Nonprofits press Newport council as civic‑support requests outpace available trust and general‑fund money

At a budget workshop on the proposed fiscal year 2026 civic‑support budget, nonprofit leaders and councilors debated whether the city’s funding process, trust‑fund reliance and staff review met community needs.

Finance staff said civic support requests totaled $388,230 for FY26 but that the proposed budget included $268,000—largely flat‑funded from the previous biennial budget—with a general‑fund impact of about $104,500. Administration noted several prior one‑time revenue sources used in earlier years (Discover Newport grant, ARPA) have been spent and are not available for FY26; staff identified the public improvement trust (funded by the Sears Trust and investment earnings) as a primary non‑tax funding source and said that trust transfers are lower than in 2024.

Several councilors criticized staff analysis and the process. One councilor said applications appeared not to have been reviewed thoroughly and voiced frustration that prior council guidance—such as decisions to withhold funding from defunct organizations—was not consistently reflected in the proposal. Another councilor said the civic‑support review has been overseen by staff and suggested creating an independent trust or advisory body with clearer oversight, reporting requirements and metrics of effectiveness.

Nonprofit leaders addressed the council during public comment. Carmela Gear, executive director of the Edward King House Senior Center, said civic support pays for staff and core operating work that otherwise would be cut: “Without this funding, I'm cutting staff because that's where that money is going.” Rebecca Gomez (recorded in the transcript as representing Panaca Latino Newport) described sustained translation and education services her organization provides to families and students and urged the council to consider the community value of immigrant‑serving programs. Other speakers representing youth programming, food and homeless services noted rising demand and said small general‑fund grants help sustain operations.

Councilors and staff discussed options: level funding with current resources, creating a more formal trust with independent oversight, tightening application metrics and running a more thorough review process before final budget adoption. Several councilors emphasized the city should make applications and financial statements available to reviewers; staff confirmed applications and statements were on file and available but acknowledged the review approach used for the draft budget relied on limited staff analysis and a decision to propose level funding in an austere fiscal year.

Why it matters: many local social‑service and cultural programs rely on modest city grants for operating staff and services that would otherwise fall to the general fund or go unfunded. Councilors signaled they want a more deliberate process, clearer oversight and better documentation of civic‑support outcomes before final funding decisions.