Category Archives: Art

Summary of the study measuring the economic impact of the arts and cultural organizations in Medfield

~.--Arts&Economic Prosperity®S A Project of Americans for the Arts The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations and Their Audiences in the Town of Medfield, MA (Fiscal Year 2015) Arts and Cultural Direct Economic Activity ~ Total Industry Expenditures $2,748,727 + Arts and Cultural Audiences $382,700 Economic Impact of Spending by Arts and Cultural Organizations and Their Audiences Total Economic Impact of Expenditures Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs Supported Household Income Paid to Residents Revenue Generated to Local Government Revenue Generated to State Government Economic Impact of ~ 118 $1,944,000 $98,000 $86,000 + Economic Impact of Audiences 7 $143,000 $15,000 $25,000 = = Total Industry Expenditures $3,131,427 Total Economic Impact 125 $2,087,000 $113,000 $111,000 Event-Related Spending by Arts and Cultural Audiences Totaled $382,700 (gcluding the cost of admission) Attendance to Arts and Culture Events Total Attendance to Arts and Culture Events Percentage of Total Attendance Average Event-Related Spending Per Person Total Event-Related Expenditures Resident' Attendees 28,703 92.6% $12.02 $345,010 + Nonresident' Attendees 2,294 7.4% $16.43 $37,690 = All Cultural Audiences 30,997 100.0% $12.35 $382,700 Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Event Attendees Spend an Average of $12.35 Per Person (£!eluding the cost of admission) Category of Event-Related Expenditure Meals and Refreshments Souvenirs and Gifts Ground Transportation Overnight Lodging (one night only) Other/Miscellaneous Average Event-Related Spending Per Person Resident' Attendees $8.07 $2.06 $0.27 $0.01 $1.61 $12.02 Nonresident' Attendees $8.73 $3.41 $0.24 $2.56 $1.49 $16.43 All Cultural Audiences I $8.12 $2.16 $0.27 $0.20 $1.60 $12.35 Source: Arts & Economic Prosperity 5: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations and Their Audiences in the Town of Medfield. For more information about this study or about other cultural initiatives in the Town of Medfield, visit the Cultural Alliance of Medfield's web site at www.medfieldculture.org/medfield-cultural-council. Copyright 2017 by Americans for the Arts (www.AmericansForTheArts.org). About This Study This Arts & Economic Prosperity 5 study was conducted by Americans for the Arts to document the economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture industry in 341 communities and regions (113 cities, 115 counties, 81 multicity or multicounty regions, 10 states, and 12 individual arts districts)-representing all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The diverse communities range in population (1,500 to more than 4 million) and type (small rural to large urban). Project economists from the Georgia Institute of Technology customized an input-output analysis model for each participating region to provide specific and localized data on four measures of economic impact: full-time equivalent jobs, household income, and local and state government revenue. These localized models allow for the uniqueness of each local economy to be reflected in the findings. Americans for the Arts partnered with 250 local, regional, and statewide organizations that represent the 341 study regions (30 partners included multiple study regions as part of their participation). To complete this customized analysis for the Town of Medfield, the Cultural Alliance of Medfield joined the study as one of the 250 partners. Surveys of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural ORGANIZATIONS Each of the 250 partner organizations identified the universe of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations that are located in its region(s) using the Urban Institute's National Taxonomy of Exempt Entity (NTEE) coding system, a definitive classification system for nonprofit organizations recognized as tax exempt by the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the study partners were encouraged to include other types of eligible organizations if they play a substantial role in the cultural life of the community or iftheir primary purpose is to promote participation in, appreciation for, and understanding of the visual, performing, folk, and literary and media arts. These include government-owned or government-operated cultural facilities and