Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Recommendations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves $491,000 in grant awards to 29 nonprofits; committee outlines scoring and reporting rules
Summary
The Board of Trustees approved committee recommendations to fund 29 nonprofit applicants with a total of $491,000. Committee chair Carl Montgomery described the scoring process; trustees discussed category limits, reporting requirements and public transparency before voting to approve the awards by voice vote.
At the Feb. 26 Board of Trustees meeting the board approved $491,000 in grant awards to support 29 local nonprofit organizations after a presentation by committee representative Carl Montgomery and an extended board discussion of process, categories and reporting.
Montgomery said the grant committee received 51 applications, found five ineligible and recommended funding 29 organizations with a pooled request of just over $1 million and available funds of $490,000. "We had, 29 nonprofits that we funded. And we were the the amount of the 29 that we funded, the request that they had was a little over a million dollars. And we had 490,000," Montgomery said.
The board discussed the committee’s scoring and allocation method. Montgomery described a seven-member scoring panel that averages members’ numeric scores and proposed funding amounts; he and several trustees acknowledged subjectivity in deciding how to allocate limited dollars. "That's the biggest struggle I have," Montgomery said, describing the challenge of apportioning funds when many applicants request large amounts.
Trustees pressed for clarity on categories and accountability. The trust’s distribution categories were recapped in session: education/youth services (maximum 20% of the distribution), community safety and victim services (15%), health-related services (10%) and a residual "other" category. Trustees also confirmed the grant agreement requires a midyear and a final report; Montgomery said one applicant that failed to submit a midyear report did not receive funding this year and may reapply next year.
Questions about public transparency were answered by staff: the committee’s report and recommended awards are posted with the meeting agenda. Trustees also asked for clarification of the broader budgetary effects of the trust. Staff explained that roughly 85% of the calculated 5% annual distribution flows to the city (general fund, roads, parks) and 15% is administered for grants by the trustees; board members and staff outlined that the trust structure and MTE payments increase available community funding compared with prior years.
After discussion, a board member moved to approve the committee recommendations; the motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote. "I'll move that we approve the recommendations from the committee," said the board member who moved the motion. The chair called for aye and the motion passed.
Ending: The board directed staff and the committee to continue refining category definitions and reporting fields; members asked staff to provide the committee’s midyear and final-report templates and to return with the asset-allocation study and budget items at the next scheduled meeting.
