City of Scottsdale human services staff on Jan. 9 previewed the 2025–26 funding review process for commissioners and summarized the proposals and anticipated shortfalls across several grant pools.

Melissa McNeil, community grant specialist, and Chad (Human Services staff) told the Human Services Advisory Commission that 37 proposals were submitted across CDBG, Scottsdale Cares, General Fund, SRP/MI C and endowment funding. Staff said the number of proposals and dollar requests exceeded anticipated available funding in several pools.

McNeil provided these totals and anticipated shortfalls: CDBG public services (homelessness/supportive services/shelters) — approximately $160,000 available; six proposals requested about $265,000, leaving an approximate deficit of $105,000. Scottsdale Cares anticipated funds were listed at $181,000 with 22 proposals requesting about $310,000 (about $129,000 deficit). General Fund public-service requests totaled about $120,000 against roughly $80,000 available (about $40,000 deficit). The Scottsdale endowment and SRP/MIC pools showed distinct items and caps; the SRP pool had one proposal matching the available $130,000.

Chad outlined the process and online tools: agencies submitted proposals via the city’s Neighborly portal; staff posted human-services evaluations and agency responses in SharePoint; commissioners will submit questions for agencies to staff by Jan. 31; agencies will have roughly two weeks to respond; commissioner scores are due in Neighborly by Feb. 20; an informal ranking meeting is scheduled for Feb. 27 and recommendations will be finalized March 13 for council consideration April 22.

Staff explained scoring weights: commissioners’ scores (1–10 sections) combine to a 69-point commissioner total; staff adds up to 30 points for a combined maximum of 99. For Scottsdale Cares, an additional score from the Scottsdale Mayor’s Youth Council will be averaged with commissioners’ scores where applicable.

Chad demonstrated the SharePoint packet layout and Neighborly scoring sheets and said staff will post agency responses and evaluation sheets for commissioners to review. Commissioners asked about the disposition of unallocated funds if a funding pool receives no viable proposals; staff said unused funds could be carried forward or reallocated to other city programs.

Why this matters: The review determines local allocations for homelessness prevention, emergency assistance and senior services; staff-provided tools and timelines set commissioners’ work calendar for funding decisions that will go to council in April.