FUND · 2012 · Measure 26-146
Arts Education and Access Fund
Collections lag, administrative overhead is structurally high, and the Council periodically authorizes carve-outs to "support arts ecosystem" outside the schools-and-grants frame.
Voter intent. You voted for two things in 2012. Pay K–5 art and music teachers in Portland-area schools. Fund grants so nonprofits can bring arts to kids who would not get them otherwise.
What follows is a year-by-year reading of how the cash position of this fund evolved, annotated with the audit findings and council actions that produced its current shape. Below that, a visual of what the balance could pay for at today’s published unit costs, the named mechanisms by which it currently can’t, and what would change if those mechanisms were removed.
WHERE IT COULD HELP NOW
What the balance is the size of
At the fund’s modeled balance, and at the unit costs that already appear in city, county, and bureau budgets, the dollars are equivalent in scale to any one of these.
$24.9M sitting today. At today's published unit costs, that is the same dollar amount as any one of these.
220 × K–5 art and music teachers, full-time, 5 years
$84K per unit · PPS Tier-3 teacher loaded salary, 2025
14,000 × Student arts intensive scholarships
$2K per unit · RACC Arts for All published rate
12,000 × K–5 instruments and maintenance
$460 per unit · PPS music program procurement
1 × Bilingual arts education across all 5 districts, 5 years
$12.0M per unit · $2.4M per year, 5-district pilot scale
Unit counts are rounded against published references. Real procurement and ramp time would shape the exact numbers. The point is the order of magnitude.
MECHANISMS
What’s in the way of spending it as voted
Each item below is a named mechanism in code, charter, or council practice. The defense is the line routinely offered for it. The note beside it is the structural reading of why that line is not the whole story.
Mechanism 1
The 5% overhead cap was rewritten instead of enforced
The 2012 ballot capped collection costs at 5% of revenue. When costs went over, Council redefined what counts as "collection cost" instead of cutting it.
- Where the discretion sits
- Portland City Council, four votes
The defense
“Collection costs are necessarily higher for a flat tax with a broad filer base. The cap as written was unworkable.”
Structural reading
King County's per-capita arts tax hits the same compliance at under 4% overhead. The cost is a choice, not a constraint.
Mechanism 2
No floor on the teacher line
The ordinance does not require any minimum share of revenue to go to K–5 teacher salaries. Teacher dollars compete with grant dollars and overhead each year.
- Where the discretion sits
- Portland City Council, four votes
The defense
“Annual flexibility lets the fund respond to changing arts ecosystem needs.”
Structural reading
The ballot text named two uses. A floor on the larger one would honor what voters passed.
If those mechanisms were removed
Cap overhead at 5% and put a floor on the teacher line. Within two years a music or art teacher returns to every K–5 school in PPS, Centennial, David Douglas, Parkrose, and Reynolds.
How the balance got here
What follows is a year-by-year reading of how the cash position of this fund evolved. Scroll the right column to advance the chart; each step is an audit finding, council resolution, or bureau memo that shaped the shape.
Modeled cash position, with audit annotations
MODELEDAnnotations are auditor findings, council resolutions, and bureau memos. The active step is shown with a vertical rule.
Data table for Modeled cash position, with audit annotations
| Year | Balance | Obligated | Inflow | Spent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 4550562 | 2502809 | 8273749 | 3723187 |
| 2014 | 9271628 | 5099395 | 8583756 | 3862690 |
| 2015 | 11132994 | 6123147 | 8460754 | 6599388 |
| 2016 | 13012951 | 7157123 | 8545258 | 6665301 |
| 2017 | 14948924 | 8221908 | 8799880 | 6863906 |
| 2018 | 16991605 | 9345383 | 9284913 | 7242232 |
| 2019 | 18275772 | 10051675 | 9172622 | 7888455 |
| 2020 | 19598829 | 10779356 | 9450404 | 8127347 |
| 2021 | 20989929 | 11544461 | 9936427 | 8545327 |
| 2022 | 22372793 | 12305036 | 9877604 | 8494740 |
| 2023 | 23194086 | 12756747 | 10266158 | 9444866 |
| 2024 | 24044657 | 13224561 | 10632142 | 9781570 |
| 2025 | 24919549 | 13705752 | 10936144 | 10061252 |
2014
Audit: collection cost overrun
City Auditor finds collection costs exceed the statutory 5% cap; ordinance amended to redefine the cap rather than reduce overhead.
2017
Council: scope expansion
Council authorizes use of arts tax funds for general arts programming beyond the K–5 teacher and grants frame defined in the ballot measure.
2021
Discovery: surplus carryover
Reserve balance reaches a multi-year surplus; staff briefing notes "carryover for future allocation," with no remediation plan to disburse.
2024
Audit: collection rate
Compliance rate among adult filers remains under 75%; revenue forecasting flagged as overstated.
Promise versus delivery
The chart on the right pairs each plan cycle’s stated dollar promise with the dollar amount that was eventually delivered against it. The gap between the two — labelled in orange — is what flows into the next cycle’s carryover, and what the audit narrative on the previous chart is, in part, accumulating into.
Promised vs. delivered, by fiscal cycle
MODELEDPromised dollars are those committed in the bureau's published plan; delivered dollars are what shipped against the plan. Modeled.
Data table for Promised vs. delivered, by fiscal cycle
| Cycle | Promised | Delivered | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY 2014 | 8500000 | 5900000 | 2600000 |
| FY 2016 | 9100000 | 7800000 | 1300000 |
| FY 2018 | 9600000 | 8300000 | 1300000 |
| FY 2020 | 10200000 | 7100000 | 3100000 |
| FY 2022 | 10800000 | 9400000 | 1400000 |
| FY 2024 | 11300000 | 9700000 | 1600000 |
Reserve growth
When delivery lags collection, the residual accumulates as an unobligated reserve. This is not a savings account in the household sense: it is a balance that public-finance officers and council staff have, by ordinance, the discretion to redirect.
Modeled unobligated reserve
MODELEDData table for Modeled unobligated reserve
Each row shows the dollars left sitting unspent in this fund at the end of that year.
| Year | Unspent reserve (USD) |
|---|---|
| 2013 | 2047753 |
| 2014 | 4172233 |
| 2015 | 5009847 |
| 2016 | 5855828 |
| 2017 | 6727016 |
| 2018 | 7646222 |
| 2019 | 8224097 |
| 2020 | 8819473 |
| 2021 | 9445468 |
| 2022 | 10067757 |
| 2023 | 10437339 |
| 2024 | 10820096 |
| 2025 | 11213797 |
Drift from voter intent
The chart on the right is a drift index. A value of 100 percent means every dollar in the fund is being used in a way that maps cleanly to the original ballot text. A value below 100 percent means some share has been ordinance-redirected, swept into a sibling program, or otherwise reclassified.
Drift index — voter intent vs. modeled actual disposition
MODELEDData table for Drift index — voter intent vs. modeled actual disposition
Modeled share of dollars still aimed at the original ballot purpose, with each council vote that broadens the eligible uses pulling the score down.
| Year | On voter intent (%) | Drift (%) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 95 | 5 | |
| 2015 | 88 | 12 | |
| 2017 | 78 | 22 | Scope expansion |
| 2019 | 72 | 28 | |
| 2021 | 68 | 32 | |
| 2023 | 65 | 35 | |
| 2025 | 63 | 37 |
WEEKLY MEMO · ARTS TAX
No memo for this fund yet this week
The weekly run hasn’t produced a published memo for this fund yet.