institutions; municipal arts agencies and councils; private community arts organizations; unincorporated arts groups; living collections (such as zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens); university presenters, programs, and facilities; and arts programs that are embedded under the umbrella of a nonarts organization or facility (such as a hospital or church). In short, if it displays the characteristics of a nonprofit arts and cultural organization, it is included. For-profit businesses (e.g., Broadway, motion picture theaters) and individual artists were excluded from this study. Nationally, data was collected from a total of 14,439 organizations for this study. Response rates among all eligible organizations located in the 341 study regions was 54.0 percent, and ranged from 9.5 percent to 100 percent. Responding organizations had budgets ranging from $0 to $785 million (Smithsonian Institution). It is important to note that each study region's results are based solely on the actual survey data collected. There are no estimates made to account for nonresponding organizations. Therefore, the less-than-100 percent response rates suggest an understatement of the economic impact findings in most of the individual study regions. In the Town of Medfield, 17 of the 17 eligible nonprofit arts and cultural organizations participated in this study-an overall participation rate of 100.0 percent. A list of the participating organizations can be obtained from the Cultural Alliance of Medfield. Surveys of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural AUDIENCES Audience-intercept surveying, a common and accepted research method, was completed in all 341 study regions to capture information about spending by audiences at nonprofit arts and culture events. Patrons were selected randomly and asked to complete a short survey while attending an event. A total of212,691 attendees completed the survey. The respondents provided itemized travel party expenditure data on attendance-related activities such as meals, souvenirs, transportation, and lodging. Data was collected throughout the year to guard against seasonal spikes or drop-offs in attendance, and at a broad range of events (because a night at the opera will typically yield more spending than a Saturday children's theater production). Using total attendance data for 2015 (collected from the participating organizations), standard statistical methods were then used to derive a reliable estimate of total arts event-related expenditures by attendees in each study region. In the Town of Medfield, a total of 527 valid audience-intercept surveys were collected from attendees to nonprofit arts and cultural performances, events, and exhibitions during 2016. Studying Economic Impact Using Input-Output Analysis To derive the most reliable economic impact data, input-output analysis was used to measure the impact of expenditures by nonprofit arts and cultural organizations and their audiences. This highly-regarded type of economic analysis has been the basis for two Nobel Prizes in economics. The models are systems of mathematical equations that combine statistical methods and economic theory in an area of study called econometrics. The analysis traces how many times a dollar is respent within the local economy before it leaves the community, and it quantifies the economic impact of each of those rounds of spending. Project economists customized an input-output model for each of the 341 participating study regions based on the local dollar flow among 533 finely detailed industries within its economy. This was accomplished by using detailed data on employment, incomes, and government revenues provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce (County Business Patterns, the Regional Economic Information System, and the Survey of State and Local Finance), state and local tax data (e.g., sales taxes, lodging tax, property taxes, income tax, and miscellaneous local option taxes), and the survey data collected from the responding arts and cultural organizations and their audiences. 1 For the purpose of this study, residents are attendees who live within Norfolk County; nonresidents live elsewhere. A comprehensive description of the methodology used to complete the national study is available at www.AmericansForTheArts.org/Economiclmpact.20170620-Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts_Page_2

