City staff outlines new third‑party funding rules for nonprofits; committee raises documentation and scheduling concerns

City of Laredo community development staff on May 21 presented a revised third‑party funding policy for nonprofit applicants and walked the review committee through application, scoring and reimbursement rules for fiscal 2025–2026.

The staff presentation described eligibility and scoring requirements, reimbursement procedures, a new volunteer‑hours match and an option to use verified volunteer hours to offset city service fees. Committee members spent most of the meeting questioning application completeness, timelines and whether applicants who lacked required documents should still be scored.

City staff said the funding comes from the city’s general fund and that recommendations from the review committee will go to City Council during the budget cycle. The application was published in February (first notice Feb. 16, 2025; a second notice on Feb. 23), training for applicants was held Feb. 27 and applications were due March 20, 2025. Staff said the evaluation platform used is an online procurement/evaluation system (described in the meeting as the city’s iWave/Ion Wave EBID system), and committee members were given temporary logins to score applications.

Key elements of the revised program described by staff include:

- A maximum award of $25,000 per nonprofit per fiscal year. Awards are paid on a reimbursement basis; applicants submit quarterly invoices and receipts and are reimbursed after staff review.

- A new limit on consecutive funding: an organization may receive funds for up to three consecutive fiscal years, after which it must skip one year before reapplying. Staff said the policy was approved earlier in the year and will take effect for the 2025–2026 cycle.

- Eligible program areas: economic development, health and welfare, environment and education. Allowable expenses listed by staff include equipment necessary for program delivery, program‑related salary and benefits (capped at 25% of the award for covered employees), insurance costs tied to the program, utilities for program facilities, transportation essential to program activities, and program supplies (food, medication, vouchers and similar items).

- A volunteer‑hours match: applicants must provide 10 volunteer hours for every $1,000 awarded (for example, a $25,000 award would require 250 volunteer hours). Hours must be tracked on the City of Laredo volunteer hours log and verified by city staff; volunteers and city staff must sign the log. Staff said an individual volunteer may donate hours to a participating organization other than the one for which they volunteered, but that legal review was ongoing on whether hours may be double‑counted or otherwise transferred in certain situations.

- A local fee‑waiver option: verified volunteer hours can be applied toward certain city fees (staff cited examples such as street‑closure fees, city rental fees and equipment use fees). Staff said volunteer hours are valued at $25 per hour for waiver calculations. Staff also said some fee types are ineligible for waivers (for example, damage deposits and certain cleaning fees).

Staff reiterated procedural rules: contracts, change orders and amendments must be written and signed by both parties and, where required, approved by City Council. Awards are issued after council approval and the contract term runs October–September.

Committee members raised several operational concerns during the presentation and subsequent discussion:

- Missing documentation: Members noted many applicants’ submissions omitted required items listed in the guidelines (examples cited by staff included proof of liability insurance at the $1,000,000 level, annual reports, minutes that show approval of the third‑party funding application, and the mandatory training certificate). Staff said some applicants had the documents but did not attach them before the application deadline and that staff cannot accept documents turned in after the deadline except as allowed by policy.

- Scoring transparency: Committee members asked whether applicants receive scorecards or feedback. Staff replied that the average scores would be posted and that committee members can view scoring detail in the evaluation platform after posting, but the committee was told that individual evaluator scores are not automatically published; applicants must request records as public information if they wish to see them.

- Qualification and awarding practice: Several committee members questioned whether incomplete applications should be entered into the scoring process at all and whether staff should notify applicants about missing items as a courtesy. Staff said the committee may deduct points for missing documentation under the published scoring rubric but that the committee has discretion in recommending award amounts; legal guidance would be sought about formal rules for excluding incomplete applications.

- Administrative timing and platform access: Committee members asked about login and password procedures for the evaluation platform and the deadline for submitting scores. Staff said temporary passwords had been issued and that the platform requires each evaluator to accept terms, complete disclosure forms and sign before scoring.

Staff also provided a line‑by‑line account of applicant requests and flagged specific missing items for many nonprofits (for example, missing minutes, missing insurance certificates or missing annual financial reports). Staff told the committee that cumulative applicant requests exceeded available funds and that proposed awards would need to be adjusted to fit the budget allocation.

The committee discussed scheduling of follow‑up meetings to complete scoring and to recommend award amounts to the budget office. A proposal to reverse the order of the review dates (moving the hotel‑motel evaluations and the general‑fund evaluations to alternate weeks in June) was made and seconded; the transcript records the motion and a second but does not record a final roll‑call vote in the meeting record.

Near the end of the session the committee conducted nominations for committee leadership. A motion was made to nominate Esther Fido Hook as committee chair and Adrian Zapata (identified in the record as a committee member) as vice chair; the transcript records a second and discussion about electing by acclamation, but it does not show a recorded final vote in the public transcript.

Why it matters: The revisions change how local nonprofits qualify for recurring city support, add a volunteer‑hours requirement that ties awards to verified civic engagement, and limit multi‑year continuity of funding. Committee questions about missing documentation, transparency of scores and how strictly to enforce application completeness will shape which nonprofits receive funding and the amounts they receive when the committee sends recommendations to City Council.

Ending: Staff provided committee members the evaluation platform instructions, said they would resend temporary login credentials as needed, and agreed to follow up with legal staff about a) whether volunteer hours may be transferred or double‑credited across organizations and b) whether incomplete applications should be excluded from scoring under existing policy. Committee members scheduled additional evaluation meetings in June to complete scoring and prepare award recommendations for the budget process.