Throwing $7 million of taxpayer money away on the arts center, isn’t the only reason to vote NO on the bonds, but it is definitely one of many reasons. See the following news article followed by comments:

Arts Center's opening act gets praised

Mike Cronin
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 2, 2006 12:00 AM

MESA - When a municipal or non-profit arts center breaks even, it's cause for rejoicing.

That the Mesa Arts Center has come in about $1.3 million under budget in its first year of operation is almost unheard of.

The final budget numbers are being reviewed, but Director Gerry Fathauer said this week that the center spent about $10.3 million of its roughly $11.6 million budget.

George Mitrovich, a nationally known San Diego civic activist who has served on two city arts boards, called it "one of the great achievements."

"For most arts organizations, their budgets are in continuing crises," he said. "For any arts organization to save $1.3 million, if not unprecedented, is pretty close to being unprecedented."

So unusual is the center's feat that Melodie Bahem, spokeswoman for the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, asked, "How'd they do that? We should be so lucky."

With an operations budget of about $19 million, the Guthrie opened a new building in June. For at least the past 10 years, Bahem said, the producing house has finished the season "with a tiny cushion," or almost a balanced budget.

Fathauer said roughly $7 million of the total $11.6 million budget came from the city, with $2.3 million coming from the general fund and $4.6 million coming from the quality-of -life sales tax. Earned income, such as ticket sales and grants, accounted for the remaining $4.6 million, she said.

"The savings gives us a bit of a margin for operations in this next year," Fathauer said.

Comments circulated by Jan Hibbard:

Fred earlier circulated the following story with his comments. However, in actuality the Mesa Arts Center losses are even worse than his interpretation.

This is a very confusing story. At this point we need an accounting reality check. The reality is: The taxpayer is out $7 million, period. Not only is the taxpayer out the $4.6 million from the quality of life tax (which was never voter designated) they are also out an additional $2.3 million from the general fund. Unfortunately, the numbers in the story don't quite add from an accounting standpoint, since this only equals 6.9 million, which futher confuses the issue.

Now you take the $7 million from the taxpayer, add it to the outside revenue of $4.6 million and you have your budget of $11.6 million. The reporter, who was apparently mislead by the city, seems to be real happy that out of this $11.6 million the art center only spent $10.3 million. Which in this article appears to be a surplus of $1.3 million. Apparently the reporter doesn't know the kind of people he is dealing with.

Back to reality, the art center took in $4.6 million, spent $10.3 million which any accountant will tell you equates to a $5.7 million loss. They then plug the loss with $7 million of taxpayer money and have a celebration for being $1.3 million ahead of budget.

The art center may be ahead, but the taxpayer is out $7 million. Even if they returned the $1.3 million to the general fund, the taxpayer would still be out $5.7 million.

If they did return that $1.3 million to the general fund it would go a long way for such things as veterans parades and extended library hours. Unfortunately, from this article that does not appear to be the intent of city or the arts center. They will keep the money, add it to next year's budget and still ask the taxpayer to susidize more losses. THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS FOR THE TAXPAYER. However, if you are on the board of the arts center, then I guess it is good new for them! In any case, Fred may have been misled on his math, but he is right in saying that you can't believe anything the city says. Jan Hibbard, CPA

(At first glance you would think the Mesa Arts Center is doing well. But the center didn't "break even". If you read the whole story you will see that the taxpayers paid out $7 million. The center brought in $4.6 million. Thus the taxpayers lost another $2.4 million on top of the $110 million already squandered on the center. In what sense did the center "save $1.3 million"? And don't forget the arts center money being pillaged from the Quality of Life tax was arbitrarliy budgeted by the tax and spend city council; it was never "voter designated", as the city likes to say. Saying that the center came in "under budget' is meaningless and misleading. The more you increase your budget, the more you can "beat" it. Besides, when you have a city manager who has been caught lying to the press, how can anybody believe anything the city says? -- Fred Phillis)