Culture and the arts are economic drivers

Jean Mineo both arranged for the town to participate in a study of the economics of arts in our community, attended a conference on the topic, and presented the results to the Select Board at our last meeting.  The economic data was generated by seventeen Town of Medfield arts organizations separately inputting their data into the study.

In sum, the arts and cultural industry (defined as the organizations and their audiences combined) spend $3.1m per year in town, and support 125 jobs in town.

ARTS study-2017

Per the study –

The Town of Medfield’s Participating Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations

This study could not have been completed without the cooperation of the 17 nonprofit arts and cultural organizations in the Town of Medfield, listed below, that provided detailed financial and event attendance information about their organization.

Cultural Alliance Of Medfield; First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church; Friends of the Dwight-Derby House; Gazebo Players of Medfield; Lowell Mason House Inc; Medfield Community Cable Access Corp; Medfield Cultural Council; Medfield Employers and Merchants Organization; Medfield Garden Club; Medfield High School Theater Society; Medfield Historical Society; Medfield Music Association; Medfield Public Library; Norfolk Hunt Club; United Church Of Christ; Vine Lake Preservation Trust; and Zullo Gallery Center for the Arts.

Votes needed for MSH

From Jean Mineo – her latest thing that helps us all.

vote.2

Hello Medfield Friends,
The Cultural Alliance has submitted a video grant application and we need your vote.

If the video gets enough votes (i.e. lands in the top 10 of the category “arts and culture”), it advances to the next round of evaluation which will award one application in each category $100k and two applications $50k each. A lot of money!

The link to the 2:45 minute video is here:

http://act.usatoday.com/submit-an-idea/#/gallery/60445715

Click on the green vote button next to the video to cast your vote! You may vote once a day, every day through May 12. There are no forms to fill out. Then please share on Facebook or Twitter using the buttons under the video and help spread the word.

The grant addresses the renovation of key historic buildings at the former Medfield State Hospital into an arts and cultural center. The money would go toward hiring an expert to secure historic tax credits worth about $2 million – applicable to any project renovating the Chapel within historic guidelines, even if it doesn’t become a cultural center. This is a valuable asset to our town that does not commit us to a specific use!

Thanks for your help! Like us on Facebook for progress reports:
https://www.facebook.com/CulturalAllianceofMedfield/

Jean

 

C 617-877-5158

JeanMineo@aol.com

@JeanRMineo

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JeanMineo

DIF & TIF for MSH

The cultural arts center analysis recommends the use of district improvement financing (DIF) and tax increment financing (TIF) as mechanisms for financing the cultural arts center and the needed infrastructure.  A DIF allows one to raise monies by issuing bonds that are paid back only out of property tax monies derived from the lands within the DIF boundaries, so the DIF could be the former Medfield State Hospital campus, and the rest of the town would not have to pay in. A TIF sounds like a straight tax break given to stimulate a particular result.

Interestingly, the DLS newsletter this month had the following article on those –

DLS

Ask DLS: Property Tax Incentive and Financing Program Changes

This month’s Ask DLS features questions relating to changes in economic and housing development property tax incentives and financing programs under the Job Creation and Workforce Development Act, Chapter 219 of the Acts of 2016, and the Municipal Modernization Act, Chapter 218 of the Acts of 2016. A summary of the changes made by the Municipal Modernization Act can be found in the August 18, 2016 issue of City & Town. We have also compiled the questions answered in the Municipal Modernization Act series of Ask DLS for your convenience. Please let us know if you have other areas of interest or send a question to cityandtown@dor.state.ma.us. We would like to hear from you.

What is the District Improvement Financing Program?

Under MGL c. 40Q, cities and towns may create one or more improvement districts within their boundaries to promote increased residential, industrial, and commercial activity. Development districts are created by action of the mayor and council in cities, and town meeting in towns.

The centerpiece of the district improvement financing (DIF) program is the “District Development Program,” which is a statement of means and objectives designed to improve the quality of life, the physical facilities and structures and the quality of pedestrian and vehicular traffic control and transportation within a development district. Development programs may also include means and objectives to increase residential housing, both market rate and affordable. Every development program must include a financial plan, which is a statement of the costs and revenue sources needed to carry out development programs, to include (1) cost estimates for the development program; (2) the amount of indebtedness to be incurred; and (3) sources of anticipated capital. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 2.

How is municipal financing of improvements under the DIF program different than financing of other improvements?

A unique financing option involves setting aside all or a portion of the additional taxes, generated by the public improvements entailed in the development program. Districts that set aside a portion of the rise in property tax revenues (the “increment”) to finance the development program are referred to as “invested revenue districts.” General obligation or revenue bonds can be issued in anticipation of higher property tax revenues spurred by the development program in the district.

The revenue from the retained tax increment is reserved and credited to two accounts. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 3. First in priority is the “development sinking fund account” that is used to cover payment of interest and principal on debt taken out to fund the program. Second priority goes to a “project cost account” to cover separate project costs as outlined in the financial plan for the program. An amendment made by the Municipal Modernization Act provides that the requirement to reserve the increment ends when sufficient monies have been reserved to cover the full, anticipated liabilities of both these accounts. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 3(d).

How is the District Improvement Financing tax increment calculated?

