Should We Subsidize the Muck?

We received this letter from a “Mr. Ed” on the subject of the the Muckenthaler Cultural Center:

The Fullerton City Council will hold their final meetings on the fiscal year 2011 budget on June 1 & 2.  I am aware of one contentious item on the agenda:  elimination of the $80,000 annual cash grant to the Muckenthaler Center Cultural Foundation (MCCF).  It should be noted the $80,000 cash grant is part of the City’s support which totals about $200,000 a year.

At the first budget meeting in March the Parks & Recreation Department proposed cuts to all groups under its jurisdiction, i.e., youth sports programs (Little League, Pop Warner, Rangers Soccer, etc.), Senior Citizens Center, Fullerton Museum Center, and MCCF, to name a few.  The MCCF was the only group that objected, claiming they were being unfairly singled out.  All other groups realized the magnitude of the situation the City was facing and accepted what was being proposed.

At the March meetings councilwomen Quirk and Keller were supportive of the cut for the MCCF:  Quirk for the full $80,000 being proposed by Parks & Recreation and Keller for a $40,000 reduction.  Councilmen Bankhead and Jones were against any cuts but seemed to indicate they could go along with a $20,000 reduction.  Councilman Nelson suggested exploring some alternatives for privatizing the Senior Center and the City’s cultural programs.

Privatization is not the answer.  The MCCF was privatized 16 years ago.  In 1994 Fullerton ceded control of the facility to the MCCF.  The City retained ownership and maintenance responsibility of the grounds and building.  At that time the MCCF stated they could run the facility more cheaply and efficiently if the City was not involved.  All they needed was three years of financial support from the City and after that they would be on their own.

Sixteen years later the MCCF is still on the dole to the extent of about $200,000 per year.  The city has spent over $3,000,000 in support over the past 16 years with no discernible benefit to the taxpaying citizens of Fullerton.

Councilmen Bankhead and Jones felt the MCCF was not on firm financial footing and needed continued assistance from the City. The director of the MCCF was and is pleading for the public to “Save the Muck”.

The Muckenthaler does not need saving!

The last published financial statement shows the MCCF has cash and investments of $590,000 and total revenues of about $650,000.  It also shows the MCCF realized a surplus of $99,000 for the fiscal year ending June 2009.  Of the $650,000 in total revenues approximately $250,000 is attributable to wedding receptions Colette’s Catering, a private company, holds on the grounds of this publicly owned facility.

The current arrangement has the taxpayers subsidizing two private entities:  the MCCF and Colette’s Catering.  We can no longer allow this waste of taxpayers’ money to continue.

Rather than continuing the current arrangement with the MCCF a powerful case can be made that the facility should be placed back under the city’s management. This option would allow the citizens of Fullerton to benefit from the facility rental income.  Another option would be for the MCCF to reimburse the City annually for the $200,000 that Fullerton spends to maintain the building and grounds.  Both cases would be a net saving to the city of about $200,000 per year.  This would go a long way in helping alleviate the budgetary problems we are facing.

7 Replies to “Should We Subsidize the Muck?”

  1. I think another strong case can be made for not asking – or letting – the City manage the Muck.

    Withdrawing the 80K grant seems reasonable as the Muck would still be in the black (if ’09 figures hold up for ’10), then phase out other financial support gradually so the foundation can develop ways to offset it.

  2. Based on the information in this post, it appears that taxpayers do not need to subsidize the center. I don’t know the political make up of the foundation’s board but it seems reasonable that the City would have a representative on it to look after the public’s interest. Using the site for weddings and receptions seems reasonable assuming taxpayers are not subsidizing the events and that net proceeds go back into maintenance and operations of the facility. I am always concerned when the city takes over much of anything that it will cost far more than it does to have the private sector, driven by profit, manage the property.
    But, all that aside, the situation must be examined closely before any decision is made…

  3. I don’t want another facility run by the city’s union stooges, but I don’t want to subsidize it ether.

    The solution? Cut ‘er loose and see if she floats.

  4. I feel the same way about the Muckenthaler as I do about public universities awarding useless degrees in Art, Dance, Music, Theatre. It’s all a WASTE of taxpayer money.

  5. the Muck has had its interior cannabilized for the sake of local art, dance and plays. If art, music, drama is worthwhile, it doesn’t need tax dollars to subsidize it. the Muck is nothing more than a tax dollar subsidized vanity production for a collection of dubious talent. Our town’s current economic crisis will worsen due to loss of revenue from unprecedented foreclosures and business bankruptcies. Fullerton needs to cut funding for all non-essential services

  6. I say stop all subsidies to the Muck and get rid of the Fox sham theater.
    Fullerton taxpayers have been swindled many times over
    you cannot even hear them fart anymore!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *