
Durham is a little different from other nearby cities. We have a larger 
amount of artists and the arts generate good jobs and stimulate the 
economy.

I was in Brazil last year and they have a Federal law that mandates that 
a small percentage of the sales tax has to to be spent in arts and 
cultural activities. With such funding they have built amazing cultural 
centers called SESCs, where the youth can learn music, radio, 
filmmaking, etc. I would support such a law or, better yet, a luxury tax.

Efficiency seems to be a problem in the use of taxpayers funds. For 
example, I've seen several urban schools in Durham turned into faith 
based community centers or other things. In the meantime, we build 
enormous one-floor school buildings in the middle of nowhere and then 
bus in most students, which means fleets of buses and high fuel costs. 
Why can't be build two or three story schools (at least for high school 
age students)? Why can't we take over some of the gargantuan high school 
stadiums and turn them into buildings, with indoor gyms? Why can't be 
have smaller schools?

Angel Romero

Reyn Bowman wrote:
> You may be right.  While used differently in each state, the approach
> has had a positive track record in a number of states, including South
> Carolina, Virginia and Minnesota.
> 
> Reyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Ragin
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 5:20 PM
> To: RW Pickle
> Cc: Reyn Bowman; inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - any cuts just has to hurt somewhere...
> 
> "but three years ago the Yard Waste Program was funded by those who 
> subscribed to the service and it was breaking even."
> 
> i would like to see those numbers. my understanding is that the yard 
> waste program originally was implemented when mixing yard waste and 
> trash was made illegal. at that time, there was a $35 fee to buy a 
> barrel, but no annual subscription fee. that would have been sometime 
> between 1998 and 2000, i think,  but i had other things on my mind then,
> 
> and wasn't paying attention.
> 
> the subscription fee went into place in the 2003 fiscal year. it has 
> attracted between 16% and 25% of Durham households. I don't recall that 
> it has ever been self-sufficient, but i could be mistaken.
> 
> the point, however, is that many people who choose not to participate in
> 
> the yard waste program still generate yard waste. Some of them compost 
> it or otherwise take care of it in a fashion that does not burden the 
> rest of us. Many of them don't. That yard waste ends up in other 
> people's yard, in empty lots, in storm drains, in the Ellerbe Creek, and
> 
> dozens of other places, where it's a burden and a degradation on the 
> environment.
> 
> Imagine if we charged a fee to participate in the paper/plastic/aluminum
> 
> recycling program. How many people would choose to participate, and what
> 
> would happen to the rest of the stuff? How about if we charged a fee to 
> participate in the trash pickup program, rather than have that funded 
> out of the general fund. I've said this before - my household takes 4 or
> 
> even 5 weeks to fill up our 90 gallon trash bin. i could probably opt 
> out of the program and find ways to dispose of my trash. But that would 
> probably be a burden on the rest of the taxpayers of the city.
> 
> The yard waste program is no different. Except that the city relies on 
> volunteers like me to go into the creeks to pick up the stuff other 
> people are dumping. I worked the numbers out the other day, and i've 
> participated in about 25 trash pickup days over the past 4 or 5 years. 
> I'm not willing to give those Saturday and Sunday mornings up to pick up
> 
> other people's trash and yard waste anymore.
> 
> Barry Ragin
> RW Pickle wrote:
>> I am all for "user funded anything" as that does as you say, frees up
>> funding for other areas/problems/concerns. I guess the problem is that
> if
>> these organizations charged what it took to roll out their various
>> productions/shows/events, then they might find that they would no
> longer
>> be able to do so because it did not break even (or make financial
> sense).
>> I think that's what all of this about anyway. Getting all of these
> groups
>> either to become financially independent or fold. Some will make it
> while
>> others will fall by the wayside as unwanted and unsupported by the
>> community. I guess it depends on what "value" they bring to the
> table...
>> An example of this is our Yard Waste Program in the City. I'm not sure
> how
>> it works out today (not having a yard waste facility here in our
> community
>> and shipping it all off to VA; I have been assurred that one is coming
>> again soon...), but three years ago the Yard Waste Program was funded
> by
>> those who subscribed to the service and it was breaking even. So that
> was
>> a good thing for the tax payers. Here was a City service that was paid