The Municipal Modernization Act amended the calculation of the tax increment reserved for debt service and project costs in cities and towns with invested revenue districts under MGL c. 40Q. It will now equal the actual new growth increase added to the municipality’s levy limit under Proposition 2½ for the development activity and expanded tax base within the district. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 1. The previous formula was based on certain adjusted valuation increases that were difficult to calculate, did not correspond to the new property tax revenue generated by the program and were not fixed until the tax rate for the year was set. The amount will now be known before the rate is set since it is based on Proposition 2½ new growth. Moreover, the assessors can provide a realistic estimate of the increment for budgeting purposes. This will ensure that the revenues generated by the increment are not used to support the budget generally.

The annual increment is based on the increase in the community’s levy limit (“new growth”) attributable to real estate parcels within the district for that year, including the portion attributable to prior years with an assessment date after the base date of the program. The percentage of the increment being reserved for financing the project must be specified as part of the district financing plan.

Example
District is created April 1, 2017
Base date is January 1, 2017 (FY18)
FY19 with January 1, 2018 assessment date is first year for tax increment

$100,000 of FY19 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY19 increment = $100,000.

$150,000 of FY20 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY20 increment = $252,500 [$102,500 ($100,000 FY19 increment increased by 2.5%) PLUS $150,000 additional increment]

$100,000 of FY21 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY21 increment = [$358,813 [$258,813 ($252,500 FY20 increment increased by 2.5%) PLUS $100,000 additional increment]

Where can municipalities enter into TIF Agreements?

The Job Creation and Workforce Development Act, Chapter 219 of the Acts of 2016, made a number of changes in the economic development incentive program (EDIP), which makes state tax credits and local property tax exemptions available for certain economic development projects. MGL c. 23A, secs. 3A3G. The EDIP program is administered by the state Economic Affairs Coordinating Council (EACC), which approves the tax incentives. The Act streamlined the requirements and procedures for the two local property tax exemptions under the program, which are the tax increment financing (TIF) exemption and the special tax assessment (STA).

Municipalities may now apply to the EACC to declare an area in their city or town, or contiguous areas in neighboring cities or towns, as eligible for TIF agreements. An area can be designated as TIF-eligible if the EACC finds that there is a strong likelihood that any of the following will occur within a specific and proximate period of time: (1) a significant influx or growth in business activity; (2) creation of a significant number of new jobs—not merely replacement or relocation of current jobs within the state; or (3) a private project or investment will contribute significantly to the resiliency of the local economy. It is no longer necessary that a TIF-eligible area be within an Economic Target Area (“ETA”).

Cities and towns can enter into TIF agreements with persons or entities undertaking either (1) certified projects, or (2) real estate or facility expansion projects in a TIF-eligible area. Any project must be consistent with the municipality’s economic development objectives and likely to increase or retain employment opportunities for residents of the municipality. MGL c. 23A, sec. 3E. A certified project is a project run by a business for which the EACC has approved state tax incentives. An eligible real estate project must be construction, rehabilitation or improvement of any building or other structure on a parcel of real property which, when completed, will result in at least a 100% increase in the assessed value of the real property over the assessed value of the real property prior to the project. A facility expansion project requires relocation from one location to another in the state or expansion of an existing facility that results in a net increase in the number of full-time jobs at the relocated or expanded facility. See definitions in MGL c. 23A, sec. 3A.

What happens to a local tax incentive for a certified project when the certification is revoked?

The 2016 Act clarified the impact of an EACC revocation of a certified project for a business that is also receiving a local tax incentive. MGL c. 23A, sec. 3F. The EACC can revoke state tax credits for certified projects that are in material non-compliance with the job creation or other requirements agreed to as a condition of the credits. The local tax incentive will now terminate at the beginning of the tax year in which the material non-compliance occurred, unless the agreement between the municipality and business expressly provides otherwise. If a local tax incentive is terminated, the municipality may amend the agreement to continue it. The amended agreement must be approved by the legislative body and EACC. In addition, the municipality may recapture the previously foregone taxes by making a “special assessment” on the taxpayer in the year after the year of the EACC’s decision to revoke project certification. The recapture could go as far back as the finding of material non-compliance. The procedure for municipalities to assess and collect the recaptured amount as a property tax is also spelled out.

