Finance committee presses staff for clearer rules after rollout of nonprofit partnership work plan

During the budget overview, staff introduced a new Nonprofit Partnership Work Plan that lays out how nonprofit funding requests not captured in existing multi‑year contracts or the HSRAP (Human Services Request for Assistance Program) would be processed.

What staff proposed Community Services Director Kristen O'Kane described a structure to bring more transparency to how the city funds nonprofits. In the FY2026 proposed materials staff carried forward a total of about $235,000 for the new nonprofit partnership work plan, a figure that staff and committee members later clarified corresponds to previously appropriated one‑time and ongoing amounts. Staff also identified separately a $50,000 proposal for a new community events grant program (unfunded in the proposed budget) and asked the committee whether to reclassify certain grants that had been treated last year as one‑time awards.

Immediate points of confusion Committee members and staff flagged areas that needed clarification: the youth community initiatives program (YCI) had received $50,000 under a three‑year arrangement in prior years; Project Safety Net (PSN), a collaborative suicide‑prevention initiative, had operating support in the staff recommended materials but was not displayed clearly in the new table; and Magical Bridge and other community partners were included in last year’s allocations but now appeared in the open pool. The net effect of the new structure, several council members said, was to create a competitive pool that could unintentionally reduce support to organizations the council or staff had intended to fund on an ongoing basis.

Staff response and next steps Staff said the “phase 1” work plan was intended to collect applications and create a fair, transparent process for requests that are not covered by multi‑year agreements or the HSRAP program. Office of the City Manager staff said authorities had anticipated that the full Policy & Services Committee and, ultimately, the council would decide which organizations merit ongoing multi‑year commitments versus which should compete for the discretionary nonprofit pool.

Specific dollar notes from staff’s presentation - Staff initially showed $235,000 in the proposed budget to support the nonprofit partnership work plan; that number reflected prior allocations but committee members later asked staff to confirm whether the correct roll‑forward amount is $246,000 once a $50,000 community events line and a small $11,000 technical item are included. - Project Safety Net was shown in staff materials as a $100,000 allocation already included in the proposed operating budget (not in the open competitive pool). - YCI (Youth Community Initiatives) had been funded at $50,000 annually in prior years; staff said the three‑year arrangement had expired and the group would be eligible to apply under the new process unless the council explicitly designates them as an ongoing contract.

Public comment and nonprofit feedback A number of nonprofit representatives asked the city to avoid pitting nonprofits against one another and to create a predictable multi‑year funding path for providers with long‑standing roles in the community. City staff said they had convened outreach sessions and circulated guidance; several nonprofit representatives said the process remained confusing and time consuming and urged the city to provide clearer buckets or criteria for ongoing versus competitive funding.

Ending Committee members asked staff to return with a clarified table that (a) shows which organizations staff recommends for ongoing human‑services contracts, (b) separates those from the new competitive nonprofit pool, and (c) confirms the exact FY2026 roll‑forward amounts so the committee can see whether last year’s recipients would have their funding continued in FY2026.