Agree. The Arts Tax provides funding for a laudable program, especially for our youth, but the odd payment method has never made any sense. It is past due for a n overhaul.
I remember reading the proposed measure and thinking there is no way that this new tax would maintain a 5% administration costs. And it is frustrating to get nasty letters saying one hasn’t paid it when in fact one has; and to hear that a too large percentage do not pay it at all. A recent Reddit post had dozens of people writing in stating they have never paid it from day one. And look at the failure to oversee ballooning costs of other feel good tax measures, a recent report in the Oregonian showed that average costs of affordable housing is close to $1,000 per square foot, while an average build of a SFH is about $300 a square foot. I agree in the premise of the ARTS tax yet don’t trust the city or government to implement it, or any proposition or measure for that matter, just look at the mess that is M110.
Folding the tax into the Oregon income tax would be a disaster. Within five years, we would have a city income tax. Better option would be to fund the tax the same way the Oregon Historical Society is taxed via property tax at $0.05 per $1000. Administrative cost would fall, compliance with the tax would go to near 100%, and revenue would be roughly tied to inflation. In the meantime, I would suggest the city offer a 6 month grace period to pay past due amounts without penalty. Fully agree program expense/revenue needs to be more visible to the public.
Good column, but I'm not understanding one thing: if the arts are not currently being properly funded, why is there so much excess money in reserve? Why isn't the money being spent and who is responsible for that not happening?
Yes! The resources wasted with admin and collection efforts could probably keep several actual Arts programs flush. They don’t seem to have any logical way to collect properly. And to go after any individuals for $35 -makes no sense at all.
Funny. I have been in the arts all my life and yet I could propose arguments against the Arts Tax altogether.
Okay, forget that they've collected a sizeable war chest and been unwilling to see it disbursed to all in need. And forget the fact that they drain 16% of the collected fund in annual operating budget - to not even complete the task assigned to them (collect and distribute annual collection of money into the arts community.)
Let's cut to a more severe problem: the question of whether charitable handouts hurts or helps the arts community.
To begin, there seems to be a disconnect between claims and reality.
I recall, a time when the PPS was systematically cutting all arts programs in area schools, entirely wiping out the local music programs in high schools, significantly reducing them in middle and grade school. Of, course this was when voters were beginning to question PPS budgets and spending, as our cost spent per student was higher than most districts around the country. We watched as the PPS gutted the "electives" programs at these schools under the guise of focusing on core classroom teaching, but intentionally taking away programs that would alarm students and parents, with a hope that doing so would return funding that was taken from them. (Naturally, they left the sports programs fully intact even though they make no more contribution to the success of the core programs as the arts do.) Oh, yes, and they did this by reducing teaching staff and secretly increasing classroom attendance size - all in direct violation of state laws setting maximum attendance at 24 students per room. You've got to give PPS a lot of credit. They made sure to make cuts where it hurt students and parents - at the neighborhood school level, all while maintaining administration and duplicating area school management services with the MESD.
I recall, when we parents paid independent fees and collected donations to employ part time sub-contractors to provide after-school music programs to supplement this loss. And it was interesting that in doing so, the PPS (and BSD) fought against these independent program leaders because they had neither education degree nor teaching certification and license so insisted that these contractors obtain same within 12-24 months or be blocked from providing paid services in the district. Doing this, as if: 1) professional musicians operating a school band was less educational then hiring a certified music teacher (because real world experience is not an education, I guess), 2) they really wanted students and parents to suffer due to funding shortfall and 3) they really wanted to protect the union teacher jobs (they wouldn't fund) by insisting that non-union tutors couldn't work in their system.
But, it appears this is a thing of the past. Clearly arts (music) programs have returned to the schools. I don't know how they found funding, but apparently, without the aid of all the Arts Tax collected dollars, PPS has found a way to finance these programs once again. So the first question that must be asked is: why keep the Arts Tax at all? If the PPS no longer needs the annual monies collected, why collect them?
Well, part of it is simply that no one likes to lose a benefit, once it's been offered to them. And clearly, the bureaucrats pulling off 16% of the annual Arts Tax collection, to fund themselves and keep their jobs alive, don't want to lose their fiefdom. And we, as voters are too lazy (too busy, too ignorant) to figure out how to shutter this cash grab. Me included.
But, before I incite a riot regarding the presumption of harm to the arts, I would propose the alternative is to rewrite the terms of the agreement and bring it to a vote. Like any good manager, I would set clear tasks and consequences to insure that the program operates as was the original promise. To begin, I propose the Arts Tax tasks are to continue operating only if it succeeds in operating at a 6% cost of the collected annual monies (6% chosen strictly in homage to the United Way - which always prided itself on their operating efficiencies) and only if all remaining collected funds are fully distributed to charitable causes within 12 months of collection. And the consequences are simple: if, in any year it fails to achieve the proscribed tasks, it ceases to exist and disappears as a local city tax of any kind. Simple. Elegant. Effective.
Now, to my remaining concern about the effect this program has on the arts itself - and the realities of the marketplace.