What is the new local option to promote creation of middle income housing? (Republished from March 2, 2017 City & Town)

Under G.L. c. 40, sec. 60B, cities and towns may, through their respective legislative bodies, provide for Workforce Housing Special Tax Assessments (WH-STA’s) as incentive to create middle-income housing. Municipal Modernization Act, Chapter 218, sec. 39 of the Acts of 2016. Unlike other property tax incentives, such as economic development tax increment finance (TIFs) agreements, no state-level approval is required. Local WH-STA plans may allow for exemptions as great as 100% of the fair cash value of the property during the first two years of construction. Over a three-year stabilization phase following construction, the exemptions are available in declining maximum percentages of the fair cash value.

To use this incentive, a city or town must designate one or more areas that present exceptional opportunities for increased development of middle income housing as WH-STA zones. The plan must describe in detail all construction activities and types of residential developments intended for the WH-STA zone. The city or town must also promulgate regulations establishing eligibility requirements for developers to enter into WH-STA agreements. The regulations must address procedures for developers to apply for a WH-STA; the minimum number of new residential units to be constructed to qualify for WH-STA tax incentives; maximum rental prices and other eligibility criteria to facilitate and encourage construction of workforce housing.

The city or town may then enter into tax agreements with property owners in WH-STA zones that will set maximum rental prices that may be charged by the owner to create middle income workforce housing.

The revised Cultural Arts Facility Feasibility Study

DBVW Architrects-cultural arts center

I had not realized that Louise Stevens had done an updated revision to her financial analysis of a cultural arts center at the former Medfield State Hospital site, so I am posting a link to that updated report here –

20170406-ArtsMarket-Medfield Feasibility Report April REV

DBVW Architrects-cultural arts center-glass connector

These renderings are from the DBVW Architects report –

20170406-DBVW Architrects-1624_Existing-Conditions-Report_17-0403-Email(1)

MSH arts/cultural center financial analysis

msh-lee-chapel-by-jt

Jean Mineo, Medfield’s arts and cultural guru, notes this morning my failure to include the Louise Stevens financial analysis of an arts/cultural center at the Medfield State Hospital site, when I posted a link to the DBVW Architects design concept report yesterday afternoon.  So here is the link to Louise Stevens’ financial analysis of an arts/cultural center at the Medfield State Hospital site from last October, that was updated this month –

20170406-ArtsMarket-Medfield Feasibility Report April REV.pdf

I had intended to post it with the DBVW material, but ran short of time.  The DBVW report has the stunning visuals with a new glass connector between the Lee Chapel and the Infirmary, while the Louise Stevens analysis says that it can work financially.

My major take away from hearing Louise Stevens present and reading her report last fall was that the arts/cultural center can be financially self-sustaining, mainly by means of rental income as a wedding location.  However, the benefit to the town is having a robust arts/cultural center all the other days of the year.

These studies were spearheaded by Jean’s efforts, and were funded partly by monies voted at the annual town meeting a year ago and a state grant Jean secured for the town.

Cultural/arts center proposal for MSH

Lee Chapel at msh

At the Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee meeting last night, Douglas Brown of BDVW Architects from Providence presented his analysis of the potential for using the Lee Chapel and the adjoining Infirmary building as a cultural arts center.  Mr. Brown indicated that those two buildings were in good condition.  His plan has them being connected by a glass addition, which would become the entry way and also house the rest rooms.   The written report is available via the link that follows.

20170406-DBVW Architrects-1624_Existing-Conditions-Report_17-0403-Email(1)

An earlier economic analysis found that such a proposal was generally close to being economically self-sustaining.  Also, most of the construction costs appeared to be covered by selling the naming rights and fund raising.

One of the most intriguing suggestions was to have the new arts/cultural center be melded into and run as part of the Medfield Park & Recreation Commission, so that the town would have a Parks, Recreation, and Arts Commission.  The Medfield Park & Recreation Commission members present last night wanted to get the results of their new building feasibility study this June before they consider any such change.