> for
>> by those who wanted the service and not an expense born by anyone
> else. It
>> would be nice to see that sort of thought process across the board
> when it
>> comes to spending.
>>
>> RWP
>> 27 Beverly
>>
>>
>>   
>>> Fair point at the end, but an earmarked admissions tax is just a way
> of
>>> transferring the cost of the arts to the arts user, freeing up the
>>> general fund for the core responsibilities of government.  It is only
> an
>>> alternative to a method where the arts are left to wither or unfairly
>>> pitted against needs that must be supported by the general fund.
>>> Another way to look at it, do we really think the price of our ticket
>>> now is paying enough to provide the entertainment we're
>>> getting...no-way.
>>>
>>> But it was just an idea borrowed from other models of funding.  I'm
> open
>>> to anything but the approach we have now.
>>>
>>> RB
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org
> [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
>>> On Behalf Of RW Pickle
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:32 PM
>>> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>>> Subject: INC NEWS - any cuts just has to hurt somewhere...
>>>
>>> There are a lot of projections used in the budgetary process. One of
> our
>>> questions is "can you get it done/started/completed in the coming
> budget
>>> cycle?" If not, it can wait. But from this, we see the wish lists
> that
>>> could trickle down into funding just about everything eventually. But
> it
>>> all costs real dollars.
>>>
>>> Barry is sort of right about something here. It does all boil down to
>>> Council (or Commissioners) deciding where they will spend the money
> and
>>> how much they will spend on any particular item. I can only hope that
>>> the
>>> countless hours spent by citizens that have volunteered their time in
>>> analyzing it, scoring it, and recommending what we all (and that must
> be
>>> a
>>> huge ALL, not just the Capital Improvement Group I'm in, but all
>>> citizens
>>> who volunteer trying to make the ends meet) think we need. Because
> most
>>> of
>>> these recommendations came from people who live all across this town
> and
>>> come to the table with many different backgrounds. One may support
> one
>>> thing very strongly while another may not value that particular
> thing.
>>> With many people voicing their opinion in the process, what we end up
>>> with
>>> is what we need (regardless if we want it or not; a synthesis by all
>>> means
>>> that as an average, it was more important if it rose to the top of
> the
>>> averaged list). We're currently spending a great deal on American
> with
>>> Disabilities Act compliance in our City. I remember when it was
> enacted.
>>> It's been a while and we still haven't gotten all this stuff done.
> Now
>>> we're in a rush because we'll be fined for not having it done. So
> we've
>>> short funded it for years until now, we have to get it done.
>>>
>>> Some things change (at least in the Capital Improvement budget) as
> this
>>> process moves forward. For example, if Greenfire takes over one of
> the
>>> parking decks and bears the cost of renovation, that'll free up
> $6.2M+
>>> and
>>> would allow 18 or 19 more projects to be funded in the CIP. That's
> still
>>> not down a half page in a 2 page list. And this is just on the short
>>> list
>>> we started with. Budget and Finance is trying to find more to cut
> before
>>> it makes it further into the process (as Council has asked).
>>>
>>> If we decided we were going to do a four year tax increase that would
>>> sunset at the end of the fourth year (for 4 times what we're
> currently
>>> looking at getting; say from $.15 to $.60-.75), we could get a great
>>> deal
>>> done with the influx of more funds. Even for that short of a time.
> But
>>> would it be enough to get it all done? Like I said, we don't even
> have
>>> the
>>> people it would take to deal with it all. And it would cost us all
> more
>>> if
>>> only just for a short time. Just as Council or Commissioners vote to
>>> increase taxes, they also must pay these fees since they live here as
>>> well.  And these increases in fuels, groceries, water, taxes, etc add
> up
>>> for a lot of people and make life yet more difficult. Especially
> those
>>> on
>>> fixed incomes.
>>>
>>> One thing we do need to do right now is to acquire debt. The City
>>> Council/Budget Office likes to keep our debt load around 12%. Money
>>> today
>>> has never been cheaper (in the amount we need to get things done) and
>>> while it's cheap, we need to increase this load to maybe 17-20%. So
> we
>>> need to bite the bullet, borrow more while it's cheap, and work our
>>> butts
>>> off getting stuff done. Last time I looked, it looked like there
> already
>>> is a lot going on. But seeing it all in numbers and projects, there's
> a
