Madison Cultural Plan 2011 - City of Madison, Wisconsin

More documents

Recommendations

Info

While many of the activities and organizations supported by line items are worthy, it is important for the Arts Commission to consider all contracts for creative sector services in the context of specific, publicly affirmed priorities. The city should, however, exempt the Henry Vilas Zoo from competitive application because its current financial participation is governed by an ongoing partnership agreement with Dane County, drafted in 1983, when the zoo was transferred from municipal to county management and control. The agreement calls for the City of Madison and Dane County to split operating costs for the zoo, with the City paying 20% and the County paying 80% of those costs. That agreement should continue to be honored. The city’s role in the Overture Center is changing. Those changes are framed by a 10-year structural agreement between the city and the 201 State Foundation (signed 12/28/10). The structural agreement creates a mechanism for financial support that mixes line item support at a fixed amount ($2,000,000 annually adjusted for inflation based on an agreed upon formula), with a requirement that the Center submit an annual grant request in the form of a draft annual performance contract. Under this recently agreed upon approach, the amount of city participation is fixed, but the performance required under the contract is annually negotiable. The terms of the Overture agreement and its practicality and equity have been the subject of a broad public debate and the investment of considerable thought and analysis from many quarters. It is too soon to understand exactly how they will fare over time. It is likely that as experience is gained some changes in expectation will be addressed in the annual performance contract or even in the redesign of the structural agreement itself. Whatever the case, given that the city will be the largest single contributor to Overture’s operating budget for the next decade, it is imperative that the Madison Arts Commission be engaged as the primary city entity for review and evaluation of the annual performance contract. The Commission’s evaluation work should be supported by the Office of Finance with regard to financial performance monitoring. Similarly, as The Partnership begins to operate, the Madison Arts Commission should be responsible for review and evaluation of its performance. See Recommendation 50. Madison Cultural Plan Findings 66
III.D.7.d.ii ARTS GRANTS The Madison Arts Commission’s arts grants are deeply valued by their recipients, especially those recipients with small scale, highly innovative projects. In too many quarters, however, the City of Madison has a reputation for being difficult. Some nonprofits stay away from the city as a funding partner because they anticipate inflexibility. They describe the city’s arts grants as too labor intensive for their modest value; both grant preparation and evaluation requirements are seen as out of scale with awards, especially from the perspective of some institutional applicants. In-house at the Madison Arts Commission, an enormous amount of work goes into the effort to award comparatively few dollars fairly. The grants program is administratively burdensome, especially for a staff of one. It is important for the Commission to rethink its grants programs, emphasizing simplicity for both itself and its applicants. In general, having a very clear purpose and policy base is helpful to staff and grant reviewers alike. Making the system more efficient will free up staff time needed to support the work of the Creative Initiatives Staff Team. An electronic grants management system should be put in place. The work of handling manually submitted applications and the preparation of vast paper volumes of grants for reviewers is overwhelming. Subsequent manual management and reporting are also unnecessary burdens. Two alternate routes to reducing the workload should be considered. The first is the possibility of a developing a collaborative agreement with the Dane County Cultural Affairs Commission. The second is the possibility of developing its own electronic grant-making system as a part of the city’s broader MUNIS software development project. The Dane County Cultural Affairs Commission offers a grants program, and many applicants seek funds from both the city and the county sources. At the county, an effective online application system exists. A wide range of residents participate in grant review panels. Their grant-making is already based on giving from a blended group of funding sources. Developing a partnership in which the county administers the city’s arts grants could make sense, especially in a time of constrained resources. Madison Cultural Plan Findings 67
Page 1 and 2:
Madison Cultural Plan 2011 City of
Page 3 and 4:
Madison Cultural Plan 2011 Findings
Page 5 and 6:
Honorable Mayor Paul Soglin, Member
Page 7 and 8:
I. Acknowledgements This cultural p
Page 9 and 10:
II. Introduction and Overview II.A.
Page 11 and 12:
Polar Bear Chair in Circle Park Fin
Page 13 and 14:
• Is home to strong and connected
Page 15 and 16: • PURPOSE IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT
Page 17 and 18: II.F. Status of Madison’s Creativ
Page 19 and 20: This plan is focused around six bro
Page 21 and 22: opportunities, providing training a
Page 23 and 24: Madison Cultural Plan Introduction
Page 25 and 26: Madison’s creative sector lacks c
Page 27 and 28: Uniting Madison’s electronic data
Page 29 and 30: In Madison, the creative sector lac
Page 31 and 32: Madison is at risk for erosion of p
Page 33 and 34: Recognizing the city’s long held
Page 35 and 36: Residents could be encouraged to ta
Page 37 and 38: Success has brought the need for ch
Page 39 and 40: Madison must frame a brand around i
Page 41 and 42: Tobacco Lofts at Findorff Yards, Na
Page 43 and 44: A new community cultural center sho
Page 45 and 46: credits, historic preservation tax
Page 47 and 48: Madison Theatre Guild Costume Shop
Page 49 and 50: Madison needs a clearer picture of
Page 51 and 52: The Capitol Square, a frequent spec
Page 53 and 54: Activities that give people access
Page 55 and 56: The school district is also home to
Page 57 and 58: Networking and skill and market bui
Page 59 and 60: Madison needs more venture capital
Page 61 and 62: Madison Children’s Museum whole.
Page 63 and 64: University Research Park’s Metro
Page 65: Currently there is no efficient way
Page 69 and 70: Africa Fest: Senegal Dance Troupe J
Page 71 and 72: Henry Vilas Zoo IV. Conclusion Thes
Page 73 and 74: GOAL ACTIONS V. Recommendations: Go
Page 75 and 76: 10. The Madison Police Department s
Page 77 and 78: ordinance, update and/or clarify th
Page 79 and 80: GOAL ACTIONS V.E. STRENGTHEN POLICY
Page 81 and 82: 46. Once the city’s debt service
Page 83 and 84: VI. Appendices Appendix A: Restruct
Page 85 and 86: Appendix B: The Creative Initiative
Page 87 and 88: Appendix C: Detailed Recommendation
Page 89 and 90: epresenting the interests of artist
Page 91 and 92: Appendix D: Outline of Requirements
Page 93 and 94: Appendix E: Detailed View of the El
Page 95 and 96: Appendix F: The Study Committee on
Page 97 and 98: • MADISON THEATRE GUILD COSTUME S
Page 99 and 100: Appendix H: Timeline Madison Cultur
Page 101 and 102: Appendix I About the Consultants MA
Page 103 and 104: Appendix J Electronic Appendices Ad
show all

Madison Cultural Plan 2011 - City of Madison, Wisconsin

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?