I am one of those nerdy people who like to look through the DC budget. Ok, I sort of have to, because it's my job. But I really do believe that budgets are the ultimate expression of our political and social priorities.

While most of the budget is not particularly titillating, every now and then I find something pretty eye opening. This year, it's an item in the budget for the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development: "The District will contribute funding for the Corcoran Gallery roof project." The amount: $8 million.

Did I read that right? Is DC really proposing to pay $8 million to fix a leaky roof at the Corcoran, a private museum? And why does the Mayor’s budget call that economic development rather than cultural development? (While the budget doesn’t say so, the best available information is that DC’s contribution would cover two-thirds of the roof repair costs.)

This is not the first time the Corcoran has sought big subsidies from DC. In 2004, the Corcoran received a $40 million commitment from the city to support a $200 million expansion designed by Frank Gehry. That ultimately fell through, however, when the Corcoran failed to come up with its share.

And the Corcoran is not the only arts institution to make out well in the DC budget. Last year, the city pledged $20 million to support a major expansion at Arena Stage. This year's budget would raise the contribution from DC taxpayers even further, to $25 million, with $10 million coming in 2007. Overall, the budget would devote more to the Corcoran and Arena Stage in 2007 than to all other arts programs combined.

Don't get me wrong. I think the arts play a critical role in our community. And I love both the Corcoran and Arena Stage. In fact, I have subscribed to Arena for years. But I also think there are a lot of DC buildings with leaky roofs that should get fixed before Corcoran's. My son's school comes to mind.

These examples highlight serious flaws in the way arts get funded in DC. The current system appears to have few guiding principles, leading to results that appear pretty arbitrary — with a few big winners that leave the city open to accusations of favoritism.

Something should be done about this. Here are some thoughts:

Make Arts Funding More Transparent: The proposed 2007 budget shows $9 million for the Commission on Arts and Humanities, but total arts funding sprinkled throughout the budget adds up to at least $35 million. Most of it shows up in the budget of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. While supporting the arts should be part of a broad economic development strategy, it would be far better to list all arts funding in one place, presumably the Commission on Arts and Humanities. Doing this would lead, I hope, to better discussions about how to set priorities in this area.

Limit Grants for Capital Campaigns: The District should cap how much it will contribute for any institution’s building projects — at a level far below the amounts offered to Arena Stage and the Corcoran. Without a cap, arts organization will begin to expect major DC subsidies as a matter of course. Moreover, funds set aside to support renovations of arts spaces should be awarded through a competitive process that allows the city to identify the most deserving projects.

The city could help in another way, by letting arts organizations secure low-cost loans through the Industrial Revenue Bond program. (This is how the Corcoran roof should be handled.) Despite its name, DC’s IRB program has been used widely to support schools and hospitals. Why not arts facilities?

Focus More on Community Benefits:  The Commission on Arts and Humanities supports programs for youth, public art displays, and neighborhood-based arts programs. These services, which bring out artistic talents of DC residents and build lifelong appreciation of the arts, are the kinds of things that should get the most funding. This could include, of course, funding to major arts organizations to support their community projects.

No “Creative Financing” for the Arts: This often is a way to hide the real costs. The $40 million Corcoran subsidy was packaged as a TIF, or tax increment financing deal, with the notion that the museum's expansion would lure thousands of new tourists to DC and pay for itself through higher tax collections. That made it look like a no-cost venture when it was anything but.

It may be too late for Mayor Williams to tackle all this, and the new Mayor will have a lot on his/her plate. But I think the entire city would benefit from a better process for supporting the arts.

Ed Lazere is the executive director of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, which conducts research on tax and budget issues that affect low- and moderate-income DC residents.