>>> lot left to do. And it doesn't seem to be getting any cheaper. Just
> look
>>> at fuel costs over the last year. The City has something like 1100
>>> vehicles it puts out on the road each day. The County has all those
>>> school
>>> busses (plus a fleet). Everyone buys fuel, so you know how much the
> cost
>>> has gone up. Just as an example, Solid Waste goes through more than
> 1200
>>> gallons of fuel a day! The budget we are working under now was fixed
>>> last
>>> year. So it's even short before we get to the next new budget to
>>> increase
>>> it. But that doesn't mean we've stopped needing fuel today and it
> must
>>> be
>>> paid for today as well. So we rob Peter to pay Paul (as the saying
>>> goes).
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say the budget process this year is a disgrace because
> it's a
>>> work in progress. And as long as I can remember, there has been a
>>> shortage
>>> of funds to make all the ends meet. So we have the same dance year
> after
>>> year. That's why, at least for Capital Projects, we're going to spend
>>> the
>>> next year developing a long-range plan so we can roll out funding
> yearly
>>> if necessary to get it all done.
>>>
>>> The sudden outcry by the NCA community is really moot. Like Barry
> said,
>>> why didn't it come up during the campaigns? It's been 2 years in the
>>> coming and like the panel I sit on (the CCIP), the arts funding was
>>> decided by citizens as well. They looked at the requests, like we
> look
>>> at
>>> the Capital Project requests, and decided what was important. So it's
>>> the
>>> community really deciding (at least up front) what it wants and
> needs.
>>> The
>>> final decisions will always be made by our elected officials... We
> can
>>> only hope they listen to us.
>>>
>>> The real disgrace is that there isn't enough money to go around for
>>> everything. But then again, there is no blank check in this process.
> If
>>> there were, I guess everyone would be happy... Or would they? It all
> has
>>> to be paid for some how and we're the ones paying for it (and that
>>> includes our elected officials and most of the folks who work for our
>>> municipality). Would you pay 4 times in property taxes right now just
> to
>>> make it all work? I doubt it. But it might just change the funding
>>> metrics
>>> enough so as to get it all done and we'll have some left for other
>>> things.
>>>
>>> I hated to hear an "admissions tax" mentioned in an earlier email. It
>>> just
>>> becomes another one of those hidden fees we end up paying especially
>>> when
>>> it comes to music in our City. There's a lot of competition in
> Durham;
>>> too
>>> much free music for many to want to pay for it, muchless pay an
>>> additional
>>> tax on it for admission. And that's a good thing. Free to all is what
> it
>>> should be. Like the Latin music in CCB Plaza this weekend. It's not a
>>> fee
>>> based event; the City (DPR) is throwing the party. The City still
>>> believes
>>> in the arts and here is an example of it. So get out and enjoy what
> your
>>> taxes are paying for! And at many of the other free music events held
>>> around the City this summer.
>>>
>>> RWP
>>> 27 Beverly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INC-list mailing list
>>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>>
>>> --
>>> OnPar ExchangeDefender Message Security: Click below to verify
>>> authenticity
>>>
> http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=m56Bm7xk009157&from=reyn@d
> urham-cvb.com
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> ====================================================================
>> This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
>> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)
> or
>> entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of
> this
>> e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
>> dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly
> prohibited.
>> If you have received this electronic  transmission in error, please
> notify
>> me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail
> (pickle at patriot.net)
>> immediately.
>> =====================================================================
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INC-list mailing list
>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> 
> --
> OnPar ExchangeDefender Message Security: Click below to verify authenticity
> http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=m571G8i7012557&from=reyn@durham-cvb.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

-- 
Angel Romero
World Music Central
Daily world music news, event calendar and resources

Contact information:
2524 Cascadilla St.
Durham, NC 27704-4406
USA
E-mail: angel at worldmusiccentral.org
World Music Central: www.worldmusiccentral.org
Músicas del Mundo: www.musicasdelmundo.org
World Music Central at MySpace:www.myspace.com/worldmusiccentral