HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 9222 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 9222
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council April 6, 2010
r . `�,artgee
°f' r Page 1 of 2
• SUBJECT: COMPARATIVE ARTS PROGRAM FUNDING
In response to City Council questions regarding Arts Council funding, below you will find a chart
detailing the per capita arts programming investment by city. The City of Fort Worth is not in a
unique situation on arts funding. Currently, the City of Austin is looking at new guidelines
whereby all art groups will be required to identify specific public activities and/or services that
directly enhance and promote tourism. These new guidelines will bring the city into compliance
with state law governing the use of hotel occupancy tax dollars. Austin is forming a task force of
arts leaders, hotel industry representatives and other stakeholders that will be charged with
coming to a consensus on the interpretation of the tax code.
Arts Services
Funding
(excluding % of City
facility Funding FY 2010 Investment Outside Agency or
City operations) I Source f Budget I Per Capita Internal Dept
Austin $5,293,941 HOT 0.19% $6.99 City Office
an Antonio $5,903,651 HOT 0.26% $4.37 City Office/Outside Agency
,,,'ouston $9,600,000 HOT 0.28% $4.28 Outside Agency
Richardson $300,000 HOT 0.14% $2.95 Public Commission
Plano $662,000 HOT 0.31% $2.47 City Office
Dallas $3,135,407 General Fund 0.11% $2.45 City Office
Irving $425,000 HOT 0.14% $2.11 Outside Agency
Fort Worth $1,160,000 General Fund 0.11% $1.65 Outside Agency
Lewisville $154,831 HOT 0.01% $1.55 Outside Agency
El Paso $870,857 HOT 0.13% $1.42 City Office
Mesquite $116,714 HOT 0.12% $0.88 Outside Agency
Grand Prairie $70,000 HOT 0.04% $0.44 Outside Agency
Garland $70,400 HOT 0.05% $0.32 Outside Agency
Arlington $100,000 HOT 0.03% $0.27 Outside Agency
You will note the City of Fort Worth's per capita investments compared to other cities surveyed.
This per capita comparison is solely for arts programming funding. To ensure the results were
comparable, only funding that supports arts programming is included. In addition to funding for
programming, the City of Fort Worth also provides Public Art funding. As you know, this equates
to 2% of bonds issued. We believe the City's investment in Public Art is more significant than
other cities throughout the state. However we do not have that data for the other cities and
therefore have excluded that amount from the comparison.
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 9222
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council April 6, 2010
pTt�e
f Page 2 of 2
• SUBJECT: COMPARATIVE ARTS PROGRAM FUNDING
t rw
revs
The above chart also demonstrates the primary funding source for most cities is the Hotel/Motel
Tax (HOT) revenue. Like Fort Worth, Dallas uses the General Fund. Currently, the City of Fort
Worth uses a portion of the HOT revenue to fund the contract with the Convention and Visitors
Bureau. The remaining revenue is allocated to operate Will Rogers Memorial Center and the Fort
Worth Convention Center and the events that are held in those facilities. If the Council elects to
fund arts programming from the HOT revenue, those funds would be redistributed.
Another noteworthy observation is the City of Fort Worth supports the management of arts
programming through an outside agency, like many cities across the state.
If you have any questions, please call Horatio Porter, Budget Officer, at 817.392.2379.
Dale A. Fisseler, P.E.
City Manager
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS