INC NEWS - Column: City cuts would hurt arts scene in Durham (Herald-Sun)

[bragin at nc.rr.com]

"The Non-City Agency funding changes being implemented by the City Council 
are attempting to address this."

that's one of the key points right there, Mike. Read the news articles and you'd get the impression that staff came up with this idea all by themselves. But this is, as far as i am aware, a policy decision made by Council some time ago. 

Why wasn't this communicated to the non-profits before the funding cycle began? For that matter, why wasn't the 54 cent property tax limit communicated to staff *before* the budget cycle began? If Council had a tax increase limit in mind, wouldn't it have made sense to let the manager and budget director know *before* they put the budget together? Or does someone actually think that by rejecting the proposed budget, our elected leaders look as though they are standing up for the taxpayers?

Really, the whole budget process this year has been disgraceful.

Barry Ragin
---- Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote: 

=============
Mr. Pickle's post is a good one to read.

Durham City government is having difficultly addressing an ever increasing 
list of maintenance priorities while also trying to address the number of 
new initiatives that require additional funding.

Everything (and every organization) from non-profits to DDI and Hayti 
Heritage Center are being asked to find more $$$ themselves rather than 
continuing to ask the city for annual funding.

The recent budget hearing at City Hall on Monday focused a lot of attention 
on many deserving non-profits that have been dependant on the city (and 
county) for on-going support.

With ever increasing demands on providing basic services (police & fire 
protection, minimum housing code enforcement, roads, sewer and water, trash 
pickup/yard waste, other services) residents need to understand that there 
is not an unlimited amount of money to go around.

Just reread Randy's post again.  City Hall can not do it all!

The Non-City Agency funding changes being implemented by the City Council 
are attempting to address this.

Agencies that have received annual allotments year after year will have to 
understand that this trend is not sustainable until core essential services 
and functions of city government can be accomplished.   The process change 
in handling grants and processing of applications had to change.

I'm a supporter of the arts,  but I don't expect the city to delay paving a 
street/installing sidewalks or preventing a sewer leak to support an event 
I'd like to attend if it means by-passing these projects another two or 
three years!

Except for Andy (Fraternal Order of Police seeking pay increases) I didn't 
hear anyone else speak on prioritizing those needs.

The City and County will continue to fund Arts, youth programs, community 
development and crime (read gang) fighting non-profits in the future,  but 
not at the expense of providing the basic services we expect from them in a 
timely manner.

The way this funding application and evaluation process has changed is 
appropriate for these austere times.

But please be reassured that the city (as far as I am aware) is not 
abandoning NCA's.

It's only trying to do the most with what it's got while providing seed 
money and smaller incremental funding for the dozens of well deserving non 
profits that need (not want) this support and have proven their worth to the 
community.

It is also very logical for our elected officials and the manager to ask 
those departments that are currently in existence to assist in this process 
by providing transparent evaluations and accountability standards for the 
areas of expertise they have rather than continuing the practice of 
directing a Budget and Finance department to handle them.

It made no sense to have non-profits submit grant proposals to the Budget 
and Finance Departments when some of them had basic missions that were more 
suited for review and evaluation under existing City Departments (Police, 
Neighborhood Improvement Services/Housing and Community Development, Parks 
and Recreation).

It also didn't make any sense to have NCA's funded under a City budget that 
had mission statements that were clearly under the jurisdiction of Durham 
County (education, social services, judicial and court recidivism) roles.

Mr. Pickle's post is full of facts and figures about how far behind we are 
in capital improvement projects and maintenance needs, even with the passage 
of the 2006 bond referendum.

Until residents can say that they'd rather give non-profit's tens of 
thousands of taxpayer dollars each year instead of having a police officer 
on patrol or their graffiti removed quickly,  then we all will need to tuck 
in our belts and support the arts the way most people have over the years 
and that's by buying a ticket or sending in a donation to these valuable 
non-profits ourselves.

Dependence on governmental funding (at any level) is going to get more and 
more scarce.

Which would you want your tax dollars to go for as a priority?

The City of Durham is trying to address both 'needs' while trying to not 
ignore either of them.

Mike Shiflett

ps-I am in total support of having a focus group of concerned citizens, 
artists, arts related non-profits and the Arts Council to meet with City 
staff, administration and elected officials to better define a process that 
addresses all three concerns (citizens, governmental responsibility, good 
will of supporting the Arts) regarding ongoing support of the Arts Master 
Plan.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RW Pickle" <randy at 27beverly.com>
To: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Column: City cuts would hurt arts scene in Durham 
(Herald-Sun)


> There's a whole lot more to this funding cut than meets the eye. I
> represent INC on the CCIP that looks at the projects our City
> needs/wants/or must do by law. This year there were  more than $147M worth
> of projects and only $30M to get anything done with. So it becomes a
> matter of priority (or mandated law) that some get done before others (or
> get funded as it is some cases).
>
> We worked for an entire year developing a scoring system for projects.
> This way, as a group (because in total there are 26 citizens supposedly
> representing a bunch of different groups from our City; realistically
> there are probably less than 10 of us who regularly attend meetings), we
> could easily and quickly compare apples to apples. The City Budget and
> Finance Office also has their own scoring system they used for years. But
> as one might think, what citizens might find important, the administration
> might not.
>
> So this year, with our first scoring opportunity (and very little to work
> with$ wise), there was only enough funding to deal with the first 20
> projects that scored the most. And when the Administration did their
> scoring, 17 of the top 20 projects the citizens came up with were the
> same. So one could draw the conclusion that we're all pretty much on the
> same wavelength when it comes to what has/needs/wants to be done. But that
> doesn't answer the problem of what to do about the other $100M+ of things
> we didn't even get to consider because there just wasn't enough money in
> the first place to fund them.
>
> Between the City/County, we're looking (at least right now) at a $.15
> increase (per $100 evaluation; and our recent evaluation just makes the
> number we pay higher). Realistically, we probably need a $.45-$.60 per
> $100 just to begin to get caught up. There's just not enough money to do
> everything that is needed/wanted to be done. That's the bottom line.
>
> This coming year we are going to try to establish the first-ever-time-line
> into the future so we can plan on funding (versus debt load) projects that
> just never make it to the top of the list. It doesn't mean we don't
> need/want them, it just means there are other things that have to be done
> that require the funding we currently generate. How successful we will be
> at delivering this down-the-road projection is yet to be known. But at
> least with a plan, we should be able to begin to see some light at the end
> of the tunnel...
>
> I don't see anything getting better in the short term. We are just so far
> behind, catching up is going to be a struggle. Both in manpower and
> funding. We are short on both...
>
> RWP
> 27 Beverly
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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