Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonprofits And Parks Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board says nonprofit scoring will likely be deferred; staff outlines Hyeseega Park contribution
Summary
Board members said the city commission signaled that nonprofit funding may be set as a placeholder and later subject to a competitive process; staff explained the city's $5 million contribution toward a $15 million Hyeseega Park project would be paid over seven years with ongoing maintenance obligations.
Budget Advisory Board members on April 16 discussed the future role of the board in scoring nonprofit grant requests after a commission workshop signaled reluctance to have the BAB continue that role. Board members said the city manager indicated the commission might place a placeholder sum in the budget and later decide whether to hold a competitive process; the board’s proposed scoring and vetting would be available if the commission chose to use it.
Staff clarified the Hyeseega Park contribution that had been discussed in prior meetings. According to staff remarks recorded at the meeting, Fort Lauderdale’s portion is $5,000,000 of a $15,000,000 park project; that $5,000,000 is to be paid over seven years. Staff said the park sponsors plan to use the city’s pledged payment to leverage additional financing and that the city also anticipates annual operating and maintenance contributions — cited in the meeting as roughly $100,000 per year — once the park opens.
Board members expressed frustration that the body had spent substantial time vetting nonprofit applicants only to have the commission indicate it did not want the board to continue that operational role. Several members said they would include strong outcome and impact criteria in any future recommendations and asked staff to preserve the board’s vetting work for possible future use.
No formal vote was taken. Staff said the commission’s direction from the workshop was to possibly include a placeholder for nonprofit funding in the budget and later determine whether to run a competitive process, and the board said it would continue to insist on outcome-based criteria if the city moves forward with nonprofit allocations.
Ending: Board members agreed to carry notes from the commission workshop into the budget‑review process and to consider nonprofit criteria during upcoming revenue and department presentations.