Coho Theater, Third Rail, even PCS and ART - these are all private theater companies, originally formed by part time theater artists, operating to provide themselves (and others) opportunity to self-express. They provide a minute handful of full-time jobs to a scant few property and company managers - the rest are contractors, most of them hobbyists, with full-time jobs elsewhere. Not one of these companies operates at a profit, in fact every one of them operates at a loss, expenses far exceed ticket sales revenue. And their ticket revenue is shrinking as audiences are dwindling. These companies can only operate with significant charitable contributions each year. Everyone of them is a year away from bankruptcy, held together solely by constant charitable funding.
Leaving the argument of likely poor fiscal management side, the core problem is this: they cannot survive without charity. The shrinking audience market cannot keep all these companies open on ticket sales alone - they cannot pull the audiences or raise their prices as long as each are competing for the same limited amount of audiences in the same market. They all must compete for the same local Portland audiences, attempt to sell subscription to the same market and obtain charitable donation from the same sources. Simply put, there is far less demand for theater in Portland, than there are artisans desperate to find a venue for their self-expression. In that desperation, they continue to try to keep these failing businesses afloat. And in doing that, the falling tide (market), sinks all boats (theaters.) Portland does not have a market need to support all those wishing to express themselves.
So what does the Arts Tax do? By making modest charitable contribution to each of these it artificially keeps these struggling companies afloat to push more theater out to a market that cannot, won't partake of it. It is, in effect subsidizing the fulfillment needs of the hobbyist artist to create something not in demand. And then, it does it by creating oversupply, so the most financially able or solvent companies must struggle to compete with the worst of them.
That's a real problem. The Arts Tax, by giving away this money to support something not in market demand, causes these struggling companies to rely on charity rather than get off the charity dole and build a more robust market, practice more prudent fiscal conservation or fold - because demand doesn't exist to keep them operating.
Need (demand) for entertainment should generate the necessity to create theater companies. The company should not be artificially kept afloat to satisfy the needs of artists seeking validation.
Great post, but how do we know that PPS hasn't used Art Tax money to fund the increase arts offerings? I realize there a huge reserve that's been allowed to grow, but hasn't significantly more been collected?
We, or rather I, don't know. But, I urge keeping the tax as long as collections are fully distributed within 12 months of tax payment. That would insure continued funding for the PPS programs, if needed and used.
Agree. The Arts Tax provides funding for a laudable program, especially for our youth, but the odd payment method has never made any sense. It is past due for a n overhaul.
I remember reading the proposed measure and thinking there is no way that this new tax would maintain a 5% administration costs. And it is frustrating to get nasty letters saying one hasn’t paid it when in fact one has; and to hear that a too large percentage do not pay it at all. A recent Reddit post had dozens of people writing in stating they have never paid it from day one. And look at the failure to oversee ballooning costs of other feel good tax measures, a recent report in the Oregonian showed that average costs of affordable housing is close to $1,000 per square foot, while an average build of a SFH is about $300 a square foot. I agree in the premise of the ARTS tax yet don’t trust the city or government to implement it, or any proposition or measure for that matter, just look at the mess that is M110.
I appreciate this analysis. Thank you.
Folding the tax into the Oregon income tax would be a disaster. Within five years, we would have a city income tax. Better option would be to fund the tax the same way the Oregon Historical Society is taxed via property tax at $0.05 per $1000. Administrative cost would fall, compliance with the tax would go to near 100%, and revenue would be roughly tied to inflation. In the meantime, I would suggest the city offer a 6 month grace period to pay past due amounts without penalty. Fully agree program expense/revenue needs to be more visible to the public.
Thanks.
Good column, but I'm not understanding one thing: if the arts are not currently being properly funded, why is there so much excess money in reserve? Why isn't the money being spent and who is responsible for that not happening?
They’ve had a huge reserve since year one. https://www.portland.gov/revenue/documents/arts-access-fund-revenues-collection-costs-and-disbursements/download
Why this wasn’t brought to the attention of the council, public, and arts organizations boggles my mind!!
Yes! The resources wasted with admin and collection efforts could probably keep several actual Arts programs flush. They don’t seem to have any logical way to collect properly. And to go after any individuals for $35 -makes no sense at all.
Funny. I have been in the arts all my life and yet I could propose arguments against the Arts Tax altogether.
Okay, forget that they've collected a sizeable war chest and been unwilling to see it disbursed to all in need. And forget the fact that they drain 16% of the collected fund in annual operating budget - to not even complete the task assigned to them (collect and distribute annual collection of money into the arts community.)
Let's cut to a more severe problem: the question of whether charitable handouts hurts or helps the arts community.
To begin, there seems to be a disconnect between claims and reality.
