Carmel council delays annual arts funding

April 22, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Carmel City Council postponed approval of the city’s annual arts grant program Monday amid questions about “perceived gaps” in the municipal budget.

“The funding discussion deserves to be done in public,” Councilor Rick Sharp said, referring to a flurry of emails he and other members received over the weekend assuring them that the money is available.

Financial consultant Curt Coonrod assured the council that the city’s spending plan has not changed since it passed in October, but acknowledged officials still need to take a procedural step to finalize the budget.

More than a dozen local arts organizations are slated to receive funding from the 10-year-old city program in 2014. The city sets aside 1 percent of its general fund budget for the grants each year.

“The problem is, we don’t know what the general fund is,” said council Finance Committee Chairwoman Luci Snyder.

Coonrod and the clerk-treasurer’s office gave the council different numbers, she said—and neither is high enough to support the $681,400 in grants Mayor Jim Brainard has proposed. Brainard was traveling Monday, so he couldn’t offer an explanation.

Still, Snyder said she’s confident the issue can be resolved quickly.

“Last year or the year before, we made a mess of this thing and it dragged on far too long,” she said. “But it’s really important that we sit down and make sure we’re all on the same page.”

The council delayed $700,000 in arts grants for months last year. Snyder later proposed a change in the way the grants are administered, but dropped the initiative when it became clear it lacked support.

Brainard accepts applications from the city’s Support for the Arts Fund each year and submits his grant recommendations to the council for approval. Since 2004, more than $6.8 million has been awarded.

“These organizations are worthy of public support, which we view as an economic development tool for the city,” he said in a prepared statement.

Here’s a look at the organizations set to receive funding this year:

— Carmel Symphony Orchestra, $205,000

— Booth Tarkington Civic Theatre, $200,000

— Actors Theatre of Indiana, $110,000

— Gregory Hancock Dance Theatre, $45,000

— Indiana Ballet Conservatory, $20,000

— Carmel Community Players, $15,000

— International Talent Academy, $15,000

— Carmel Arts Council, $14,900

— Museum of Miniature Houses, $13,500

— Central Indiana Dance Ensemble, $12,000

— Indiana Wind Symphony, $12,000

— Indianapolis Symphonic Choir, $12,000

— Indianapolis Children's Choir, $4,000

— Young Voices Inspire, $3,000
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Interesting
    The top four recipients of public money were to received $560,000 total and all four are based in the Center for the Performing Arts. It would be interesting to see what their rent and other costs for residence at the Center cost, because I suspect a large portion of those funds go straight back into the Center. It's smoke and mirrors. These organizations could not survive in their digs without heavy public support.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT