Artists and sponsors warn Fresno’s proposed grant rules could bar emerging creators, demand transparency

Dozens of artists, fiscal sponsors and community advocates told the City of Fresno’s Expanded Access to Arts and Culture Subcommittee that the Cycle 3 draft guidelines risk excluding the creatives the program aims to serve.

"That would be discriminatory and that would be cause for a potential lawsuit because it actually creates a barrier to access," said a public commenter during unscheduled communications, describing how limits on fiscal sponsorship could shut out grassroots projects that rely on fiscal sponsors to receive funds.

At the formal hearing, Steven Wilson of the Fresno Philharmonic thanked staff for the urgency but urged staff to consider staggering awards or staggered application windows so grant timing matches typical nonprofit fiscal years: "For organizations like mine that are on a July 1–June 30 fiscal year ... it's worth considering a staggered rollout," he said.

Several speakers, including community organizers and current fiscal sponsors, urged the city not to require strict nonprofit status as a precondition for access. ‘‘We shouldn’t require artists to become institutions just to participate,’’ one longtime community artist told the committee, describing the long timeline it can take to form a 501(c)(3).

Public commenters also pressed for transparency in the ARC process. Johannes and several others urged that ARC review sessions be held publicly, on Zoom, recorded and posted so applicants and the public can see deliberations and learn how to improve their applications. Amy Kitchener of the Alliance for California Traditional Arts backed paying reviewers as an equity measure and warned against a scoring-only process without discussion.

Other frequent concerns raised by commenters included:

- Outreach and accessibility: residents and community leaders urged more analog outreach (flyers, local partners) to reach West and Southeast Fresno and non‑social-media audiences. - Eligibility definitions: commenters asked the city to clarify whether faith-based nonprofits and university campus projects that primarily serve enrolled students would be eligible. - Portal usability and public notice: one commenter said the online comment form lacked editing capability and requested more robust assistance tools.

Why it matters: community commenters argued that without clear protections and inclusive rules, Measure P funds will flow primarily to established nonprofits and institutions rather than grassroots, community-rooted cultural activity the measure intended to support.

What the city said: staff repeatedly invited written feedback, said they would post a draft incorporating public comment on May 18 and noted several items — including fiscal sponsor caps and precise payment terms — were left deliberately open to community input and legal review.

Next steps: staff will compile written public comments and subcommittee feedback, publish the draft guidelines and the scoring handbook for further review, and return to the Commission for a recommended action in June.