I recall, a time when the PPS was systematically cutting all arts programs in area schools, entirely wiping out the local music programs in high schools, significantly reducing them in middle and grade school. Of, course this was when voters were beginning to question PPS budgets and spending, as our cost spent per student was higher than most districts around the country. We watched as the PPS gutted the "electives" programs at these schools under the guise of focusing on core classroom teaching, but intentionally taking away programs that would alarm students and parents, with a hope that doing so would return funding that was taken from them. (Naturally, they left the sports programs fully intact even though they make no more contribution to the success of the core programs as the arts do.) Oh, yes, and they did this by reducing teaching staff and secretly increasing classroom attendance size - all in direct violation of state laws setting maximum attendance at 24 students per room. You've got to give PPS a lot of credit. They made sure to make cuts where it hurt students and parents - at the neighborhood school level, all while maintaining administration and duplicating area school management services with the MESD.
I recall, when we parents paid independent fees and collected donations to employ part time sub-contractors to provide after-school music programs to supplement this loss. And it was interesting that in doing so, the PPS (and BSD) fought against these independent program leaders because they had neither education degree nor teaching certification and license so insisted that these contractors obtain same within 12-24 months or be blocked from providing paid services in the district. Doing this, as if: 1) professional musicians operating a school band was less educational then hiring a certified music teacher (because real world experience is not an education, I guess), 2) they really wanted students and parents to suffer due to funding shortfall and 3) they really wanted to protect the union teacher jobs (they wouldn't fund) by insisting that non-union tutors couldn't work in their system.
But, it appears this is a thing of the past. Clearly arts (music) programs have returned to the schools. I don't know how they found funding, but apparently, without the aid of all the Arts Tax collected dollars, PPS has found a way to finance these programs once again. So the first question that must be asked is: why keep the Arts Tax at all? If the PPS no longer needs the annual monies collected, why collect them?
Well, part of it is simply that no one likes to lose a benefit, once it's been offered to them. And clearly, the bureaucrats pulling off 16% of the annual Arts Tax collection, to fund themselves and keep their jobs alive, don't want to lose their fiefdom. And we, as voters are too lazy (too busy, too ignorant) to figure out how to shutter this cash grab. Me included.
But, before I incite a riot regarding the presumption of harm to the arts, I would propose the alternative is to rewrite the terms of the agreement and bring it to a vote. Like any good manager, I would set clear tasks and consequences to insure that the program operates as was the original promise. To begin, I propose the Arts Tax tasks are to continue operating only if it succeeds in operating at a 6% cost of the collected annual monies (6% chosen strictly in homage to the United Way - which always prided itself on their operating efficiencies) and only if all remaining collected funds are fully distributed to charitable causes within 12 months of collection. And the consequences are simple: if, in any year it fails to achieve the proscribed tasks, it ceases to exist and disappears as a local city tax of any kind. Simple. Elegant. Effective.
Now, to my remaining concern about the effect this program has on the arts itself - and the realities of the marketplace.
Coho Theater, Third Rail, even PCS and ART - these are all private theater companies, originally formed by part time theater artists, operating to provide themselves (and others) opportunity to self-express. They provide a minute handful of full-time jobs to a scant few property and company managers - the rest are contractors, most of them hobbyists, with full-time jobs elsewhere. Not one of these companies operates at a profit, in fact every one of them operates at a loss, expenses far exceed ticket sales revenue. And their ticket revenue is shrinking as audiences are dwindling. These companies can only operate with significant charitable contributions each year. Everyone of them is a year away from bankruptcy, held together solely by constant charitable funding.
Leaving the argument of likely poor fiscal management side, the core problem is this: they cannot survive without charity. The shrinking audience market cannot keep all these companies open on ticket sales alone - they cannot pull the audiences or raise their prices as long as each are competing for the same limited amount of audiences in the same market. They all must compete for the same local Portland audiences, attempt to sell subscription to the same market and obtain charitable donation from the same sources. Simply put, there is far less demand for theater in Portland, than there are artisans desperate to find a venue for their self-expression. In that desperation, they continue to try to keep these failing businesses afloat. And in doing that, the falling tide (market), sinks all boats (theaters.) Portland does not have a market need to support all those wishing to express themselves.
So what does the Arts Tax do? By making modest charitable contribution to each of these it artificially keeps these struggling companies afloat to push more theater out to a market that cannot, won't partake of it. It is, in effect subsidizing the fulfillment needs of the hobbyist artist to create something not in demand. And then, it does it by creating oversupply, so the most financially able or solvent companies must struggle to compete with the worst of them.
That's a real problem. The Arts Tax, by giving away this money to support something not in market demand, causes these struggling companies to rely on charity rather than get off the charity dole and build a more robust market, practice more prudent fiscal conservation or fold - because demand doesn't exist to keep them operating.
Need (demand) for entertainment should generate the necessity to create theater companies. The company should not be artificially kept afloat to satisfy the needs of artists seeking validation.
Great post, but how do we know that PPS hasn't used Art Tax money to fund the increase arts offerings? I realize there a huge reserve that's been allowed to grow, but hasn't significantly more been collected?
We, or rather I, don't know. But, I urge keeping the tax as long as collections are fully distributed within 12 months of tax payment. That would insure continued funding for the PPS programs, if needed and used.
Yes indeed and hear, hear!